The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Recipes, Food & Health Skeptic, Tongue Tied, Immigration Watch. and Education Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is accessible here.
****************************************************************************************



31 May, 2008

Astonishing Obama Video: “I Will Slow Development of Future Combat Systems”

In Video Statement, Senator Obama Inexplicably Pledges to Unilaterally Jeopardize American Military Superiority

When you find yourself in a hole, just keep digging. That appears to be the logic of Senator Barack Obama, who already finds himself in the proverbial hole on defense and national security issues. At this pace, he’ll reach China by November. In a strange video address intended to somehow reassure American voters regarding his military bona fides, Senator Obama ends up doing just the opposite.

Among other things, he promises to cut “tens of billions of dollars” from the military budget, at a time when our armed forces are already stretched and in need of new weapon technologies and armor; to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems,” which in reality have already proven remarkably effective; that he “will not weaponize space” even though other nations such as China do exactly that; to terminate the Iraq war just as the surge proves itself remarkably successful; and he rails against what he calls “unnecessary” military spending. He concludes by promising to remove our inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from what he calls a “hair-trigger alert,” embarrassing himself via his ignorance regarding our deliberate targeting and launch protocol.

Most alarmingly, however, Senator Obama literally promises to “slow development of future combat systems.” Think about the frightening implications of this pledge for a moment. Future combat systems are the cornerstone of American military modernization and superiority. As America fights the war on terror and deters potential military aggression by rogue nations cross the world, advanced combat systems provide us with better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communication systems that result in American battlefield domination. Other ascendant nations such as China and Russia seek to match our prowess, but we continue to outpace them.

Current examples include constantly-evolving satellite technology that allows us to pinpoint and eliminate the enemy, unmanned drones that promise amazing advances in battlefield safety and effectiveness, bunker-buster weapons that penetrate deep into the caves in which remote terrorists hide and communications systems that allow lightning-quick troop deployment and rescue missions. Not only do these cutting-edge combat systems allow us to prevail against our enemies, they ultimately protect the lives and health of our troops, just as they protect us. Despite this, Senator Obama bizarrely pledges to jeopardize our battlefield superiority.

Imagine previous Presidents pledging, as Senator Obama foolishly does, to “slow development of future combat systems.” No more stealth aircraft, which allowed our pilots to penetrate Saddam Hussein’s complex air defense systems with near-impunity. No more precision-guided weaponry, which provide extreme precision and greatly reduce harm to non-combatants. No more Strategic Defense Initiative, which forced Mikhail Gorbachev’s negotiating hand and helped end the Cold War. None of the advanced naval systems that have allowed America’s navy to rule the seas for decades. No P-51 Mustangs or B-29 Superfortresses, which resulted in American air superiority that crippled Germany and Japan during World War II. The examples are endless.

In what realm does Senator Obama’s ideology dwell, that he would expect his promises to somehow endear him to American swing voters? What makes Senator Obama’s statement most perplexing is the fact that he already faces an uphill battle to convince American voters that he won’t be the second coming of Jimmy Carter in undermining our military forces. It also follows a series of embarrassing gaffes, which undermine Americans’ faith in his ability and commitment to protect the country and our military superiority.

For instance, he promises to meet the leader of Iran, which provides weapons that kill American troops, without preconditions. He extends that same promise of unconditional meetings to North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Venezuela as well, yet rebuffs Colombia, which is a critical ally fighting narco-terrorists.

Senator Obama’s statement also follows such eyebrow-raising fiascos as his twenty-year relationship with America-damning Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his association with anti-American domestic terrorist William Ayers and his offensive flag pin comments. Readers will recall that Senator Obama refused in October 2007 to wear an American flag lapel pin because he considered it “a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues.” Asked to explain, his staff replied that “Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol.” Just like that, he thus dismissed reverence to the American flag, to which children pledge allegiance in school, and which draws tears from veterans and everyday citizens during memorial events and sporting events.

Once again, Senator Obama has raised questions about his commitment to defend America and maintain military superiority. Stay tuned to see how he might top this.

Source




It's the mullahs who won't talk

In a report released this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed "serious concern" that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to conceal details of its nuclear weapons program, even as it defies UN demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program. Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in lieu of a policy for dealing with the growing threat posed by the Islamic Republic, repeats what has become a familiar refrain within his party: Let's talk to Iran.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting to talk to an adversary. But Obama and his supporters should not pretend this is change in any real sense. Every US administration in the past 30 years, from Jimmy Carter's to George W. Bush's, has tried to engage in dialogue with Iran's leaders. They've all failed.

Just two years ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proffered an invitation to the Islamic Republic for talks, backed by promises of what one of her advisers described as juicy carrots with not a shadow of a stick. At the time, I happened to be in Washington. Early one morning, one of Rice's assistants read the text of her statement (which was to be issued a few hours later) to me over the phone, asking my opinion. I said the move won't work, but insisted that the statement should mention US concern for human-rights violations in Iran.

"We don't wish to set preconditions," was the answer. "We could raise all issues once they have agreed to talk." I suppose Rice is still waiting for Iran's mullahs to accept her invitation, even while Obama castigates her for not wanting to talk.

The Europeans invented the phrase "critical dialogue" to describe their approach to Iran. They negotiated with Tehran for more than two decades, achieving nothing.

The Arabs, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have been negotiating with the mullahs for years - the Egyptians over restoring diplomatic ties cut off by Tehran, and the Saudis on measures to stop Shi'ite-Sunni killings in the Muslim world - with nothing to show for it. Since 1993, the Russians have tried to achieve agreement on the status of the Caspian Sea through talks with Tehran, again without results.

The reason is that Iran is gripped by a typical crisis of identity that afflicts most nations that pass through a revolutionary experience. The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause? A nation state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability: all things that could be negotiated with other nation states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.

In 1802, when Napoleon Bonaparte embarked on his campaign of world conquest, the threat did not come from France as a nation state but from the French Revolution in its Napoleonic reincarnation. In 1933, it was Germany as a cause, the Nazi cause, that threatened the world. Under communism, the Soviet Union was a cause and thus a threat. Having ceased to be a cause and re-emerged a nation state, Russia no longer poses an existential threat to others.

The problem that the world, including the US, has today is not with Iran as a nation state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam". The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic - who Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran - exposes the futility of the very talks Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you. We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you. The Iranian nation has no need of the US, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the US. We ... do not accept your behaviour, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."

So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the US and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation state. Whenever Iran has appeared as a nation state, others have been able to negotiate with it, occasionally with good results. In Iraq, for example, Iran has successfully negotiated a range of issues with both the Iraqi government and the US. Agreement has been reached on conditions under which millions of Iranians visit Iraq each year for pilgrimage. An accord has been worked out to dredge the Shatt al-Arab waterway of three decades of war debris, thus enabling both neighbours to reopen their biggest ports. Again acting as a nation state, Iran has secured permission for its citizens to invest in Iraq.

When it comes to Iran behaving as the embodiment of a revolutionary cause, however, no agreement is possible. There will be no compromise on Iranian smuggling of weapons into Iraq. Nor will the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps agree to stop training Hezbollah-style terrorists in Shi'ite parts of Iraq. Iraq and its allies should not allow the mullahs of Tehran to export their sick ideology to the newly liberated country through violence and terror. As a nation-state, Iran is not concerned with the Palestinian issue and has no reason to be Israel's enemy. As a revolutionary cause, however, Iran must pose as Israel's arch-foe to sell the Khomeinist regime's claim of leadership to the Arabs.

As a nation, Iranians are among the few in the world that still like the US. As a revolution, however, Iran is the principal bastion of anti-Americanism. Last month, Tehran hosted an international conference titled "A World Without America". Indeed, since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, Iran has returned to a more acute state of revolutionary hysteria. Ahmadinejad seems to truly believe the Hidden Imam is coming to conquer the world for his brand of Islam. He does not appear to be interested in the kind of "carrots" that Rice was offering two years ago and Obama is hinting at today.

Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of the human race, while Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organisation. Perhaps Obama is unaware that one of Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans".

Obama wavers back and forth over whether he will talk directly to Ahmadinejad or some other representative of the Islamic Republic, including Khamenei. Moreover, he does not make it clear which of the two Irans - the nation state or the revolutionary cause - he wishes to engage. A misstep could legitimise the Khomeinist system and help it crush Iranians' hope of return as a nation state.

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the US signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the US embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

Source




Obama's Revisionist History

By KARL ROVE

This week's minor controversy about Barack Obama's claim that an uncle liberated Auschwitz was quickly put to rest by his campaign. They conceded that it was a great uncle whose unit liberated Buchenwald, 500 miles away. But other, much more troubling, episodes have provided a revealing glimpse into a candidate who instinctively resorts to parsing, evasions and misdirection. The saga over Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Exhibit A. In just 62 days, Americans were treated to eight different explanations.

First, on Feb. 25, Mr. Obama downplayed Rev. Wright's divisiveness, saying he was "like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with." A week later, Mr. Obama insisted, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial," suggesting that Rev. Wright was criticized because "he was one of the leaders in calling for divestment from South Africa and some other issues like that."

The issue exploded on March 13, when ABC showed excerpts from Rev. Wright's sermons. Mr. Obama's spokesman said the senator "deeply disagrees" with Rev. Wright's statements, but "now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."

The next day, Mr. Obama offered a fourth defense: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." Mr. Obama also told the Chicago Tribune, "In fairness to him, this was sort of a greatest hits. They basically culled five or six sermons out of 30 years of preaching." Then, four days later, in Philadelphia, Mr. Obama finally repudiated Rev. Wright's comments, saying they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." But Mr. Obama went on to say, "I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother. . . ."

Ten days later, Mr. Obama said if Rev. Wright had not retired as Trinity's pastor, and "had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended . . . then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church." (Never mind that Rev. Wright had made no such acknowledgment.)

On April 28, at the National Press Club, Rev. Wright re-emerged - not to apologize but to repeat some of his most offensive lines. This provoked an eighth defense: "[W]hatever relationship I had with Rev. Wright has changed, as a consequence of this. I don't think that he showed much concern for me. More importantly, I don't think he showed much concern for what we are trying to do in this campaign . . . ." Self-interest is a powerful, but not noble, sentiment in politics.

The Rev. Wright affair is just one instance where the Illinois senator has said something wrong or offensive, and then offered shifting explanations for his views. Consider flag pins. Mr. Obama told an Iowa radio station last October he didn't wear an American flag lapel pin because, after 9/11, it had "became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues . . . ." His campaign issued a statement that "Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol." To highlight his own moral superiority, he denigrated the patriotism of those who wore a flag.

Yet by April, campaigning in culturally conservative Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama was blaming others for the controversy he'd created, claiming, "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us . . . ." A month later Mr. Obama was once again wearing a pin, saying "Sometimes I wear it, sometimes I don't."

The Obama revision tour has been seen elsewhere. Last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet personally and without precondition, during his first year, the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Criticized afterwards, he made his pledge more explicitly, naming Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela strongman Hugo Ch vez as leaders he would grace with first-year visits. By October, Mr. Obama was backpedaling, talking about needing "some progress or some indication of good faith," and by April, "sufficient preparation." It got so bad his foreign policy advisers were (falsely) denying he'd ever said he'd meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad - even as he still defended his original pledge to have meetings without precondition.

The list goes on. Mr. Obama's problem is a campaign that's personality-driven rather than idea-driven. Thus incidents calling into question his persona and character can have especially devastating consequences. Stripped of his mystique as a different kind of office seeker, he could become just another liberal politician - only one who parses, evades, dissembles and condescends. That narrative is beginning to take hold. If those impressions harden into firm judgments, Mr. Obama will have a very difficult time in November.

Source




The Obama Gaffe Machine

By JOHN FUND



For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now. As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him "a one-man gaffe machine."

Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama's revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka - even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.

That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That's because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.

When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of "potatoe."

Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America's "fallen heroes" were present and listening to him in the audience.

Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive - such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn't prove he read the full questionnaire.

Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us," saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets aren't much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had "made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez to discuss, among other issues, Ch vez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

In a debate last July, Mr. Obama pledged to meet, without precondition, the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba. He called President Bush's refusal to meet with them "ridiculous" and a "disgrace." Heavily criticized, Mr. Obama dug in rather than backtrack. He's claimed, in defense of his position, that John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna was a crucial meeting that led to the end of the Cold War.

Not quite. Kennedy himself admitted he was unprepared for Khrushchev's bullying. "He beat the hell out of me," Kennedy confided to advisers. The Soviet leader reported to his Politburo that the American president was weak. Two months later, the Berlin Wall was erected and stood for 28 years.

Reporters may now give Mr. Obama's many gaffes more notice. But don't count on them correcting an implicit bias in writing about such faux pas. Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all.

Source




Obama abandons the workers

With her overwhelming victory in Kentucky on May 20, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has completed her sweep of the crucial primary states adjoining the Ohio River -- and the fight for the Democratic nomination has entered its final phases. Having picked up a net gain of nearly 140,000 votes between Kentucky and Oregon, Clinton is now well poised to win the Puerto Rico primary on June 1 - and clinch a majority in this year's popular vote, even if the disputed returns from Michigan are discounted. Under those pressures, the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of "change" - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party's inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers" who live in the nation's "shitholes."

Having attempted, with the aid of a complicit news media, to brand Hillary Clinton as a racist -- by flinging charges that, as the historian Michael Lind has shown, belong "in black helicopter/grassy knoll territory," Obama's supporters now fiercely claim that Clinton's white working class following is also essentially racist. Favoring the buzzword language of the academic left, tinged by persistent, discredited New Left and black nationalist theories about working-class "white skin privilege," a vote against Obama has become, according to his fervent followers, "a vote for whiteness."

Talk about transformative post-racial politics.

In fact, all of the evidence demonstrates that white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year's Democratic primaries. Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues for white working class voters - and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her as better on these issues. Obama's campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker -- and that Clinton's positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama's campaign. Out with the Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, F.D.R., Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, and in with the bright, shiny party of Obama - or what the formally "undeclared" Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee and of the party's rules committee, has hailed as a "new Democratic coalition" swelled by affluent white leftists and liberals, college students, and African-Americans.

The Democratic Party, as a modern political party, dates back to 1828, when Andrew Jackson crushed John Quincy Adams to win the presidency. Yet without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City, Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide. Over the 180 years since then, only one Democrat has gained the presidency without winning either Ohio or Pennsylvania, with their large white working-class vote. (The exception, Grover Cleveland, managed the feat in 1892, and only barely lost Ohio - but he was dependent on the post-Reconstruction solid South.) Beginning in 1964, when the Democratic solid South dissolved, every successful Democratic presidential candidate has had to carry both Ohio and Pennsylvania, even when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton picked up southern states.

Northern white working-class defections to the Republicans grew steadily in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Republican's Watergate debacle temporarily halted the trend, but the disasters of the Carter presidency, especially its mishandling of economic woes and foreign policy, accelerated the defections in 1980. In his two successful races, Ronald Reagan won the support, on average, of 61 percent of white working class voters, compared to 35 percent for his opponents, Carter and Walter Mondale. (Both times, Reagan carried Ohio and Pennsylvania handily.) As the caricature of "Reagan Democrats" as racist militarists hardened among "new politics" advocates, they strove to make up the difference by creating an expanded base among African-Americans, college-age, and college educated voters. The result was yet another humiliating defeat for the Democrats in 1988.

Bill Clinton's shift to a centrist liberalism stressing lunch-pail issues--"Putting People First"--won back a large number of Reagan Democrats in 1992, enough so that, by the time Clinton won his second term in 1996, Democrats could claim parity with Republicans by winning a slim plurality among non-college educated working class white voters. But the perceived elitists Al Gore and John Kerry lost what Clinton had gained, as George W. Bush carried the white working-class vote by a margin of 17 percent in 2000 and a whopping 23 percent in 2004.

This year's primary results show no sign that Obama will reverse this trend should he win the nomination. In West Virginia and Kentucky, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania, blue collar white voters sent him down to defeat by overwhelming margins. A recent Gallup poll report has argued that claims about Obama's weaknesses among white voters and blue collar voters have been exaggerated - yet its indisputable figures showed Obama running four percentage points below Kerry's anemic support among whites four years ago.

Given that Obama's vote in the primaries, apart from African-Americans, has generally come from affluent white suburbs and university towns, the Gallup figures presage a Democratic disaster among working-class white voters in November should Obama be the nominee. Yet Obama's handlers profess indifference - and, at times, even pride -- about these trends. Asked about the white working-class vote following Obama's ten-point loss in Pennsylvania, chief campaign strategist David Axelrod confidently told an National Public Radio interviewer that, after all, "the white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections going back even to the Clinton years" and that Obama's winning strength lay in his ability to offset that trend and "attract independent voters... younger voters" and "expand the Democratic base."

Apart from its basic inaccuracy about Clinton's blue-collar support in 1992 and 1996, Axelrod's statement was a virtual reprise of the Democratic doomed strategy from the 1972 McGovern campaign that the party revamped in 1988. The main difference between now and then is the openness of the condescension with which many of Obama's supporters - and, apparently, the candidate himself - hold the crude "low information" types whom they believe dominate the white working class. The sympathetic media coverage of Obama's efforts to explain away his remarks in San Francisco about "bitter," economically-strapped voters who, clinging to their guns, religion, and racism, misdirect their rage and do not see the light, only reinforced his campaign's dismissive attitude. Obama's efforts at rectification were reluctant and half-hearted at best - and he undercut them completely a few days later when he referred derisively, on the stump in Indiana, to a sudden "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true."

Culturally as well as politically, Obama's dismissal of white working people represents a sea-change in the Democrats' basic identity as the workingman's party - one that has been coming since the late 1960s, when large portions of the Left began regarding white workers as hopeless and hateful reactionaries. Faced with the revolt of the "Reagan Democrats" - whose politics they interpreted in the narrowest of racial terms - "new politics" Democrats dreamed of a coalition built around an alliance of right-thinking affluent liberals and downtrodden minorities, especially African-Americans. It all came to nothing. But after Bill Clinton failed to consolidate a new version of the old Democratic coalition in the 1990s, the dreaming began again - first, with disastrous results, in the schismatic Ralph Nader campaign of 2000 and now (with the support of vehement ex-Naderites including Barbara Ehrenreich and Cornel West) in the Obama campaign.

Obama must assume that the demographics of American politics have changed dramatically in recent years so that the electorate as a whole is little more than a larger version of the combined Democratic primary constituencies of Oregon and South Carolina. While recent studies purport to show that the white working class has, indeed, shrunk over the past fifty years, as a political matter its significance remains salient, especially in the battleground and swing states--states like Ohio and West Virginia where Obama currently trails Senator John McCain in the polls. One of the studies that affirms the diminishing proportion of blue collar whites in the electorate, written for the Brookings Institution by Ruy Teixeira and Alan Abamowitz, concludes [pdf], nevertheless, that "the voting proclivities of the white working class will make a huge difference and could well determine who the next president will be."

Teixeira and Abramowitz estimate that the Democratic candidate will need to cut Kerry's deficit of 23 percent in 2004 to around 10 percent if he or she is "to achieve a solid popular vote victory." By those lights, Obama, if nominated, is almost certainly destined to lose unless he can suddenly reverse the trend that his own dismissive language and his supporters' contemptuous tone has accelerated during the primaries.

In every presidential election they have won, the Democrats have solidified their historic link to white workers, not dismissed them. Obama and the champions of a new party coalition appear to think that everything has suddenly changed, simply because of the force of their own desires. In any event, Obama had shown no ability thus far to attract the one constituency that has always spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Democratic Party. The party must now decide whether to go along with Obama and renounce its own heritage -- and tempt the political fates.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





30 May, 2008

Was the spin a lie too?

Obama's Russian uncle who liberated Auschwitz is now an American great uncle who liberated Ohrdruf. But that uncle seems not to have existed either

Okay, so we have supposedly learned that it was Obama's Great Uncle that liberated a sub-section of Buchenwald, not an uncle at Auschwitz. But if sources are correct and unless there's some arcane military history in his favor, Obama still has a problem. His only Great Uncle is Charles W. Payne. It at least appears that no one by that name from Kansas served in the Army during WWII. Charles W. Payne of Kansas, with a similar birth era, served in the Navy during WWII.

What Obama's campaign released via first link above states he served in the Infantry. I assume it's possible the records are wrong, or he changed branches. But I'm unaware of that as a standard practice. Perhaps it happened during WWII for manpower reasons? Otherwise, Obama's Great Uncle would seem to have done most of his marching and liberating while at sea.

Update:

As of now, there's been much speculation and linkage as regards Obama's Great Uncle. Nothing I have seen confirms his middle initial as "T," as opposed to "W." And a CT Payne someone sent info on is deceased. That would seem to disqualify him. Also, S&L has exchanged correspondence with a site claiming to support Obama's position. The emails make the site seem dubious, at best. If I see something substantive that changes the equation, like Obama giving up a full name, etc - I'll update. At least for now, Obama's claim is in doubt. But then this is a guy who claimed his Grandfather enlisted the day after Pearl Harbor, when he actually enlisted months later.

Evidently the Senator doesn't only speak well ... he speaks "fast," as they say. And I believe he also included those wrong facts in his book. Given the media passing on all of his gaffes, if not downright lies, he is increasingly looking like the Affirmative Action candidate. And I don't believe the majority of Americans favor that type of system for electing a president.

Source




How Smart is Obama?

IQ is no substitute for knowledge and simple Leftist talking points are all he seems to know.

Early last evening, I was speaking with a friend and he jokingly asked if Obama had made any gaffes during the day. "Well," I responded, "only if you consider his claim that his uncle was one of the first soldiers in to liberate Auschwitz a gaffe." My friend laughed, knowing that the Red Army had liberated Auschwitz and figuring that it was highly unlikely that Obama had an uncle who was a foot soldier for Stalin.

Some people think that Obama was caught red-handed in a lie with the statement about his uncle. That's ridiculous. He did have a great-uncle who served in Europe during WWII and was one of Patton's soldiers who liberated the Ohrdurf camp at Buchenwald. The mangling of facts here isn't a lie, just another misstatement and another surprising sign of Obama's historical ignorance.

The facts that Auschwitz was in Eastern Europe and that Eastern Europe was the Soviets' theatre aren't exactly obscure historical data-points. One would expect the typical "Jeopardy!" contestant to know as much, and one would certainly expect a presidential candidate who is basing his campaign in no small measure on his vaunted (and purportedly un-Bushian) intelligence to know it, too. And yet such things keep happening.

In relaying tales of Obama's stumblebum ways, I often concede something to the effect that "he's a bright guy." I've received a bunch of letters asking how I can say this, since really bright people can usually place Auschwitz in Poland and know which country defeated the Germans there. By saying Obama's a bright guy, I'm referring to the cognitive ability he demonstrated earlier in his life. You don't graduate Harvard Law School magna cum laude if you lack an ample supply of intellectual firepower.

But the time has come to be more precise with our terms. Yes, Obama undeniably has a high level of cognitive ability. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that he either has read few books or retained very little from the books he read. Either that or he's spent his time reading books that don't help him understand history and won't help him carry out his tasks as president.

Worse still, Obama seems to have a vague sort of arrogance that prohibits him from acknowledging what he doesn't know. If I were going to shoot my mouth off on WWII or the Cuban Missile Crisis with the world watching, I'd make sure I had my facts straight before I did so. For some strange reason, Obama seems allergic to having his staff perform even the most basic fact-checking.

And there's also what appears to be a lack of intellectual curiosity. Abe Greenwald of Commentary's blog calls our attention to this nugget from an enjoyable New York Times profile of Obama "body man" Reggie Love:

Along the way, some unofficial rules have emerged between the candidate and his aide. From Mr. Obama: "One cardinal rule of the road is, we don't watch CNN, the news or MSNBC. We don't watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch `SportsCenter' and argue about that."

So how, pray tell, is Obama staying informed about what's going on in the world? When he's pressing the flesh at crummy rural diners and speaking before 75,000 adoring acolytes, he's talking, not listening. Don't you think a guy who might be president would be obsessed with world events? Don't you think that obsession would have driven him into the race? And don't you think as a potential wartime leader he might be using his downtime to study, just in case he wins? For instance, Barack Obama obviously knows nothing of war, but he could help himself if he opted to read some Thucydides rather than watch SportsCenter.

Obama has made a habit of coming across like a man who doesn't know what he's talking about. That's bothersome enough, but what's more worrisome still is how comfortable he is with not knowing what he's talking about, and how convinced he seems that his rhetorical flourishes will obscure his ignorance. That strategy may work on the campaign trail, but it certainly won't help him govern.

You add it all up, and you got a guy who despite his high cognitive abilities doesn't know what one needs to know to be president. Jimmy Carter was also "a bright guy," but as a president and a free-lancing ex-president, his naivete and arrogance made him a functional dunce. If Obama really thinks the lesson to be gleaned from the Cuban Missile Crisis is that a president should always sit down with our enemies, then perhaps the same could be said of him.

Source




How bipartisan is Obama?

With Senator Barack Obama, D-IL, all but clinching the Democratic nomination, he begins the pivot to the center for the general election to better position himself to independents. While the senator's rhetoric certainly speaks of post-partisan unity, his record lacks the supporting substance. This is well demonstrated by a recent appearance on Fox News. When Chris Wallace challenged him to name an example of reaching across party lines, Obama could only name his February 2005 vote for the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which passed the Senate 72-26. But if this is his example of bipartisan support, it leaves much to be desired.

CAFA came about because trial lawyers had been abusing the class action mechanism by filing dozens of class actions in different states seeking to certify a nationwide class. In a game of "heads I win, tails don't count," if the trial lawyers lost in one jurisdiction, they would merely proceed with an identical lawsuit in a more favorable jurisdiction until they found a judge receptive enough to sign on to the most meritless of lawsuits.

As a consequence, the notoriously plaintiff-friendly Madison County, Illinois, ended up with hundreds of lawsuits seeking to dictate consumer law nationwide, and defendants were forced into countless extortionate settlements. CAFA simply undid this upside-down federalism by establishing that lawsuits alleging a nationwide class belonged in a single federal court rather than the most favorable magnet jurisdiction in state court that trial lawyers could find.

This is entirely sensible good-government legislation, which is why the bill passed by such a large margin. But the bill passed in the form it did in spite of Obama's efforts, not because of them. While CAFA was under consideration, Senators Ted Kennedy, D-MA, Mark Pryor, D-AR and Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, proposed amendments that would have eviscerated CAFA; Senator Feinstein's proposed amendment likely ran afoul of constitutional due process requirements set forth by the Supreme Court in a 7-1 decision in 1985. Each amendment failed by large bipartisan majorities, supported only by Democrats; each time, Obama voted with the trial lawyer lobby.

These votes were not outliers. Obama also voted to filibuster medical malpractice reform and to kill an asbestos reform bill in 2006, each time providing a critical vote for a minority of senators that blocked tort reforms from achieving a three-fifths supermajority. That is hardly reaching across the aisle, much less showing a willingness to flout a Democratic special interest.

I do not mean to be unfair to Obama. The other Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Joe Biden, D-DE, voted against CAFA. Her husband vetoed two bipartisan tort reforms when he was in the Oval Office, one of which the Congress overrode. And Obama did take some heat on the Internet from those who reflexively support the litigation lobby when he made himself the 72nd vote in favor of CAFA, as well as in December when he sneered at presidential candidate John Edwards's record as a multi-millionaire trial lawyer.

But if Obama wishes to demonstrate himself a bipartisan leader willing to cross the trial lawyer lobby for the good of the nation as a whole, he has plenty of opportunity to show that his 2005 vote wasn't just an empty gesture with nothing on the line. A 2007 report issued by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, along with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, noted that America's competitiveness in the financial markets is endangered by the litigation environment, and calls for securities litigation reform, but the Senate has taken no action on it.

As his party's likely standard-bearer, Obama could help break the partisan logjam that is blocking needed reform. Obama could also join the Republicans calling for investigation into the practices of securities class action lawyers in ripping off investors through kickbacks, investigations that are blocked by the Democratic leadership.

Mrs. Clinton accused Obama of being all words and no action. By affirmatively supporting tort reform, Obama could simultaneously demonstrate that Mrs. Clinton was wrong, prove his bipartisan bona fides-and best of all, do something that will actually help the American economy.

Source




You can't appease everybody

By Ann Coulter

After decades of comparing Nixon to Hitler, Reagan to Hitler and Bush to Hitler, liberals have finally decided it is wrong to make comparisons to Hitler. But the only leader to whom they have applied their newfound rule of thumb is: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

While Ahmadinejad has not done anything as starkly evil as cut the capital gains tax, he does deny the Holocaust, call for the destruction of Israel, deny the existence of gays in Iran and refuses to abandon his nuclear program despite protests from the United Nations. That's the only world leader we're not allowed to compare to Hitler.

President Bush's speech at the Knesset two weeks ago was somewhat more nuanced than liberals' Hitler arguments. He did not simply jump up and down chanting: "Ahmadinejad is Hitler!" Instead, Bush condemned a policy of appeasement toward madmen, citing Neville Chamberlain's ill-fated talks with Adolf Hitler. Suspiciously, Bush's speech was interpreted as a direct hit on B. Hussein Obama's foreign policy - and that's according to Obama's supporters.

So to defend Obama, who - according to his supporters - favors appeasing madmen, liberals expanded the rule against ad Hitlerum arguments to cover any mention of the events leading to World War II. A ban on "You're like Hitler" arguments has become liberals' latest excuse to ignore history.

Unless, of course, it is liberals using historical examples to support Obama's admitted policy of appeasing dangerous lunatics. It's a strange one-sided argument when they can cite Nixon going to China and Reagan meeting with Gorbachev, but we can't cite Chamberlain meeting with Hitler.

There are reasons to meet with a tyrant, but none apply to Ahmadinejad. We're not looking for an imperfect ally against some other dictatorship, as Nixon was with China. And we aren't in a Mexican standoff with a nuclear power, as Reagan was with the USSR. At least not yet.

Mutually Assured Destruction was bad enough with the Evil Empire, but something you definitely want to avoid with lunatics who are willing to commit suicide in order to destroy the enemies of Islam. As with the H-word, our sole objective with Ahmadinejad is to prevent him from becoming a military power.

What possible reason is there to meet with Ahmadinejad? To win a $20 bar bet as to whether or not the man actually owns a necktie? We know his position and he knows ours. He wants nuclear arms, American troops out of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel. We don't want that. (This is assuming Mike Gravel doesn't pull off a major upset this November.) We don't need him as an ally against some other more dangerous dictator because ... well, there aren't any.

Does Obama imagine he will make demands of Ahmadinejad? Using what stick as leverage, pray tell? A U.S. boycott of the next Holocaust-denial conference in Tehran? The U.N. has already demanded that Iran give up its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has ignored the U.N. and that's the end of it.

We always have the ability to "talk" to Ahmadinejad if we have something to say. Bush has a telephone. If Iranian crop dusters were headed toward one of our nuclear power plants, I am quite certain that Bush would be able to reach Ahmadinejad to tell him that Iran will be flattened unless the planes retreat. If his cell phone died, Bush could just post a quick warning on the Huffington Post.

Liberals view talk as an end in itself. They never think through how these talks will proceed, which is why Chamberlain ended up giving away Czechoslovakia. He didn't leave for Munich planning to do that. It is simply the inevitable result of talking with madmen without a clear and obtainable goal. Without a stick, there's only a carrot.

The only explanation for liberals' hysterical zealotry in favor of Obama's proposed open-ended talks with Ahmadinejad is that they seriously imagine crazy foreign dictators will be as charmed by Obama as cable TV hosts whose legs tingle when they listen to Obama (a condition that used to be known as "sciatica"). Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

There is no possible result of such a meeting apart from appeasement and humiliation of the U.S. If we are prepared to talk, then we're looking for a deal. What kind of deal do you make with a madman until he is ready to surrender? Will President Obama listen respectfully as Ahmadinejad says he plans to build nuclear weapons? Will he say he'll get back to Ahmadinejad on removing all U.S. troops from the region? Will he nod his head as Ahmadinejad demands the removal of the Jewish population from the Middle East? Obama says he's prepared to have an open-ended chat with Ahmadinejad, so I guess everything is on the table.

Perhaps in the spirit of compromise, Obama could agree to let Iran push only half of Israel into the sea. That would certainly constitute "change"! Obama could give one of those upbeat speeches of his, saying: As a result of my recent talks with President Ahmadinejad, some see the state of Israel as being half empty. I prefer to see it as half full. And then Obama can return and tell Americans he could no more repudiate Ahmadinejad than he could repudiate his own white grandmother. It will make Chris Matthews' leg tingle.

There is a third reason to talk to dictators, in addition to seeking an ally or as part of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Gen. Douglas MacArthur talked with Japanese imperial forces on Sept. 2, 1945. There was a long ceremony aboard the USS Missouri with full press coverage and a lot of talk. It was a regular international confab! It also took place after we had dropped two nukes on Japan and MacArthur was officially accepting Japan's surrender. If Obama plans to drop nukes on Ahmadinejad prior to their little chat-fest, I'm all for it. But I don't think that's what liberals have in mind.

Source




Barack Obama's Anti-Military Problem

Does disdain for the military matter anymore? If Barack Obama's candidacy is any indication, it does not. Sen. Obama gave a graduation speech at Wesleyan University on Sunday, May 25. In it, he praised students for their public service. He also asked them to forgo the business world in favor of careers in public service.

"I ask you to seek these opportunities when you leave here, because the future of this country -- your future -- depends on it. At a time when our security and moral standing depend on winning hearts and minds in the forgotten corners of this world, we need more of you to serve abroad. As president, I intend to grow the Foreign Service, double the Peace Corps over the next few years, and engage the young people of other nations in similar programs, so that we work side by side to take on the common challenges that confront all humanity."

Notice anything missing in that list of public service jobs Obama will push? How about the men and women who protect us abroad? Obama's brash omission of servicemen and women shouldn't be a surprise. After all, this is the man who stated in February 2007, "We ended up launching a war (in Iraq) that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged, and to which we have now spent $400 billion and has seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted."

This is the man who employed Demond Mullins, a radical ex-Marine who has slandered the troops as adulterers and murderous occupiers. This is the man who, in August 2007, remarked, "We've got to get the job done [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Barack Obama is the man who explained terrorism as a function of poverty in his 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father" -- then excoriated "the powerful" for their "dull complacency and ... steady, unthinking application of force, of ... more sophisticated military hardware." He is the man who actually ran a campaign ad bragging, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending ... I will set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal: I will not develop nuclear weapons."

Barack Obama is running for commander in chief of our armed forces. Yet these are not the comments of a prospective commander in chief -- they are the comments of a man who believes that the American military is a force for darkness in the world. They are the comments of a man who believes that deterrence does not matter, that our enemies are kindhearted folks looking to compromise, that military spending is provocative and disarmament proactive. They are the comments of a pacifist.

Perhaps disdain for the military no longer matters. Military heroism no longer wins elections (see George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole), and anti-war radicalism no longer spells dramatic defeat (see John Kerry). Perhaps as the number of military men and women declines, more and more candidates will emerge who openly question the validity of the armed services as a legitimate arm in defense of American interests.

Nonetheless, Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. The men and women he may one day command are the same men and women who protect him each and every day. And no matter how many flag pins he puts on his lapels, no matter how many stars and stripes he plasters behind himself at speeches, his disgust for the military is an open blemish on his patriotic pretenses.

Source




How Obama Got 'Ahead of the Curve' on Same-Sex Marriage

When presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke last month with Advocate.com -- which describes itself as an "LGBT" (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) news site -- he took a different approach to same-sex marriage than he took in 2004, when he was running for the U.S. Senate. "I'm a Christian," Obama said then, "and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." This statement, reported at the time by The Associated Press, came in a Sept. 24, 2004, interview with WBBM-AM, a Chicago radio station.

In his interview with Advocate.com, published on April 10, Obama did not suggest Christian tradition was at the root of his own views on same-sex marriage, but he did suggest it was a root cause of "homophobia" -- as he criticized traditionalist African American Christian clergymen. "There's plenty of homophobia to go around," the interviewer said to Obama, "but you have a unique perspective into the African-American community. Is there a ... (ellipses in original)"

"I don't think it's worse than in the white community," Obama responded. "I think that the difference has to do with the fact that the African-American community is more churched, and most African-American churches are still fairly traditional in their interpretations of Scripture. And so from the pulpit or in sermons you still hear homophobic attitudes expressed. And since African-American ministers are often the most prominent figures in the African-American community, those attitudes get magnified or amplified a little bit more than in other communities."

When asked about his favoring "civil unions" but not same-sex "marriages," Obama was quick to point out that he understood why the "LGBT" community wanted not only same-sex unions that were equal in law to marriage, but also the word "marriage," too. "So, I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn't be equal because there's a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it," he said.

Despite his unwillingness to advocate the use of the word "marriage" to describe the legalized same-sex unions he says favors, Obama boasted that he is in the top 1 percent of American politicians in advancing the "LGBT" cause. "And I think that it is absolutely fair to ask me for leadership," he told Advocate.com, "and my argument would be that I'm ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99 percent of most elected officials around the country on this issue." Just how far ahead of the curve is he?

In The Advocate, he noted that, "I for a very long time have been interested in repeal of DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act. A position paper titled "On LGBT Rights" published by his campaign says Obama believes "we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act."

The practical effect of fully repealing DOMA would be to force all the other 48 states to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in Massachusetts and California, where the state supreme courts have now said same-sex marriage is a "right." That is because the main purpose of DOMA is to exempt states from having to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states as they would otherwise need to under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution.

But there is good reason to believe Obama does not want the entire electorate to pay close attention to the predictable consequence of the policy he advocates. When the California Supreme Court issued its same-sex marriage ruling earlier this month, his campaign issued a statement suggesting that he respected the right of states to determine their own marriage laws.

"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president," the statement said, according to The Associated Press. "He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

If this statement is true, Obama needs to reverse his call for repealing DOMA, which he was touting to Advocate.com as recently as last month. If he does not reverse his call for repealing DOMA, his true position is that every state in the union should be forced to recognize same-sex marriages.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





29 May, 2008

Obama caught in another lie

Another gaffe from the ignoramus. Does he know ANYTHING?

Barack Obama has admitted he was wrong to say his uncle helped liberate the Nazis' Auschwitz concentration camp, after Republicans said Soviet troops freed the camp. Senator Obama's campaign said the candidate meant to say that his great-uncle, Charlie Payne, had helped liberate a part of the Buchenwald camp, not Auschwitz.

"Yesterday he mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. Mr Burton said Senator Obama's great-uncle served in the 89th Infantry Division that entered Germany in 1945 and on April 4 overran Ohrdruf, a subcamp of the Buchenwald concentration camp. Senator Obama had made the Auschwitz reference in a Memorial Day speech on Monday.

More than 1 million people, mostly Jews, were killed at Auschwitz, an extermination camp in Poland. Buchenwald in Germany was mainly a forced labour camp, where some 56,000 people are believed to have died.

"I had an uncle who was ... part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps," Senator Obama said. "And the story in our family was is that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."

The Republican National Committee quickly pointed out that the Red Army had liberated Auschwitz in 1945, not American forces.

Source




Change You'll Have to Pay For



Here's one "change" presidential candidate Barack Obama apparently believes in: higher prices. Witness his letter last week urging President George W. Bush not to submit the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement to Congress for ratification. Mr. Obama's objection, as stated in his letter, is that the deal "would give Korean exports essentially unfettered access to the U.S. market and would eliminate our best opportunity for obtaining genuinely reciprocal market access in one of the world's largest economies." In other words, ordinary American consumers would get too good a deal.

For an idea of how good, look at automobiles, about which Mr. Obama professes particular concern. The free-trade agreement would eliminate America's 2.5% tariff on most Korean car imports. Even better, it would phase out the 25% tariff on pick-ups and light trucks. Overall, the Korean trade deal would boost the U.S. economy by $10 billion to $12 billion.

Mr. Obama thinks this benefit to U.S. consumers isn't worth the risk that South Korea might not live up to its promise to eliminate its own 8% tariff on U.S. autos and cut its bewildering array of nontariff barriers, such as arcane safety standards. This despite the fact that the deal includes enforcement provisions if Korea backtracks.

On the record so far, Mr. Obama is the most protectionist U.S. presidential candidate in decades. In February he inserted a statement opposing the Korean trade deal into the Congressional record only days before securing the endorsement of the powerful Teamsters union. He also opposes the U.S.-Colombia pact, and he has called for rewriting Nafta - unilaterally if Canada and Mexico don't play along. Mr. Obama's economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, told Canadian officials this was all for primary show, but the candidate is backing himself into a political corner should he win the White House.

Mr. Obama is promising change you can believe in. But on trade, it is closer to the status quo Americans will be paying for.

Source




Obama Too Scared to Visit Troops in Baghdad

McCain challenged Obama to accompany him on a visit to Baghdad in a joint visit for true evaluation on the progress we are making there, but Obama is too scared he will see something outside the lines of his pre-conceived notions of failure. He obviously doesn't want to find a reason not to surrender.

John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more `Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer.

Curt at Flopping Aces calls Obama out on his B.S. rhetoric of uniting both parties when he can't even arrange to meet the troops with his Republican contender. No doubt the Maverick painted Obama into a corner on this one, and Obama decided the least damage would be done by appeasing to his anti-war base and remaining in his ignorant bliss of surrender. The left are trying to spin it as some kind of genius move, but its a predictable, typically pathetic weasel move we have come to expect from the coward.

Allah Pundit:

If they're worried about the military giving them a dog-and-pony show, the answer isn't to decline the trip but to counterpropose a more comprehensive trip than even McCain's suggesting and turn it into a real fact-finding mission. Don't spend two hours looking at charts with Petraeus. Take four or five days; go to Basra and Mosul. If they simply can't suspend campaigning for that long, send a joint team of advisors from both sides. He won't do it because he's afraid of what he might hear, which goes back to a point I've been making ever since the Jamil Hussein saga: The left would have you believe Iraq hawks can't admit that any aspect of the war might be going badly, but the opposite has always been more nearly true.

Source




McCain crushes Obama's foreign policy direction like an eggshell

Today John McCain employed everything but brass knuckles and a two-by-four on Barack Obama's egregious attempts at "foreign policy"

"Senator Obama said the war was lost. Senator Obama said we had to have a specific withdrawal as soon as possible which would have been chaos, genocide, increased Iranian influence; Al-Qaeda restoring much of their strategy; Shiite-Sunni conflicts and we would have to come back." "We are succeeding. Every indicator showed that the surge strategy has succeeded. Senator Obama was wrong in wanting to surrender. And, I will never surrender."

You gonna put some ice on that?

"Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus' new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the 'surge.' He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi'ite extremist militias no longer control Basra -- the Maliki government and its forces do."

Now that's gonna leave a bruise.

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's closest friends, suggested on CBS' "Face the Nation" that the two travel to Iraq together. Asked about the idea today, McCain said sure. "Sure it would be fine. I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq," he told the Associated Press in an interview. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Sen. Obama along the way."

McCain also used the opportunity to criticize Obama for not visiting Iraq since 2006. "If there was any other issue before the American people and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly," McCain said. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq."

Medic! We've got a bleeder! Add these mistakes to the lengthy list of Obama boners and you could have a McCain TKO before the race has even begun.

Source




Another Jew-hating advisor

Zbig is of course Polish and antisemitism has long been rampant in Poland

A story on Zbigniew Brzezinski from the Telegraph:

Mr Brzezinski said "it's not unique to the Jewish community - but there is a McCarthyite tendency among some people in the Jewish community", referring to the Republican senator who led the anti-Communist witch hunt in the 1950s. "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel." Although Mr Brzezinski is not a formal day-to-day adviser and stressed he doesn't speak for the campaign, he said that he "talks to" Mr Obama. He endorsed the Illinois senator, lauding him as "head and shoulders" above his opponents. He said that he was the only candidate who understood "what is new and distinctive about our age". In turn, Mr Obama has praised Mr Brzezinski as "someone I have learned an immense amount from" and "one of our most outstanding scholars and thinkers".

I have no doubt that Obama's staff will rush forward to declare, as they have before, that Brzezinski is only a informal adviser. But the question remains why Obama has had a retinue of advisors (both formal and not) like Brzezinski, McPeak, and Malley who hold views so antithetical to Obama's supposedly unassailable record and views on Israel. You can understand how rational voters, Jewish or not, would conclude that something is amiss and wonder why Obama does not disassociate himself entirely from these people. But no, those Jews are just hung up on Obama's name and the phony emails about Obama's Muslim upbringing. That must be it.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





28 May, 2008

Memorial Day: A Contrast

Barack Obama must be the most gaffe-prone politician in memory. Today, he delivered a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico. After greeting the local Democratic Party dignitaries, he began:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

Memorial Day honors those who have died in our nation's military service. Is it possible that Obama does not know this? Sometimes the things that come out of his mouth defy understanding.

What was really offensive about Obama's New Mexico appearance, however, was what followed his very brief, but generally appropriate, tribute to America's war dead. He continued with a town hall-style question and answer period that cast veterans in the only role with which the Democrats are comfortable--victims--and sought to politicize the holiday. ....

All in all, a shameful performance. President Bush, meanwhile, gave a moving Memorial Day speech--not a partisan stemwinder--at Arlington National Cemetery. You can read his speech, and watch a video of it, here. The contrast is not, to put it politely, favorable to Obama.

More here




Barack Obama Continues to Blame America First

The more you get to know Barack Obama, the more you get to know that he is just another typical Leftist who blames America first for all of the world's problems.

It's not the fault of Hamas terrorists, or the Iranian regime, or Marxist Hugo Chavez. It's is the fault of George Bush and America that these extremists have kept their word and continued their extremist agendas.

Barack Obama on the dangerous Islamic regime in control of Iran:

"[Bush and Republican nominee John McCain have] got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest strategic beneficiary of our invasion of Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George Bush's policies," he said.

Barack Obama on the dangerous Islamic terrorists in control of Gaza:

"He blamed Bush's policies for enhancing the strength of terrorist groups such as Hamas..."

Barack Obama on the radical Marxist in control of Venezuela:

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region. No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum.

(Barack Obama says this as he continues to attack America's staunch ally in South America, Colombia.) Barack Obama is sounding more and more like the last America and Israel hater who sat in the White House.

Source




Gloom and Doom?

By Victor Davis Hanson

When Barack Obama talks about avoiding the "money culture" and the lifestyle of suits and big houses, there is nothing per se wrong with such a call to public service.

By the same token, he makes many fine points in his frequent recitals of U.S. history in which the Underground Railroad, the freedom riders, women suffragists, and icons of the civil-rights movement figure prominently.

The problem is different and twofold: First, in almost every allusion to our collective past there is mention of reform and protest, all of it needed of course. But after a while, whether inadvertently or not, our only heroes become those who found the system wanting and took it on. Yet there were many other elements of the system that are responsible for our current freedom and prosperity, and plenty of wonderful Americans outside of social activism.

At some point as he continues to offer us primers on our past, Obama should also include men and women of genius who were not social activists, whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue.

Otherwise the aggregate effect is Carteresque - more lectures about the old gloom and doom, and more reminders that the unique Americans of the past were only those who followed paths of activism - not surprisingly like those claimed as well by Obama himself.

Second, this is especially important for Obama who now emerges out of Chicago and Illinois politics onto a national stage, and must shed dubious figures like a Wright or Ayers, who clearly are on record as seeing their country as largely pathological.

When one combines Michelle's "pride" speeches and asides about a "mean" country, and Obama's own call for more "oppression studies" in our schools, then the need to remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment becomes even greater.

Otherwise by summer, each time he evokes American history, millions of Americans are going to wince, tired of either a sermon from a very materially successful person on the evils of, well, being very materially successful - coupled with the same old, same old race/class/gender take on American history that leaves out much of what was good and noble and led to our own fortunate circumstances.

And it doesn't help that the once forgotten Carter of the past is no longer building houses for the poor, but once again quite prominent on the political scene, de facto shilling for Obama, meeting Hamas and Syria, and in his 1970s-mode once more lecturing the world on the misdemeanors past and present of his own wonderful country, while quiet about the felonies of repugnant others.

Source




McCain invites Obama to Iraq

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain has offered to take his likely Democractic counterpart Barack Obama to Iraq to "educate him" on the real situation there. Senator McCain has said Senator Obama has not been to Iraq in more than two years, since before the so-called troops surge announced by President George W. Bush at the start of 2007. He has said the country has been transformed since then and Senator Obama cannot have a credible policy on Iraq unless he returns there to see the improvements in security.

"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," Senator McCain has told the Associated Press. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time." "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."

Senator McCain supports a long-term US military commitment in Iraq, but Senator Obama wants to start withdrawing troops. The Republican candidate once spoke of a "100-year" deployment, but later claimed he was just using the figure to make the point that he was thinking many years ahead. A supporter of Senator McCain floated the idea of a joint visit over the weekend. On cue, Senator McCain said he was supportive of the idea. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way," he said.

Iraq policy is shaping up as one of the key battlegrounds between the two sides in the November general election. Polls show most Americans oppose the war and its handling by Mr Bush. Senator McCain, a former PoW, will seek to run as the national security candidate and paint Senator Obama as too inexperienced for the top job.

But before he deals with that, Senator Obama must fight his way past Hillary Clinton to formally claim the Democractic nomination. She too is painting him as too inexperienced to be trusted with the presidency. A spokesman for Senator Obama did not directly accept or decline Senator McCain's offer.

Source




The Candidates' Communist Connections

Senator McCain's communist connections consist of bombing the communists during the Vietnam War and then being shot down, badly injured, captured, and tortured by them. On the other hand, Senator Barack Obama was mentored by an identified Communist Party member in Hawaii who had functioned as a Stalinist agent. That was before Obama developed cordial relationships with communist terrorists who openly supported the communist regime that tortured McCain and killed 58,000 of our fellow Americans.

Can we have some coverage of the contrast between the two candidates on Memorial Day? It's not just a matter of McCain serving in the military and Obama not doing so. It's a matter of which side they were on.

McCain was on the American side during the Vietnam War. He personally risked his life and carried out the U.S. policy of resisting the communist military conquest of South Vietnam. Obama had friendly associations with those who had been on the other side and they helped launch his political career in Chicago. Obama can't solve this problem by occasionally wearing an American flag lapel pin.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about associating with those who simply opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Obama's friends, such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, cheered for a communist victory and visited Havana, Cuba and Hanoi, North Vietnam to bring that about. Like his comrades in the communist Students for a Democratic Society, Tom Hayden of "Progressives for Obama" wrote a letter urging a communist military victory over the U.S. These were people who actually supported the enemy.

In the case of Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's childhood mentor, we are dealing with someone who was on the communist side long before the Vietnam War. Davis supported Stalinist Russia even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. This relationship may help explain why Obama would leave Hawaii, associate with Marxist professors and attend socialist conferences in college (as he admits in his book, Dreams From My Father), and then associate with terrorists, communists, and socialists in Chicago, where he would launch his political career. Davis was a key influence over the young Obama, filling his head with anti-American thoughts.

Thanks to Joseph Farah's WorldNetDaily and his excellent reporter, Jerome R. Corsi, many people are learning the basic facts about these relationships. Corsi covered the release of two reports on the subject through my America's Survival, Inc. organization.

At our event, an audience member wondered what the media reaction would be if it were discovered that a Republican presidential candidate had been mentored by a Nazi or fascist during his growing-up years. You and I know that it would be enough of a story that the candidate would be forced from the race. The candidate would be peppered with questions about this relationship at every turn. Reporters would be scrambling to dig up more details about this relationship.

But rather than focus on Davis, some in the liberal media are making fun of McCain's war injuries. Brent Baker reveals that, during a report on the release of McCain's medical records, Dr. Jon LaPook asserted on CBS News that "people" notice that McCain is "not able to raise his arm" and think "doesn't that look funny?" Baker asked, "Who thinks McCain's limitation, caused by an attack on him after his plane crashed in North Vietnam and he was denied medical care, looks funny? In what circles does CBS's doctor travel?" The answer, of course, is the circle of Obama's friends, where veteran correspondent Linda Douglass has now ended up. She has taken a job as a press secretary and adviser to Obama and previously worked for CBS News, ABC News, and National Journal.

Significantly, the basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend [and secret CPUSA member] Paul Robeson," came into contact with Obama and his family. As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."

However, in Obama's 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Frank Marshall Davis was identified only as "Frank." Among other things, according to Obama's own account, "Frank" told him that blacks had a reason to hate and that he should not believe all of that (expletive deleted) about the American way of life.

When one of Senator Hillary Clinton's supporters brought up the issue of Davis's influence over Obama, by circulating an article I had written for AIM about Davis playing the role of Obama's mentor, he was pilloried by the left-wing blogs. The reaction suggests awareness that the role of Davis in the formation of Obama's political views could sink the candidate. They are desperate to keep this information suppressed.

Horne is not the only significant figure to talk about the influence of "Frank" on Obama. Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a dissertation on his life and career, confirmed to me that the "Frank" is, in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.

Takara, an Obama supporter, confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school. These would have been the years 1975-1979. She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a "strong black male figure" and thought he exerted a "positive" influence over the young man in his high-school years.

Asked why she thought Obama didn't identify Davis in his book by his full name, she replied, "Maybe he didn't want people delving into it." She said that this could have had something to do with Davis's lifestyle, rather than his politics. "Frank's was a place where you could have drinks," she said.

Yet, Obama has been open about some things-such as his past drug use. It is difficult to understand why he would not name "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis simply because "Frank" drank or hosted people who did. It is apparent that Obama covered up his full name because of the notoriety surrounding Davis's political views. Remember this was a black communist who stayed with the CPUSA even while others, such as Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, broke with it.

So how long will Obama's cover-up persist?

There are many in the liberal and conservative media who want desperately to avoid this subject. The liberals want to protect Obama. The "conservatives" avoiding the subject don't want to be accused of "McCarthyism" if they mention it. But thanks to Farah's WorldNetDaily and other new media outlets, the story is coming out and won't be ignored.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





27 May, 2008

Obama As Millennialist Aspiration

We live in an age of Millennial aspirations. Everywhere you look you can see signs of widely disparate groups of people who believe they are living in an age where established norms will be destroyed by this or that newly arisen force. This can take the usual religious overtone, as witnessed by the Left Behind devotees, but we are increasingly seeing non-religious forms of Millennialism play out even in the main stream press. In my local paper today I was treated to a dead serious take by the AP on survivalists up in the mountains:

On the PeakOil.com Web site, where upward of 800 people gathered on recent evenings, believers engage in a debate about what kind of world awaits. Some members argue there will be no financial crash, but a slow slide into harder times. Some believe the federal government will respond to the loss of energy security with a clampdown on personal freedoms. Others simply don't trust that the government can maintain basic services in the face of an energy crisis.

The powers that be, they've determined, will be largely powerless to stop what is to come. Determined to guard themselves from potentially harsh times ahead, Lynn-Marie and her husband have already planted an orchard of about 40 trees and built a greenhouse on their 7 1/2 acres. They have built their own irrigation system. They've begun to raise chickens and pigs, and they've learned to slaughter them.

The couple have gotten rid of their TV and instead have been reading dusty old books published in their grandparents' era, books that explain the simpler lifestyle they are trying to revive. Lynn-Marie has been teaching herself how to make soap. Her husband, concerned about one day being unable to get medications, has been training to become an herbalist.

By 2012, they expect to power their property with solar panels, and produce their own meat, milk and vegetables. When things start to fall apart, they expect their children and grandchildren will come back home and help them work the land. She envisions a day when the family may have to decide whether to turn needy people away from their door. "People will be unprepared," she said. "And we can imagine marauding hordes."

So can Peter Laskowski. Living in a woodsy area outside of Montpelier, Vt., the 57-year-old retiree has become the local constable and a deputy sheriff for his county, as well as an emergency medical technician. "I decided there was nothing like getting the training myself to deal with insurrections, if that's a possibility," said the former executive recruiter.

While you are contemplating who would win the iron cage death-match between "marauding hordes" and "executive recruiters," notice how this type of thing has come a long way from the "raving loon" territory it would have been consigned to just a few years ago. As a society we seem to be more willing to entertain such Millennial fantasies, whether it be the belief in "peak oil" or in some "anthropogenic global warming tipping point," that will in effect destroy the Western world as we know it.

Now, part of this might be baby boomer nostalgia for the days when the nuclear holocaust was always due "any day now, so you'd better learn to Duck & Cover," and while it is certainly a horrible prospect it did assign a level of importance to the generation(s) destined to live through it. Sure, they actually lived lives of suburban contentment, but Jimmy's dad down the street was building a bomb shelter in the basement which was something the boring schmucks growing up in the 1910's or 1920's never got to witness. So, the baby boomers considered themselves to be the first (and only) generation living in a state of near perpetual existential angst. As such they created a mythology of their own "specialness" that seems destined to govern the broadcasting decisions of PBS for decades to come.

So, it shouldn't come as a great surprise that such folk view damn near everything that effects them as being "unprecedented" in some important way. For that reason, history has no lessons to teach them. "Those are the old rules!" they protest, "Everything is different now." And how exactly do they know that? Well, it seems to be taken as axiomatic. It also seems to be a belief the boomers have successfully transfered to the present college age generation who seem similarly convinced of their own "specialness." Take the efforts of E. J. Dionne:

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. predicted in his commencement address to Wake Forest University's 2008 graduating class that they are part of a group that will become the next "greatest generation." Dionne's comments garnered an enthusiastic response from the crowd of about 15,000 people

They were willing to applaud praise of themselves for their soon to be revealed greatness? How noble and selfless of them! Dionne is at least up front about his Millennialism, and he enlists that great prophet, uh.I mean president, FDR for support:

Dionne explained that he drew the title of his address, "The Reform Generation and History's Mysterious Cycle," from a speech Franklin D. Roosevelt gave at the 1936 Democratic National Convention, at which Roosevelt said "There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

"I believe those words apply more truly to your generation than to any other since FDR addressed them to what came to be known as the greatest generation," Dionne said.

Yes, the generation that was forced to live through the horrors of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl is the perfect analogy for this generation which was forced to live through the horrors of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.

One is left with the impression that much of the baby boomer "specialness" is little more than a defensive reflex to hearing their parents drone on about how rough they had it during the depression or WWII. The historical truth is moments like the Great Depression or World War II are unique in their import and their impact. Not every generation is going to see the like. (I wonder if the generation that came immediately after the 30 Years War in Europe reacted the same way.)

So you are left with a group of people whose very self worth is bound up with an overwhelming need for a heroic quality. Thus, their wants and desires are not just the expression of their ego, it is the spirit of the age! And, it isn't just any chronological age. It marks, so the good little Hegelians tell us, the beginning of a new epoch in humanity, for good or ill. Its a psychology tailor made for Millennial thought.

Such thinking dominates not only in the desire for catastrophism of various kinds, but also in more mundane political considerations. Historian Sean Wilentz picks up a good deal of this in the current beliefs infusing Obama supporters:

With her overwhelming victory in Kentucky on May 20, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has completed her sweep of the crucial primary states adjoining the Ohio River - and the fight for the Democratic nomination has entered its final phases. Having picked up a net gain of nearly 140,000 votes between Kentucky and Oregon, Clinton is now well poised to win the Puerto Rico primary on June 1 - and clinch a majority in this year's popular vote, even if the disputed returns from Michigan are discounted. Under those pressures, the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of "change" - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party's inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers" who live in the nation's "shitholes."

It is this fervent belief that the rules of the political game will change for them merely because of the force of their generational personality that is driving the Obama moment. It is essentially the same idea that enabled the boomers to walk blindly into the Democratic electoral disasters of 1968 and 1972. It is also the same force which precludes Obama supporters from learning from that history in the first place. Wilentz sums it up nicely:

In every presidential election they have won, the Democrats have solidified their historic link to white workers, not dismissed them. Obama and the champions of a new party coalition appear to think that everything has suddenly changed, simply because of the force of their own desires. In any event, Obama had shown no ability thus far to attract the one constituency that has always spelled the difference between victory and defeat for the Democratic Party. The party must now decide whether to go along with Obama and renounce its own heritage - and tempt the political fates.

The fact is Millennialism is about embracing opposites. Just like their Chistian analogues, they not only accept a positive view of their destiny (the "Reformist Future" as "Second Coming"), but they also embrace a negative one akin to Armageddon. For many of these zealots, they would rather walk with righteous fervor into an electoral buzz-saw than bow to the practical necessities of political reality. Ordinary people would take such repudiation as a signal that their beliefs were misplaced, but we are not dealing with ordinary people. They will tell you so themselves.

Source




Obama fills a need for religion

By Kathleen Parker

Much has been made of the religious tenor of Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Reports of women weeping and swooning - even of an audience applauding when The One cleared his proboscis (blew his nose for you mortals) - have become frequent events in the heavenly realm of Obi-Wan Obama. His rhetoric, meanwhile, drips with hints of resurrection, redemption and second comings. "We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said on Super Tuesday night. And his people were glad.

Actually, they were hysterical, the word that best describes what surrounds this young savior, and that may be more apt than we imagine. The word is derived from the Greek hystera, or womb. The ancient Greeks considered hysteria a psychoneurosis peculiar to women caused by disturbances of the uterus. Well, you don't see any men fainting in Obi's presence.

Barack Obama has many appealing qualities, not least his own reluctance to be swaddled in purple. Nothing quite says "I'm only human" like whipping out a hankie and blowing one's nose in front of 17,000 admirers. The audience's applause was reportedly awkward, as if the crowd was both approving of anything their savior did, but a little disappointed at this rather ungodly behavior.

So what is the source of this infatuation with Obama? How to explain the hysteria? The religious fervor? The devotion? The weeping and fainting and utter euphoria surrounding a candidate who had the audacity to run for leader of the free world on a platform of mere hope?

If anthropologists made predictions the way meteorologists do, they might have anticipated Obama's astronomical rise to supernova status in 2008 of the Common Era. Consider the cultural coordinates, and Obama's intersection with history becomes almost inevitable.

To play weatherman for a moment, he is a perfect storm of the culture of narcissism, the cult of celebrity, and a secular society in which fathers (both the holy and the secular) have been increasingly marginalized from the lives of a generation of young Americans. All of these trends have been gaining momentum the past few decades. Social critic Christopher Lasch named the culture of narcissism a generation ago and cited addiction to celebrity as one of the disease's symptoms - all tied to the decline of the family. That culture has merely become more exaggerated as spiritual alienation and fatherlessness have collided with technology (YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, etc.) that enables the self-absorption of the narcissistic personality.

Grown-ups with decades under their double chins may have a variety of reasons for supporting Obama, but the youth who pack convention halls and stadiums as if for a rock concert constitute a tipping point of another order. One of Obama's TV ads, set to rock 'n' roll, has a Woodstock feel to it. Text alternating with crowd scenes reads: "We Can Change The World" and "We Can Save The Planet." Those are some kind of campaign promises. The kind no mortal could possibly keep, but never mind. Obi-Wan Obama is about hope - and hope, he'll tell you, knows no limits.

It is thus no surprise that the young are enamored of Obama. He's a rock star. A telegenic, ultra-bright redeemer fluent in the planetary language of a cosmic generation. The force is with him.

But underpinning that popularity is something that transcends mere policy or politics. It is hunger, and that hunger is clearly spiritual. Human beings seem to have a yearning for the transcendent - hence thousands of years of religion - but we have lately shied away from traditional approaches and old gods. Thus, in post-Judeo-Christian America, the sports club is the new church. Global warming is the new religion. Vegetarianism is the new sacrament. Hooking up, the new prayer. Talk therapy, the new witnessing. Tattooing and piercing, the new sacred symbols and rituals. And apparently, Barack Obama is the new messiah.

Here's how a 20-year-old woman in Seattle described that Obama feeling, "When he was talking about hope, it actually almost made me cry. Like it really made sense, like, for the first, like, whoa . . ." This New Age glossolalia may be more sonorous than the guttural emanations from the revival tent, but the emotion is the same. It's all religion by any other name. Whatever the Church of Obama promises, we should not mistake this movement for a renaissance of reason. It is more like, well, like whoa.

Source




Obama's DOCUMENTED LIES: 50 and still growing

Post below recycled from Atlas. See the original for links

50 Obama claimed he had never prayed in a Mosque; his campaign had to retract that statement
49 Obama dishonestly used third party comments in his ads to pump up his healthcare plan
48 Claims he never discussed politics with Pastor; rebutted by photo of Obama with team of lobbyists led by Wright
47 Obama, an expert at parsing words, claimed he wasn't familiar with the word "Clintonian"; then changed his story
46 Despite reeking of cigarettes, Obama denied smoking to ABC; now admits smoking on MSNBC
45 Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with Leader of Iran: now claims he "didn't have Ahmadinejad in mind"
44 Obama claims he is using public financing to avoid special interests: WSJ nails his switcheroo
43 Obama's rhetoric claims more young black men in jail than college: BoJ Stats disprove
42 Claims he never said he was a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare; Video proves he did
41 Obama claims remarks to industrialists were greeted with silence, shows he can deliver tough message: video of ovation
40 Obamas claim you dont rip opponents & leave on roadside:he did to Alice Palmer
39 Obama denies saying Indiana could be tie-breaker: he did
38 Obama omits that Pastor Wright led divestiture campaign from Israel
37 Obama claims Church not controversial; he lied since 86
36 Lied about intention of taking US out of NAFTA
35 Obamas claim poverty growing up: both distort reality
34 Obama denies meeting Saddam's Auchi; sworn Fed. witness places Obama at undisclosed party for Auchi at Rezkos
33 Obama lies about not attacking Clinton over her Bosnia lies
32 Obama claims he passed ethics reform; ABC News shows he lied
31 Obama says he's consistently opposed NAFTA; in October 2007 he supported expansion to Peru
30 Obama claims he's above dirty political tricks; Clinton proves he lies
29 Obama claims his "bitter" remarks were mangled; then repeats attacks on guns religion and angry people
28 Obama stated he'd stopped wearing flag pin on chest; now denies saying it, but video proves he is lying
27 Obama says he did no favors for Rezko;untrue; he lobbied for him
26 Changes story repeatedly re Rezko's help in buying mansion
25 Obama claims he never supported a ban on handguns; he has twice
24 Obama claims stays at UCC as Pastor acknowledged comments were inappropriate; Wright never made this statement
23 Campaign is beholden to "only the people" as unlike McCain/Clinton he does not take lobbyist /PAC money; LIES!
22 Claims campaign never called Canada to say Obama not truthful re wanting leave NAFTA; smoking gun memo proves lied
21 Mrs Obama admits she's never been proud of America; Video disproves Sen. Obama's later claim she was misquoted
20 Claimed would not run for President
19 Claims famous in Il. for not letting lobbyists even buy him lunch; took from teachers, trial lawyers, hospital admins
18 Claims his parents met at Selma civil rights march; Washington Post noted it occurred 4 yrs after Obama's birth
17 BO claims courageously opposed war in 2002 during US Senate campaign; He did not announce his senate bid until 2003
16 Claims he passes tough Nuclear Law; NYT uncovers he took Nuclear Industry pay-off and watered down the bill
15 Claimed he didn't know Rezko was corrupt when did a real estate deal with him; Chicago papers prove he lied
14 Claims does not accept money from Big Oil: Real Clear Politics proves he lied
13 Denies using his Hopefund PAC to influence endorsers; but the Washington Post reviewed the record and disagreed
12 Claims his State Chair is not a drug company lobbyist; Time magazine cries Bullshit
11 Lies about how much he received in campaign funds from Rezko; forced to significantly increase the amount twice
10 Claims he did not fill out the 1996 candidate questionaire; Politico proves he lied
9 Took credit for achievement of others in Chicago; resume puffing exposed by LA Times
8 Claims he kept no State Senate records; now he changes his story
7 Denies doubling wife's salary was due to becoming US Senator; omits within months he earmarked $1 million for hospital
6 Denied meeting Saddam bagman Auchi; now admits he was at his dinner but does not remember talking to him
5 Denies using his church for politics: IRS disagree
4 Claims he was unaware of Pastor Wrights 911 comments: NYT proves he lied
3 Claims his father was a goat-herd; actually he was a man of privilige
2 Claims not an active muslim as child; Indonesian paper proves he lied
1 Claims father linked to Kennedys; Washington Post proves he lied




Obama misrepresented tie with Palestinian activist?

Claims only 'conversations,' but association includes fundraisers, testimonials

Did Sen. Barack Obama misrepresent his relationship with a pro-Palestinian activist and harsh critic of Israel who has been described as a friend of the senator? During a campaign stop yesterday at a Boca Raton, Fla., synagogue, Obama was asked about his association with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, who has made repeated statements supportive of Palestinian terrorism.

Obama replied: "You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia. I do know him, because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him, and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisers; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

Continued Obama: "To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

But Obama's relationship with Khalidi goes beyond conversation. Khalidi's ties to Obama were first exposed by WND in February in a widely cited article. According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003 while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Sources at the university told WND that Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and that the two families dined together a number of times. The sources said the Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi, who spoke to WND in February. As WND reported, an anti-Israel Arab group run by Khalidi's wife, Mona, received crucial funding from a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund, for which Obama served as a board member. In 2001, the Woods Fund, which describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to Khalidi's Arab American Action Network, or AAAN. The fund provided a second grant to the AAAN for $35,000 in 2002.

Speakers at AAAN dinners and events routinely have taken an anti-Israel line. The group co-sponsored a Palestinian art exhibit, titled, "The Subject of Palestine," that featured works related to what some Palestinians call the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" of Israel's founding in 1948. When Khalidi departed the University of Chicago in 2003, Obama delivered an in-person testimonial at a farewell ceremony reminiscing about conversations over meals prepared by Mona Khalidi.

According to a Los Angeles Times account, Obama said his talks with the Khalidis served as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation - a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." Khalidi's farewell dinner was replete with anti-Israel speakers.

More here




David Axelrod, Lobbyist

Obama's been hitting McCain over and over about his ties to lobbyists, so obviously we're all shocked to learn that Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, has some seedy lobbying of his own to account for:

When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved-but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then-but may soon get more scrutiny-is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.

Trying to "hoodwink the public" on behalf of an energy company? It gets better:

ASK last year proposed a similar "political campaign style approach" to help Illinois hospitals block a state proposal that would have forced them to provide more medical care to the indigent. One part of its plan: create a "grassroots" group of medical experts "capable of contacting policymakers to advocate for our position," according to a copy of the proposal.

Creating front groups to "advocate" (another word for lobbying, I think) against providing health care to the poor, nothing unseemly about that. Axelrod's defense: "I'm not going to public officials with bundles of money on behalf of a corporate client." Yes, it's a whole new kind of politics.

Source




THE OTHER OBAMA IS FAIR GAME, TOO

By Jeff Jacoby

On the website of the Tennessee Republican Party is a short video in which residents of Nashville talk about the pride they feel for their country. One man, for example, mentions his esteem for the First and Second Amendments. A Vanderbilt graduate student says he was proud when Ronald Reagan told Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall -- "and I was prouder when it came down." A young professional woman extols the "academic and job opportunities that women have in this country." A police officer named Juan says he is proud of having immigrated to the United States, learned English, and become a citizen of this "land of opportunity and the best country in the world."

The video has a point to make, and it does so by alternating these upbeat comments with clips of Michelle Obama telling two different audiences in February: "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." In an understated press release announcing the video, the state GOP welcomed Mrs. Obama to Nashville and remarked: "The Tennessee Republican Party has always been proud of America."

One would have to have skin of microscopic thinness to take offense at so gentle and indirect a critique. No surprise, then, that Barack Obama took offense, reacting as if his bride had been slimed by slurs akin to those that enraged Andrew Jackson when *he* ran for president. (During the campaign of 1828, supporters of John Quincy Adams maligned Jackson's mother as a "common prostitute" and mocked his adored wife, Rachel, as a "convicted adulteress" and a "strumpet.") In an interview on ABC, Obama growled that Republicans "should lay off my wife," and described the inoffensive Tennessee video as "detestable," "low class," and reflecting "a lack of decency." If Republicans "think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign," he added ominously, "they should be careful." Ooh, very fierce. But unless Obama is prepared to emulate Jackson -- Old Hickory defended his wife's honor by fighting duels, in one of which he killed a man -- he stands no chance of putting his wife's remarks off-limits to criticism. As long as he keeps sending her around the country to campaign on his behalf, everything she says is -- and should be -- fair game. And unfortunately for Obama and his allegedly sunny politics of hope, what Mrs. Obama seems to say with grim regularity is that America is a scary, bleak, and hopeless place. Here she is, for instance, in Wisconsin:

"Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn't gotten much better."

And in South Carolina:

America is "just downright mean" and "guided by fear . . . We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day."

And in North Carolina:

"Folks are struggling like never before . . . When you're that busy struggling all the time, which most people that you know and I know are, you don't have time to get to know your neighbor . . . In fact, you feel very alone in your struggle, because you feel that somehow it must be your fault that you're struggling so hard . . . People are afraid, because when your world's not right, no matter how hard you work, then you become afraid of everyone and everything, because you don't know whose fault it is, why you can't get a handle on life, why you can't secure a better future for your kids . . . Fear is the worst enemy. It . . . creates this veil of impossibility, and it is hanging over all of our heads."

There is also her creepily authoritarian vision of life under an Obama administration. From a speech in California:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual -- uninvolved, uninformed."

Michelle Obama is undeniably smart, driven, outspoken, and charismatic. She is also relentlessly negative about life in these United States. True, she is not the one running for president. But she is Barack Obama's closest confidante and adviser; if he is elected, her influence will be considerable. That is why her words matter. And why, whether her husband likes it or not, Michelle Obama is a legitimate issue in this campaign.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





26 May, 2008

Is Obama on Drugs?

Seriously, is Obama on drugs? . Dr Jack Wheeler just called for Obama to be drug tested. I think he's right and no, I am not referring to the Sinclair's sex and drug allegations.The mental mistakes Obama has been serially making are so serious a neuroscientist thinks they are consistent with the kind caused by chronic use of either amphetamines or cocaine. Wheeler makes no accusations - just says the suspicion must be allayed. We drug test employees in the work place. Shouldn't presidential candidates be held to the same basic vetting process. I mean really.

Obambi has been gaffe-ridden for some time. Another beauty occurred on May 8, 2007: In a campaign speech, he said 10,000 people had died in a tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas a few days earlier. The death toll was 12.

In the past few weeks, however, the O-gaffes have been proliferating. On April 28 in Wilmington, North Carolina, he thought the month was "March" and that it was "nine months to November."

On May 13 in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, he claimed the war in Iraq was responsible for a shortage of interpreters in Afghanistan: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it is harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. Afghans don't, speaking Pushtu, Dari, and various tribal languages.

On May 16 in a press conference, he claimed, "When Kennedy met Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war." The two met in Vienna in June, 1961. The Cuba Missile Crisis, which Obambi claimed was resolved by the meeting, was in October 1962.

On May 18 in an interview to the Lexington (Ky) Herald-Leader, he said: "I'm not very well known" in Kentucky compared to Hillary because of her husband and "her coming from a nearby state of Arkansas." Illinois - the state he's a senator of - borders Kentucky; Arkansas does not (Tennessee's in between).

The champion O-gaffe was committed on May 9 in Beaverton, Oregon. You have to see it to believe he actually said that during his campaign, "I have now been to 57 states with one left to go," then says that one is "Alaska and Hawaii."

No matter how exhausted from campaigning you are, you don't make a mistake like that under any normal circumstances. Saying there are 57 states - actually 58, or is it 59? - is such an egregiously stupid error that it is evidence of brain malfunction.

A neuroscientist with years of research into drug abuse and brain chemistry tells To The Point that the behavior exhibited by Obama is consistent with the use of either amphetamines or cocaine. "His campaign's almost impossibly high level of activity, mental and physical, unrelenting day after day for month upon month is incredibly hard to maintain," he says. "The temptation to maintain it psycho-pharmacologically is great, especially for someone with a history of drug use. The drugs of choice would be amphetamines or cocaine, which can cause amazing mistakes, errors of incredible stupidity."

In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obambi admitted his drug use when young: "Pot (marijuana) had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow (cocaine) when you could afford it. Not smack (heroin), though." Teen-age drug use isn't, of course, evidence for its use in one's 40s. But when someone who may be elected President of the United States starts behaving suspiciously, then it's justified to ask that those suspicions be allayed.....

It's worth noting here the correlation between narcissism and stimulant drug abuse. Obambi exhibits an almost pathological narcissism, an ego wildly out of proportion to anything he has actually accomplished in his life. Someone with this personality defect is drawn to irrationally risky behavior because of a conviction of invulnerability, or superhuman superiority. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer had such a syndrome. He chose to express it with hookers, but it's more common to see it expressed with drugs, cocaine in particular.

No accusations are being made here. To The Point is not accusing Barack Hussein Obama of illegal drug use. It is saying that he is behaving of late in such a way to cause suspicion that he might. That suspicion must be put to rest. Barack Hussein Obama's hair must be tested for drugs. If he refuses, it will add to the suspicion - as will every inexplicably stupid blunder he makes from now on.

More here




Leftist British foreign minister dubious about Obama

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama's policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years. The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. But when he met Mr Obama's team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee's declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.

They also discussed trade - with Mr Obama advisers saying that they still intended to renegotiate deals such as Nafta - and how much European support there would be for a US military surge in Afghanistan.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia. There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America's presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a "naive" commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

In a televised debate last summer, Mr Obama was asked if he would be willing to meet the leaders of countries such as Iran and Cuba without preconditions during his first year in office. He replied: "I would." But this week he appeared to pull back, saying he would still be willing to meet Iranian leaders but not before what he described as "preparations" - and not necessarily with President Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, Mr Obama says that "tough but engaged diplomacy" - of the type carried out by President Kennedy or President Reagan with the Soviet Union - would represent "a different approach, a different philosophy" to the "failed Iran policy" of the current administration.

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain's support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. "Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community," Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate's positions. But the same source added: "We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don't know what route he will take or what he means by `no pre-conditions'. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we're doing." A Foreign Office spokesman later said: "I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama's policy. It would be quite wrong to say that."

Mr McCain's foreign policy chief, Randy Scheunemann, would not comment on his own meetings with Mr Miliband. But he said: "Obama's position is obviously different to that of Britain and France. Otherwise Prime Minister Brown and President Sarkozy would have already met the President of Iran without conditions.

Although Britain - unlike the US - maintains diplomatic relations with Iran, the West has been more or less united in seeking to isolate the Iranian leadership. The US, Britain, France and to some extent Germany have pressed for tighter sanctions against Iran, including measures directed against the country's ruling elite, for failing to comply with UN resolutions calling for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia. There is also deep concern about Iran's support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern," Mr Miliband said this week. "No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity."

Source




The press, Obama, and Wright

This election season would not be the first time that the media which shares the leftist views of a candidate has airbrushed his image and missed his considerable deficits. Sosays Michael Barone, who observes that even if the media tell us there's no consequence to Obama respecting the Wright story, there will be:

Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don't find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them - or disbelieve him when he says he doesn't. Though most in the press won't admit it, that's a problem - for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic Party once it nominates him.

Please, DNC do not listen to this. Listen only to CNN,MSNBC and Newsweek. Have they ever steered you wrong?

Source




Obama is descended from blacks who maintained an Arab identity

Post below excerpted from Kenneth E. Lamb. See the original for links

Sen. Obama's autobiography is filled with "composite" characters, rearranged timelines, and fantasy events that never occurred. I read that twice in the Washington Post - read Richard Cohen's columns of Jan. 1, 2008, and March 27, 2007, for yourself.

There are more articles than that, by more authors than just Mr. Cohen, but I wanted to get started by saying that what follows isn't just something I'm pulling out of thin air. What follows is serious, documented, and not at all what those who want to write history about the election of the first so-called "African-American" president, want in the least to admit is true - and why its truth matters more than their desire to ignore the truth for the sake of their desire to write history.

While his shrill wife objects, the truth is that Sen. Obama's life, as he wrote about himself in his autobiography, is, in fact, nothing but a fairy tale. Again, don't take my word for it - read Mr. Cohen's, and others, articles about it.

Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported? Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.). That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also. But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth. Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding. As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?" The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic. Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.

But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting. That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it. There's a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.

Here is the truth about Mr. Obama's name, and his father's ancestors: True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father's decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa - it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father's message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.

Many will find these truths unsettling. I'm often asked, "But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?" The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father's name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father's side. They are all Arabic.

Researching his roots reveal that on his father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America's black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama's ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.

Mr. Obama has struggled all his life trying to prove that he is black enough to be called black. The truth is that if Mr. Obama is elected, his primary ethnic composition is Caucasian, but of course, that carries no cachet. So if we look at his next predominant ethnic component, Mr. Obama would be America's first Arab-American president. The truth is that his name says it all.




Michelle Obama "Whitey" Tape?

Larry Johnson of Plame Game fame claims - through 'sources' that a tape of Michelle Obama getting all "Chris Rock" during a diatribe at the UCC is in existence.

"Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I've also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I'm told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It's a ticking time bomb.

And I've learned that a right-wing Republican billionaire has put a $1 million bounty on the video. He doesn't want John McCain to win, like a number of conservatives, and thinks Obama is a pathetically weak candidate. The billionaire wants that video released now.

Obama, speaking on ABC's "Good Morning America" showed fear through his name-calling: "If they think that they're gonna try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because, that I find unacceptable. . The notion that you start attacking my wife or my family - you know, Michelle is the most honest, the best person I know. She is one of the most caring people I know. She loves this country. And for them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is . just low class."

Does Obama have a copy of the "whitey" video? We know that he knows that his wife knows. The video really does exist. If we have to wait until October to see it, Obama might explode before then from the tension."

I don't know if one exists but the bad news for Michelle is that most people wouldn't be surprised if one existed after seeing the evidence so far. That's a bad rep!

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





25 May, 2008

Obama up to his neck in the Illinois corruption now on trial in court

The first case of many to go to trial resulting from the Operation Board Game investigation is being referred to as the "biggest political corruption trial" since former Illinois Governor George Ryan's trial two years ago, in the Chicago media. In this case, the Syrian-born immigrant, Tony Rezko, is facing 24 total counts of wire and mail fraud, aiding and abetting a solicitation of bribery, money laundering and attempted extortion. Rezko supported Republican George Ryan in his campaign for Governor......

There was no mystery about how Rezko gained control over the Teacher's Retirement System board and the Health Facilities Planning Board to pressure companies and individuals hoping to get state business for kickbacks, Schar told the jury. "The answer to that question is access and clout and it stems from Rezko's ability to raise a lot of money," Schar said. "He is one of the top fundraisers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich," he noted.

Rezko gained power over the Planning Board by stacking it with members whose vote he could control, Schar said. The chairman was reappointed after delivering a $1,000 contribution to Rezko for Blagojevich and two others contributed $25,000 before getting appointed.

Tony Rezko is a private citizen. Therefore, the evidence presented in the trial focused on his influence over officials in getting members appointed to the Boards. Prosecutors did not discuss how the legislation got passed that enabled the Planning Board to be set up in a way that allowed for the appointment of members to rig the votes to begin with.

That part of the scheme will likely be detailed in future indictments, probably starting with Blagojevich. Blagojevich signed the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Act with an effective date of June 27, 2003. However, before he could sign the act, a bill had to be passed by the Illinois House and Senate. As discussed fully in Curtain Time Part II, Obama was the inside guy in the senate who pushed through the legislation that resulted in the Act.

Obama was appointed chairman of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The minute the bill was introduced, it was referred to his committee for review. The sponsors of the bill also served on this committee with Obama. Within a month, Chairman Obama sent word to the full senate that the legislation should be passed.

On May 31, 2003, Senate Bill 1332 passed and specified that the "Board shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate." The legislation reduced the number of members from 15 to 9, paving the way for the appointment of a five-bloc majority to rig the votes. The corrupt members appointed included three doctors who contributed to Obama. Michel Malek gave Obama $10,000 on June 30, 2003 and donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003. Malek also gave Obama another $500 in September 2003.

Fortunee Massuda donated $25,000 to Blagojevich on July 25, 2003, and gave a total of $2,000 to Obama on different dates. After he was appointed, Dr Imad Almanaseer contributed a total of $3,000 to Obama. Almanaseer did not give money to Blagojevich....

Only two pay-to-play schemes succeeded before the Feds swooped in and shut them all down. Blagojevich did not receive the $1.5 million from the Planning Board deal because the hospital was never built.

But Obama received $20,000 from the first kickback paid in the pension fund scheme and the straw donors used to funnel the $10,000 payments, Elie Maloof and Joseph Aramanda, also made $1,000 contributions to Obama's failed run for Congress in 2000. In addition, Aramanda gave $500 to Obama's senate campaign on June 30, 2003. In the summer of 2005, Aramanda's son landed an intern position in Obama's Washington office.

Obama also received contributions for his senate campaign from the two persons appointed to rig the vote on the pension fund board. On June 30, 2003, Jack Carriglio contributed $1,000, and the other appointee, Anthony Abboud, donated $500 on June 30, 2003, $250 on March 5, 2004, and $1,000 on June 25, 2004. The person chosen to funnel the kickback in a future scheme, Michael Winter, donated $3,000 to Obama on June 30, 2003.

All these people are also cooperating in exchange for immunity or lesser prison sentences but prosecutors pointed out during closing arguments that people who entered into agreements with the government are required to tell the truth or all deals are off.

During the Rezko trial the jury saw an exhibit that credited Rezko with raising $1.44 million for Blagojevich. In his closing argument, Rezko's attorney, Joe Duffy, told the jury: "The evidence shows Rezko spent more time in 2003-2004 fundraising for St Jude's Children's Hospital, George W Bush and Barack Obama, then he did for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich."

During his opening statement in the trial, Duffy also pointed out that Rezko had raised money for many politicians and specifically named Obama. The fact is, in addition to being his real estate fairy for the $2 million mansion, Rezko is Obama's political Godfather. His career in politics was launched on July 31, 1995, with contributions of $2,000 from Rezko for the Illinois senate campaign. Obama only raised about $100,000 for that race, with roughly $15,000 coming from Rezko.

After Rezko was indicted in October 2006, Obama claimed Rezko only raised $50,000 or $60,000 over his political career. This is the story he gave in the media for more than a year. But the total amount revealed during interviews with the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune on March 14, 2008, added up to a quarter million.

Several of the people who led Obama's corrupt finance committee for the US senate race with Rezko, and collected all the contributions from the people involved in the pay-to-pay schemes, are now running the show for his presidential campaign.

For reasons discussed in Parts I through V of Curtain Time, Obama's downfall will be what he claims was a "boneheaded" mistake in entering into real estate deal with Rezko in June 2005, less than a month after Rezko received a $3.5 million loan from the Iraqi-born billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi, who ended up with Riverside Park, a $2.5 billion 62-acre development project in Chicago.

However, judging from the indictments in Board Games unsealed so far, Obama's legal culpability at this point anyways, stems from his involvement in setting up and receiving money from the pay-to-play schemes.

Much more here




Obama's "Ohio River Valley" Problem

If you have given any attention to the punditry regarding the Democratic primary contests you have probably heard about Obama's so-called "Appalachia Problem." The premise is simple: Obama does not do well with hill people, particularly in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. As a result dire election results from such areas can be safely discounted. Move along.nothing to see here. The (mostly) unspoken subtext is less subtle. "These are nothing but toothless, racist hillbillies. Can't you hear the banjos?"

The "Appalachia" meme is being pushed by those who want to hide the extent of Obama's difficulties in rural America. By calling it an "Appalachia problem" you can attempt to inoculate against the idea of a more general rural problem for Obama. If one, for example, were to discover an "Ohio River Valley Problem," well it becomes harder to demonize such voters. Whatever images come to mind when you think of the Ohio River Valley and its people, it isn't scary inbred white trash. In fact, most rural Americans would think of these folks as being like themselves in most important ways.

When you look at primary results across that part of the country it becomes clear that Obama does indeed have an "Ohio River Valley" problem. Here are the results by county in those places bordering the Ohio river:

Ohio

Clinton win by 30% or more: Brown, Adams, Scioto, Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs, Washington, Monroe, Belmont, Jefferson, Carroll, Harrison, Guernsey, Noble, Morgan, Vinton, Jackson, Pike, Highland

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Clinton, Warren, Butler

Clinton win by less that 10%: Athens

Obama win: Hamilton

Indiana

Clinton win by 30% or more: Dearborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Franklin, Ripley, Jefferson, Jennings, Clark, Scott, Floyd, Harrison, Washington, Crawford, Perry, Orange, Pike, Gibson

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Spencer, Dubois, Warrick, Posey

Clinton win by less than 10%: Vanderburgh

Obama win: None

Illinois

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Gallatin, Hardin, Pope, Johnson, Union

Clinton win by less than 10% White, Hamilton, Saline, Massac

Obama win: Alexander, Pulaski

Kentucky

Clinton win by 30% or more: Carlisle, Graves, Ballard, McCracken, Marshall, Livingston, Crittenden, Lyon, Caldwell, Webster, Union, Henderson, McLean, Daviess, Ohio, Hancock, Breckinridge, Grayson, Meade, Bullitt, Spencer, Henry, Trimble, Carroll, Gallatin, Owen, Grant, Boone, Kenton, Campbell, Pendleton, Bracken, Robertson, Mason, Fleming, Lewis, Rowan, Greenup, Boyd, Carter, Lawrence

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Hardin, Shelby, Oldham

Obama win: Jefferson

West Virginia

Clinton win by 30% or more: Wayne, Mingo, Lincoln, Cabell, Putnam, Mason, Jackson, Roane, Wirt, Wood, Ritchie, Pleasants, Tyler, Doddridge, Wetzel, Marshall, Brooke, Hancock, Marion, Harrison

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Kanawha, Ohio, Monongalia

Obama win: None

Pennsylvania

Clinton win by 30% or more: Greene, Washington, Beaver, Lawrence, Armstrong, Westmoreland

Clinton win by 10%-29%: Butler

Clinton win by less than 10%: Allegheny

Obama win: None

So, of the 133 counties in the Ohio River Valley, Obama managed to win 4 (or 3%.) Obama lost 103 (77%) counties by more than 30 percentage points. Obama lost by at least 10 percentage points in 122 (92%) counties. So the next time someone tries to sell you on the "Appalachia" meme, feel free to laugh in their face.

Source




OBAMA THE COMMUNIST

It just doesn't stop. There is nothing good in this man's resume. Word. In a recent interview, Obama called his mother "the dominant figure in my formative years. The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Remember Obama's mother was a communist. The Asia Times reported here:

"Friends describe her as a "fellow traveler", that is, a communist sympathizer, from her youth, according to a March 27, 2007, Chicago Tribune report. Many Americans harbor leftist views, but not many marry into them, twice. Ann Dunham met and married the Kenyan economics student Barack Obama, Sr, at the University of Hawaii in 1960, and in 1967 married the Indonesian student Lolo Soetero. It is unclear why Soetero's student visa was revoked in 1967 - the fact but not the cause are noted in press accounts. But it is probable that the change in government in Indonesia in 1967, in which the leftist leader Sukarno was deposed, was the motivation. "

Today, on Capital Hill, two veterans of investigations into Communist influence on the U.S. political process will hold a briefing to release two new explosive reports on Barack Obama's ties with extreme anti-American elements, including agents of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA. The reports will shed important new light on Barack Obama's mysterious past.

"Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection" by Herbert Romerstein,

Herbert Romerstein, an author and investigative journalist, served as an investigator for the much-feared U. S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, the House Committee on Internal Security, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He was head of the Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation for the United States Information Agency. One of his recent books is the acclaimed THE VENONA SECRETS: EXPOSING SOVIET ESPIONAGE AND AMERICA'S TRAITORS.

and

"Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection" by Cliff Kincaid.

Cliff Kincaid is an investigative journalist who specializes in analyzing the effects of communist and terrorist influence on the U.S. media. He is founder and president of America's Survival, Inc., and editor of Accuracy in Media's AIM Report. He is the author or coauthor of nine books, including WHY YOU CAN'T TRUST THE NEWS, and was instrumental in denying access to the U.S. media market to the Islamic terrorist Al-Jazeera television channel.

The reports are based on direct fact-finding and special access to historical, congressional, and investigatory documents.

Source




Does Obama support "Education reparations"?

Is the emerging debate about the relationship between Senator Obama and former Weather Underground leader and now Distinguished Professor of Education Bill Ayers simply about the past?

I believe that that is not the only question at stake - at stake is the possibility that Bill Ayers continues to play a significant role in influencing the candidacy and potentially the presidency of Barack Obama, in particular on vital questions of educational policy. In particular, as this blog post will explain, at least one advisor on education policy to the Obama campaign advocates a form of reparations to black and other minority Americans for hundreds of years of alleged "education debt" owed them by white Americans. And Bill Ayers is an advocate of the same policy....

Fast forward, then, to the current scene. What is the state of Senator Obama's education policy? No major statement of education policy has been issued by the campaign. But Senator Obama did name as his education advisor Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, a prominent national figure in education who teaches at Stanford University's School of Education. Darling-Hammond has not, as far as I can determine, issued any official blueprint or proposal for education policy on behalf of the candidate. However, on April 23 she did issue such a blueprint for an independent entity called the Forum for Education and Democracy (FED). Presumably she had some kind of tacit approval from the Obama camp to go ahead with that very public pronouncement. Thus, it is worth considering that FED blueprint as it may be influential in the thinking of Senator Obama.

When one does look at the FED blueprint I think we begin to see the fingerprints of Bill Ayers and of the Ayers' world view. It is not a pretty picture. The blueprint makes four recommendations for federal policy....

What does the FED report say needs to happen to right the allegedly sinking ship of America's K-12 schools? Well, back to that four point program:

Priority #1: Repay the "education debt"

And, what, you might ask, is the "education debt"? According to Professor Darling-Hammond it is a concept invented by Professor Gloria Ladson-Billings, of the University of Wisconsin and a "convenor" together with Professor Darling-Hammond of the FED. It is aimed at replacing the concept that has dominated much education reform discussion in recent years called the "achievement gap." As Darling-Hammond has written:

"[T]he problem we face is less an 'achievement gap' than an educational debt that has accumulated over centuries of denied access to education and employment, reinforced by deepening poverty and resource inequalities in schools. Until American society confronts the accumulated educational debt owed to these students and takes responsibility for the inferior resources they receive, [Gloria] Ladson-Billings argues, children of color and of poverty will continue to be left behind." (Emphasis added.)

With that reference to centuries of denied access, Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings appear to be analogizing their concern about education resources, or the lack thereof, to the demand by some in the black community to reparations for 400 years of slavery and discrimination. In fact, in her major article exploring the concept of educational debt (Educational Researcher, Oct. 2005), Ladson-Billings came close to making the analogy explicit:

"What is it that we might owe to citizens who historically have been excluded from social benefits and opportunities? Randall Robinson (2000) states: 'No nation can enslave a race of people for hundreds of years, set them free bedraggled and penniless, pit them, without assistance in a hostile environment, against privileged victimizers, and then reasonably expect the gap between the heirs of the two groups to narrow. Lines, begun parallel and left alone, can never touch. (p. 74)'"

The book by Randall Robinson to which she refers is The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, which is an extended argument for reparations to be paid by America to blacks for the impact of slavery and discrimination.

Ladson-Billings also made this argument in her Presidential Address to the American Educational Research Association (AERA) in 2006. AERA is in the news lately because Bill Ayers was recently elected as its Vice President of Curriculum Studies. Ladson-Billings is a specialist in "critical race theory" and "culturally relevant pedagogy."

Perhaps even more strikingly, Darling-Hammond has argued that there is in America "a growing number of 'apartheid' schools that serve racial/ethnic minority students exclusively-schools that have little political clout and are extraordinarily impoverished." Presumably it was at an apartheid school that the young Hispanic students I encountered at Cal State Pomona figured out how to get into some of the world's best 4 year colleges.

I want to point out here that I actually believe, as a legal scholar, that there is, in fact, some credible basis to argue that the current black American population, almost all of whom are descendants of slaves, and many of whom continue to suffer from the legacy of that experience as well the many years of discrimination that followed the end of slavery, should receive financial compensation for the impact of that experience. However, the argument faces significant hurdles, some legal, some intellectual and many that are political.

To extend the argument, as Ayers, Darling-Hammond and Ladson-Billings do, to a broad call for the repayment of an alleged educational debt, strains credulity if not worse. The logic of the argument itself escapes me. It obviously would not easily apply to many in the school system who suffer the same resource inequities as black students.

And for Senator Obama to call for such a race-driven approach to a national education policy would obviously unleash a backlash that at a minimum would be a distraction in his campaign but, in the context of his large losses in states like Kentucky and West Virginia together with the Reverend Wright controversy, could very well sink his campaign altogether.

And yet, there was Professor Darling-Hammond, at the same National Press Club venue as Rev. Wright, calling for - as point number one of a four point plan - for repayment of the educational debt. And what of the other three points of the FED plan? Well, of course,

#2 was a multi billion dollar "Marshall Plan" for our schools - no doubt to pay down the debt (or is it on top of the repayment of the debt?);

#3 was more money to support research and innovation (hey, who can be against learning more about learning? but there is plenty of doubt about the research methods used by the "social justice" milieu in the education world and for a taste of the problems I highly recommend this book review by Nathan Glazer: The "Crits" Capture Presidential Power: Top education researchers denounce scientific research" Education Next, Winter 2007, a review of a book co-edited by Ladson-Billings with a chapter by Bill Ayers); and, to top it off,

#4: Engaging and educating local communities (which sounds a lot like the Local Schools reform effort that Obama, Ayers and the Annenberg Challenge tried to save in Chicago).

This suggests to me that some advisors in and around the Obama camp may have their own agendas with respect to education policy, perhaps at odds with the beliefs of the Senator himself, perhaps not. We do not know. But we should certainly ask and the campaign should explain.

On Bill Ayers' website he has posted a book review by his brother Rick Ayers, who teaches in (where else?) a Berkeley, California public school. Rick Ayers writes: "As Wisconsin education professor Gloria Ladson-Billings has pointed out, we should not define the problem as an 'achievement gap' as much as an educational debt that has accumulated as a result of centuries of denial of access to education and employment – which is exacerbated by deepening poverty and the lack of funding for schools."

More fundamentally, Bill Ayers world view is rooted in what I consider a racialist, if not racist, view of American politics.

[I use the first term - racialism - to describe ideas or perspectives that use race-based approaches which I think overstate the race component but that do not really rise to the level of racism. I have a hard time, for example, concluding that someone like Reverend Wright is, at heart, a racist in the sense that, let’s say, George Wallace was. But he certainly uses race in a divisive way that I think overstates the role of race. That is what I consider “racialism” as opposed to racism. There is, of course, the danger that one can go so far in that direction or view the world that way for so long that actual racism takes hold – perhaps Louis Farrakhan is an example, though I do not spend much time paying much attention to him. Maybe one way of getting at this issue is that while a white person can actually show up at the church of Reverend Wright it would not have been possible for a black person to show up at certain churches in the American south in the 1960s and expect to get home safely.]

Since the days of Weather Underground Ayers has advocated a viewpoint that argues that the fundamental issue in American life is "white skin privilege" - that white Americans benefit from being white at the expense of blacks. As Ayers' wife Bernardine Dohrn wrote in the introduction to a 2002 book she co-authored with Ayers and their fellow Weather Underground member Jeff Jones: "One cannot talk separately about class, gender, culture, immigration, ethnicity, or biology without being intertwined with race, as Katrina and the systematic destruction of a major black U.S. city reinforms us. We were waking up [in the late 1960s]. What to do once we had knowledge of the dimensions of white skin privilege? How to destroy white supremacy? Well, that is another matter. And as burning today as it was then."

Ayers himself wrote on his website in a January 19, 2008 essay on school reform: "The dominant narrative in contemporary school reform is once again focused on exclusion and disadvantage, race and class, black and white. 'Across the US,' the National Governor’s Association declared in 2005, 'a gap in academic achievement persists between minority and disadvantaged students and their white counterparts.' This is the commonly referenced and popularly understood 'racial achievement gap,' and it drives education policy at every level. Interestingly, whether heartfelt or self-satisfied, the narrative never mentions the monster in the room: white supremacy....Gloria Ladson-Billings upends all of this with an elegant reversal: there is no achievement gap, she argues, but actually a glancing reflection of something deeper and more profound—America has a profound education debt. The educational inequities that began with the annihilation of native peoples and the enslavement of Africans, the conquest of the continent and the importation of both free labor and serfs, transformed into apartheid education, something anemic, inferior, inadequate, and oppressive. Over decades and centuries the debt has accumulated and is passed from generation to generation, and it continues to grow and pile up." (Emphasis added.)

At a certain stage in American history it might have made some kind of desperate sense to make this kind of argument, perhaps prior to 1865 or 1965, but in 2008? Even then it was possible and there were examples of multi-racial efforts to fight for justice and equality for all Americans.

Of course, today when millions of white workers suffer conditions little different from those of inner city blacks it borders on the absurd to make such an argument. Nor is it clear that throwing more money at our public schools is the real solution. Yet it seems to be the kind of argument that is behind the new race-based approach argued by those in favor of paying off centuries of "educational debt." The unanswered question today is whether or not Barack Obama subscribes to such a narrow and potentially destructive social perspective.

Source




Obama's Empty Words on Supporting Israel

Barack Obama on the campaign trail has been trying to defuse concerns among pro-Israel Americans regarding his sincerity and the level of support he feels for the American -Israel relationship. One line that he uses on the stump is a promise of an "unshakeable commitment to Israel" if he is elected .

Of course, this flies in the face of statements made by his Pastor, a man who he has called his "moral compass', "sounding board" and "confidant" of two decades; as well as a raft of his foreign policy advisers who have issued very problematic statements not only towards Israel but also towards American Jews. Let's put these aside though and examine Senator Obama's own words - not the one he has started using on the stump now - but ones he has spoken in the recent past toward another nation he once promised whole-hearted support to; Iraq. In 2004, according to the Boston Globe, he stated:

...that the United States had an "absolute obligation " to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. He stated that failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster and would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.

That was a commitment to the Iraqi people -- an "absolute" promise that we would hold paramount our obligation to provide them security, to protect them from the ravages that would flow from a failed state. Yet a mere three years later he was ready to throw them to the wolves, genocide be damned.. The AP reported it this way in July 2007:

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Barack Obama has also said that "...nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have". To which, ABC News journalist Jake Tapper asked "Really? No one? Elie Wiesel? Simon Wiesenthal? Alan Dershowitz? No one? Wow."

Hmmm..do we find any evidence of this in Barack Obama's past? Did he try to dissuade Pastor Wright from bestowing an award on Louis Farrakhan, one of the most notorious anti-Semites in America? Has he shown any movement in the Senate to deal with the issue of foreign aid to the Palestinians, whose texbooks and media regularly espouse anti-Semitism? The Muslim world is rife with anti-Semitism and petrocrats and theocrats are using billions of dollars to promote and spread that virus.

Yet Barack Obama has also made promises to them. To convene a summit, to listen to their "grievances". Apparently, one of their grievances is not just the existence of Israel, but also the existence of Jews (and Christians and Hindus). He wants to, to use the vernacualr, hear them out. He has also indicated that he has served as a bridge to reconcile the Jewish and African-American communities and that he hopes, as President, he can facilitate such a rapprochement, that he has been the foxholes with his Jewish friends, presumably fighting anti-Semitism.

Have we seen any evidence that he has ever attempted to do so in his past 20 years of activism? There are myriad organizations that have attempted to heal the wounds, to abolish the friction, to close the chasm that has too long existed between the African-American and Jewish communities. Has he been a member of any such organizations, an active member? URLs, please-not just assertions from Chicago campaign supporters. Conversely, there has been an abundance of news item highlighting his ties to the Pro-palestinian, and anti-Israel, community over the years .

The Woods Foundation, where he sat on the very smll board of directors, extended thousands and thosuands of dollars in grant money to pro-Palestinian groups that promoted anti-Israel views. Did the Woods Foundation spend any money to improve relations between Jews and African-Americans? Which foxholes were Barack Obama in with his Jewish supporters? Can he expand on merely listing some Jewish friends from Chicago, some of whom-by the way-are not necessarily in the forefront of pro-Israel activities? Time for the candidate to back up his assertions with some hard facts.

Source




What? Obamessiah now sells himself to rural Pennsylvania as the pro-gun candidate?

Post below recycled from Michelle Malkin. See the original for links

The gall of this man. Here's a clip from my post from Thursday, where's he's talking tough on guns for urban Democrats in Philly and Pittsburgh:

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons," Obama said. "I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.

But then Politico looked at Obama's strategy to woo blue-collar pro-gun voters in rural PA:

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation. But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania. By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

You know, sometimes I start to suspect that liberals think we're stupid. `Yeah, I'm tough on guns, and.a great fan of the Second Amendment! Hope! Change! Arugula!' Alas, apparently, we're not:

Melody Zullinger, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs who received the Obama campaign e-mail on his gun record, said Obama sounds like he is "speaking out of both sides of his mouth." "I was at one of our county meetings last night and I mentioned this to [federation members]," Zullinger said Friday of the Obama outreach. "Everyone basically blew it off and weren't buying it."

They also quote a pro-gun Democratic state legislator who's all ga-ga for Obama and trying to tell everyone who'll listen what a great Second Amendment advocate Obama is. His name's Dan Surra, and I'll bet this really hurts his credibility. His constituents now know that his long commitment to gun rights is for sale when the Obamessiah turns on the charm.

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





24 May, 2008

Obama's Troubling Instincts

By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel. By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests. Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking.

Is Mr. Obama's first instinct to dismiss North Korea, the world's worst nuclear proliferator, as an insignificant threat? Is his immediate reaction to treat Venezuela as a wayward child, rather than as an adversary willing to destabilize the hemisphere? Is his memory so short he has forgotten the Castro brothers' willingness to aid revolutionary movements? Is he so shortsighted as to ignore the threat to Mideast stability that Syria's meddling in Lebanon and support for Hamas and Hezbollah represents?

Mr. Obama's Sunday statement grew out of a kerfuffle over his proclaimed willingness to meet - eagerly and without precondition - during his first year as president with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. On Monday, he said it was a show of confidence when American leaders meet with rivals; he insisted he was merely doing what Richard Nixon did by going to China.

I recommend that he read Henry Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." Mr. Obama would learn it took 134 private meetings between U.S. and Chinese diplomats before a breakthrough at a Jan. 20, 1970 meeting in Warsaw. It took 18 months of behind-the-scenes discussions before Mr. Kissinger secretly visited Beijing. And it took seven more months of hard work before Nixon went to China. The result was a new relationship, announced in a communiqu‚ worked out over months of careful diplomacy.

The Chinese didn't change because of a presidential visit. In another book, "Diplomacy," Mr. Kissinger writes that "China was induced to rejoin the community of nations less by the prospect of dialogue with the United States than by fear of being attacked by its ostensible ally, the Soviet Union." Change came because the U.S. convinced Beijing it was in its interest to change. Then the president visited.

The same is true with other successful negotiations. President Ronald Reagan prepared the ground for his meetings with a series of Soviet leaders by rebuilding the U.S. military, restoring confidence in American intentions, and pressuring the Soviets by raising the specter of a missile defense shield.

Reagan knew rogue states only change when they see there are real consequences of their actions, and when it is in their interest to change. This requires patience, vision, hard work and the use of all the tools, talents and relationships available to the U.S. We saw a recent example when Libya, fearful of American resolve after 9/11, gave up its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. These programs, incidentally, were more advanced than Western intelligence thought.

Reagan knew he must not squander the prestige of the American presidency and the authority of the United States by meaningless meetings that serve only as propaganda victories for our adversaries. Mr. Obama seems to believe charisma and smooth talk can fundamentally alter the behavior of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

But what might work on the primary campaign trail doesn't work nearly as well in Tehran. What, for example, does Mr. Obama think he can offer the Iranians to get them to become a less pernicious and destabilizing force? One of Iran's top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. This happens to be Mr. Obama's top foreign policy goal, too. Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Mr. Obama gives them what they want, without preconditions?

On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said in Florida that in a meeting with the Iranians he'd make it clear their behavior is unacceptable. That message has been delivered clearly by Republican and Democratic administrations in public and private diplomacy over the past 16 years. Is he so na‹ve to think he has a unique ability to make this even clearer?

If Mr. Obama believes he can change the behavior of these nations by meeting without preconditions, he owes it to the voters to explain, in specific terms, what he can say that will lead these states to abandon their hostility. He also needs to explain why unconditional, unilateral meetings with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korea's Kim Jong Il will not deeply unsettle our allies.

If Mr. Obama fails to do so, voters may come to believe that he is asking them to accept that he has a "Secret Plan," and that he is hopelessly out of his depth on national security.

Source




The Obama Learning Curve

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden took to the airwaves this week to "help" the rookie Barack Obama out of a foreign-policy jam. Oh sure, admitted Mr. Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee had given the "wrong" answer when he said he'd meet unconditionally with leaders of rogue states. But on the upside, the guy "has learned a hell of a lot."

Somewhere Mr. Obama was muttering an expletive. But give Mr. Biden marks for honesty. As Mr. Obama finishes a week of brutal questioning over his foreign-policy judgments, it's become clear he has learned a lot - and is learning still.

Right now, for instance, he's learning how tough it can be to pivot to a general-election stance on the crucial issue of foreign policy. He's also learning Democrats won't be able to sail through a national-security debate by simply painting John McCain as the second coming of George Bush.

Remember how Mr. Obama got here. In a July debate, the Illinois senator was asked if he'd meet, "without preconditions," the "leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." It was an unexpected question, and Mr. Obama rolled with his gut: "I would," he said, riffing that the Bush administration's policy of not negotiating with terror-sponsoring states was "ridiculous."

Hillary Clinton, who still had the aura of inevitability, and who was already thinking ahead to a general election, wouldn't bite. At that point, any initial misgivings the Obama campaign had about the boss's answer disappeared. Mr. Obama hadn't got much traction differentiating himself from Mrs. Clinton over Iraq, but this was a chance to get to her left, to cast her to liberal primary voters as a warmonger. Which he did, often, committing himself ever more to a policy of unfettered engagement.

Today's Obama, all-but-nominee, is pitching to a broad American audience less keen to legitimize Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who provides weapons that kill American soldiers. The senator clumsily invited this debate when he took great umbrage to President Bush's recent criticism of appeasers (which, in a wonderfully revealing moment, Democrats instantly assumed meant them). Mr. Obama has since been scrambling to neutralize his former statement.

A week ago, in Oregon, he adopted the "no-big-deal" approach, telling listeners Iran was just a "tiny" country that, unlike the Soviet Union, did not "pose a serious threat to us." But this suggested he'd missed that whole asymmetrical warfare debate - not to mention 9/11 - so by the next day, he'd switched to the "blame-Republicans" line. Iran was in fact "the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation" - but all because of President Bush's Iraq war.

This, however, revived questions of why he'd meet with said greatest-threat leader, so his advisers jumped in, this time to float the "misunderstood" balloon. Obama senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, channeling Bill Clinton, said it all depended on what the definition of a "leader" is. "Well, first of all, he said he'd meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn't named who that leader will be." (Turns out, Mr. Obama has said he will meet with . . . Mr. Ahmadinejad.)

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, channeling Ms. Rice, explained it also depended on what the definition of a precondition is: "It's important to emphasize again when we talk about preconditions, we're just saying everything needs to be on the table. I would not say that we would meet unconditionally." This is called being against preconditions before you were for them.

And so it goes, as Mr. Obama shifts and shambles, all the while telling audiences that when voting for president they should look beyond "experience" to "judgment." In this case, whatever his particular judgment on Iran is on any particular day.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats entered this race confident national security wouldn't be the drag on the party it has in the past. With an unpopular war and a rival who supports that war, they planned to wrap Mr. McCain around the unpopular Mr. Bush and be done with it. Mr. Obama is still manfully marching down this road, today spending as much time warning about a "third Bush term" as he does reassuring voters about a first Obama one.

Then again, 9/11 and five years of Iraq debate have educated voters. Mr. McCain is certainly betting they can separate the war from the urgent threat of an Iranian dictator who could possess nukes, and whose legitimization would encourage other rogues in their belligerence. This is a debate the Arizonan has been preparing for all his life and, note, Iranian diplomacy is simply the topic du jour.

Mr. McCain has every intention of running his opponent through the complete foreign-policy gamut. Explain again in what circumstances you'd use nuclear weapons? What was that about invading Pakistan? How does a policy of engaging the world include Mr. Ahmadinejad, but not our ally Colombia and its trade pact?

It explains too the strong desire among the McCain camp to get Mr. Obama on stage for debates soon. There's a feeling Mr. Obama is still climbing the foreign-policy learning curve. And they see mileage in his issuing a few more gut reactions.

Source




Obama's Iraq Problem

Once Barack Obama's appeasement issue completes its turn through the most recent news cycle, the presumptive Democratic nominee will have to face a more worrisome analysis of another aspect of his foreign policy. While he's been blurring the lines between pre-conditions and diplomatic preparations, between terrorists and terrorist sponsors, clarity has come to Iraq. The Maliki government, the citizens of Iraq, and the Iraqi military are resolved to keep their country on track. Barack Obama continues to deny them support in their efforts.

On Tuesday, during a speech in Iowa, Obama said, "The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain's policy too," without so much as a nod to the Iraqi government's and Iraqi military's recent string of achievements. In February, the Iraqi parliament passed three laws, all critical to the future success of statehood: a 2008 budget, a regulation on power-sharing of provincial and local governments, and a partial amnesty of Iraqi prisoners. In March, Prime Minister al-Maliki liberated the southern city of Basra from Sadrists militias thus bringing the country's largest Sunni bloc back into the government. The Iraqi Army is now successfully ridding Bagdhad's Sadr City of more Sadrist thugs and Iraqi-U.S. forces are rooting al Qaeda in Iraq from their last stronghold in the northern city of Mosul.

We already know that the world's candidate has no problem denying American success (Obama has belittled the troop surge since its very inception), but how can the man who speaks incessantly of restoring the U.S.'s global image denigrate the efforts of America's newest-and arguably most critical-ally? How can he continue to mock the fragile hopes of a newborn democracy? How can any American president do so while making friendly overtures toward a neighboring mullocracy?

If Obama thinks there is no cost for shunning allies, he should look at the recent case of Nancy Pelosi. The Speaker of the House slammed the Maliki government in February at the very same time that the Iraqis passed the above-mentioned laws. She called the troop surge "a failure" and resigned herself to the all-is-lost script of 2006. This past weekend, Pelosi met with a cold reception when visiting Iraq to begin her mea culpa. Time magazine reports:

Pelosi is something of a nonentity to average Iraqis. If they know who she is at all, she is generally seen as an antiwar caricature figure, someone whose views on U.S. troop withdrawals are widely considered unrealistic. Pelosi has said she wants to begin withdrawal of troops this year with a goal for the U.S to be out of Iraq by the end of 2009. It is a time frame virtually no Iraqi political leader sees as feasible. Not even Mahdi Army militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiercest advocate of a U.S. withdrawal on the scene, has called for such a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces.

The lack of popularity of Pelosi's views was evident in the fact that her first day on the ground Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not make an effort to see her. Maliki is currently in the northern city of Mosul overseeing a crackdown on insurgent networks there. But the city has been largely quiet in recent days, and there was no obvious pressing reason for the Prime Minister to skip Pelosi's arrival.

Such strained relations with a country so intimately involved with the U.S. is a liability. The problem is Barack Obama continues to espouse the same Iraq plan as Pelosi's. Every time he says "I will bring this war to an end in 2009," Iraqi leaders and citizens have reason to quake.

The U.S. is rightly concerned about Iranian influence in Iraq. Consider the risks of having an American president land in Iraq only to get the Pelosi treatment. No lofty talk about talk is going to assuage the concerns of Iraqis who know their futures depend, at the very least, on the recognition of their country's progress.

Source




Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency's - indeed one of the cold war's - most consequential: "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Kennedy's special assistant, called those sentences "the distinctive note" of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama's campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel's Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America's adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy's legacy: "If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev."

But Kennedy's one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one's adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings - his Harvard thesis was titled "Appeasement at Munich" - he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy's own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: "Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?"

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting "old, moribund, reactionary regimes" and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood "against other peoples following its suit." Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was "very unwise" for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy's aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was "just a disaster." Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed "very inexperienced, even immature." Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak." The Soviet leader left Vienna elated - and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy's assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the "roughest thing in my life." Kennedy went on: "He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him."

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that "a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war." The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to "throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam's pants": nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna - of Kennedy as ineffective - was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy's footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.

Source




More of Obama's strange friends

On May 14 Barack Obama held a private and unpublicized meeting with Imam Hassan Qazwini at Macomb Community College in Michigan.

Qazwini heads the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Debbie Schlussel describes Qazwini as the Hezbollah terror group's foremost agent in America.

Qazwini is very open about his support for Palestinian homicide bombings, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. And he's a good friend of Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah--the man who issued the fatwa to Hezbollah terrorists to murder over 300 U.S. Marines and U.S. Embassy civilians in cold blood. Qazwini's mosque has held rallies and celebrations in support of Hezbollah, and many of Hezbollah's biggest money-launderers and agents in America are his congregants.

When I went undercover to his mosque in 1998, he and others welcomed Nation of Islam chief racist Louis Farrakhan as "our dear brother" and "a freedom fighter." Qazwini applauded Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements saying that Jews were the "forces of Satan" and that there needed to be a "jihad" on the American people.

Obama's meeting with Qazwini was discovered almost by accident. The Detroit Free Press had a short piece on the meeting, which appears to have been sourced by Qazwini's mosque.

Source




Yet another choice Obama associate

An attorney and top foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama is coming under fire for representing controversial figures, including an accused human rights abuser, an alleged murderer of a U.S. soldier and even the would-be assassin of President Ronald Reagan.

Greg Craig, who has been termed the "lawyer of the left," represented John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate Reagan in 1981 by firing six bullets at the president as he left a hotel. Craig was reportedly the architect of Hinckley's successful defense in which he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, even though reports by the federal prosecution found Hinckley sane.

As a partner in the high-powered Washington, D.C., law firm of Williams & Connolly, Craig represented former Bolivian Defense Minister Carlos Sanchez-Berzain in a federal lawsuit of "crimes against humanity" due to his alleged role in the suppression of labor union riots in 2003 that resulted in the deaths of 67 people.

Sanchez-Berzain is loathed in Bolivia for allegedly turning the army loose on protesters in what was described as a brutal massacre of unarmed men, women and children, some of whom were reportedly shot at point-blank range.

Craig currently represents Pedro Miguel Gonzalez-Pinzon, president of the Panamanian National Assembly, who is wanted in the U.S. for the 1992 murder of a U.S. Army soldier and the attempted murder of another.

Gonzalez, a harsh critic of the U.S., is accused of murdering the solider, Zak Hernandez Laporte, on the eve of President George H.W. Bush's visit to Panama in 1992. The FBI is said to have credible evidence proving Gonzalez's guilt. The accusations and Gonzalez's Panamanian government position are a primary reason the U.S. has halted a U.S.-Panama free trade accord.

The American Future Fund this week called on Obama to fire Craig, stating in an ad campaign that someone who "has a history of defending corrupt foreign leaders and murderers" could offer severely misguided advice to the Illinois senator. The AFF launched a YouTube video petitioning for Craig's ouster.

In a January editorial, the Dallas Morning News called on Obama to fire Craig if the attorney doesn't drop the Panamanian as a client: "Mr. Obama has made clear that the White House is no place for influence-peddlers and special interests. ... This is one instance where he needs to show presidential decisiveness by asking Mr. Craig to choose between the campaign and involvement in a legal case where hot-button bilateral issues - and a Senate vote - hang in the balance," read the editorial.

Obama repeatedly has attacked Sen. John McCain for purportedly allowing lobbyists to serve as top advisers.

The Political Punch blog run by ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper noted, "There's a big difference between a lobbyist, who is paid to interact with lawmakers such as Mr. Obama, and a lawyer, who works with the courts. But in this situation, Gonzalez's indictment has complicated passage of the U.S.-Panama Free Trade Agreement."

Craig recently said at a forum that Obama's campaign is aware of his involvement in the Gonzalez case. "I have removed myself from participation in discussions with the candidate or his advisers on relations between the United States and Panama," Craig said. Obama has been on the record stating he opposes any trade act with Panama due to the Gonzalez case.

But Obama has not addressed Craig's defense of other unsavory characters such as Hinckley.

Craig also has represented Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., in the 1991 Palm Beach, Fla., rape case involving the senator and his accused nephew, William Kennedy Smith, who was acquitted of all charges. Craig was an aide to Kennedy in the 1980s.

In 2004, Craig was counsel for then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan during investigations that year of the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Craig, an anti-war protester in the 1960s, also successfully represented Juan Miguel Gonzalez, the Cuban father of Elian Gonzalez during the 2000 child custody dispute that ended in the forcible seizure of Elian by U.S. marshals and the boy's return to Cuba. According to reports, Craig was heavily involved in the decision to seize Elian. The outcome was seen as a major victory for Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Craig is a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. His foreign policy experience includes serving as Sen. Ted Kennedy's senior adviser on defense, foreign policy and national security issues from 1974 to 1988. In 1997, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appointed Craig as a top senior adviser and as director of policy planning.

Craig's embrace of Obama turned some heads due to the attorney's high profile representation of Bill Clinton during impeachment hearings over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. When the Senate refused to convict Clinton on accusations of perjury, Craig was seen as the politician's savior.

But Craig admonished Sen. Hillary Clinton in a March posting on Obama's site: "Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed 'the commander-in-chief test' is simply not supported by her record," he wrote. "[Obama] possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage," Craig argued.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





23 May, 2008

Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

By Michelle Malkin

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch. But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

* Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.

* Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

* Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, South Dakota audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you Sioux City.I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."

* Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

* Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."

* Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

* Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste clean-up: "Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport." I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.

* Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father:" "Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."

* And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us"-cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

Barack Obama-promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah-is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?

Source




McCain on Obama

U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement:

"After Senator Obama's own advisors and supporters backtracked from his stated desire to hold summit meetings with the leaders of the world's worst regimes, Senator Obama himself has begun to reinterpret his stand. He now claims that some 'fear' to 'negotiate' with the likes of Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a 'stinking corpse' or Ayatollah Khamenei, who called Israel a 'cancerous tumor.'

I have news for Senator Obama: I have met some very bad people before in my life. It is not fear that drives my opposition to unconditional meetings with Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, and Raul Castro; rather it is my clear understanding that such a course will fail to eliminate the threat posed by these rogue regimes. I don't fear to negotiate. Instead I have the knowledge and experience to understand the dangerous consequences of a naive approach to Presidential summits based entirely on emotion.

"The question before the American people is which candidate is best able to secure the peace for the next generation of Americans, a peace that will keep our nation safe, prosperous and free. Senator Obama's desire to meet unconditionally in his first year at the presidential level with Iranian leaders is reckless, and demonstrates poor judgment that will make the world more dangerous.

With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros - a 'gesture of good faith' as Senator Obama said yesterday - it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles.

"Senator Obama has consistently offered his judgment on Iraq, and he has been consistently wrong. He said that General Petraeus' new strategy would not reduce sectarian violence, but would worsen it. He was wrong. He said the dynamics in Iraq would not change as a result of the 'surge.' He was wrong. One year ago, he voted to cut off all funds for our forces fighting extremists in Iraq. He was wrong. Sectarian violence has been dramatically reduced, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, and Shi'ite extremist militias no longer control Basra - the Maliki government and its forces do. British and Iraqi forces now move freely in areas that were controlled by Iranian-backed militias. The fight against al Qaeda in Mosul is succeeding in further weakening that deadly terrorist group, and many key leaders have been killed or captured.



As General Petraeus said last month, 'As we combat AQI we must remember that doing so not only reduces a major source of instability in Iraq, it also weakens an organization that Al Qaeda's senior leaders view as a tool to spread its influence and foment regional instability.' Iraqi forces have moved unopposed into Sadr City, a development the New York Times characterized today as a 'dramatic turnaround' as the government of Prime Minister Maliki 'advanced its goal of establishing sovereignty and curtailing the powers of the militias.'

"We continue to face challenges in Iraq, and we have a lot of work ahead. Yet the American people must ask whether we are more or less likely to succeed there if Senator Obama has his way. Each of these positive developments in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed. Senator Obama consistently predicted the new strategy would fail, and at every step events have demonstrated his judgment was consistently wrong.

He now says that he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq - one to two brigades per month until they are all removed - regardless of the conditions in Iraq, irrespective of the consequences for our national security, and despite the best advice of our commanders on the ground. He is wrong again, and the American people deserve a President who has the strength, judgment and experience to keep our country safe and secure."

Source




Obama already reinforcing A'jad in Iran

As predicted by Ed Lasky, Barack Obama's cozying up to summitry with Ahmedinejad of Iran is damaging our efforts to contain him. Only faster than Ed anticipated. Amir Tehari says Obama is already creating a terrible impact with regard to Iran's nuclear program:

BUOYED by their modest electoral success last month, critics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's provocative foreign policy were preparing to launch a series of attacks on him in the Islamic Majlis, Iran's ersatz parliament. But then Ahmadinejad got an unexpected boost from Barack Obama.

Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator and now a Majlis member, was arguing that the Islamic Republic would pay a heavy price for Ahmadinejad's rejection of three UN Security Council resolutions on nukes. Then the likely Democratic presidential nominee stepped in.

Obama announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks with Ahmadinejad: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

"Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. Before starting his unconditional talks, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that Ahmadinejad doesn't like? Or would the new US president act in defiance of the United Nations - further weakening the Security Council's authority?

If Obama can do this harm before he takes office, imagine what kind of presidency he would run.

Source




If We Could Talk to the Animals

by Ann Coulter

You always know you've struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you've said. So I knew President Bush's speech at the Knesset last week was a barn burner before even I read it. Liberals haven't been this worked up since Rev. Jerry Falwell criticized a cartoon sponge. Calling the fight against terrorism "the defining challenge of our time" -- which already confused liberals who think the defining struggle of our time is against Wal-Mart -- Bush said:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The way liberals squealed, you'd think someone had mentioned Obama's ears. Summoning all their womanly anger, today's Neville Chamberlains denounced Bush, saying this was an unjustified attack on Obambi and, furthermore, that it's absurd to compare B. Hussein Obama's willingness to "talk" to Ahmadinejad to Neville Chamberlain's capitulation to Hitler.

Unlike liberals, I will honestly report their point before I attack it. The New York Times editorialized: "Sen. Obama has called for talking with Iran and Syria," but has not "suggested surrendering to these countries' demands, which is, after all, what appeasement is."

"Hardball's" Chris Matthews gloated all week about nailing a conservative talk radio host with this brilliant riposte: "You don't understand there's a difference between talking to the enemy and appeasing. What Neville Chamberlain did wrong ... is not talking to Hitler, but giving him half of Czechoslovakia."

Liberals think all real tyrants ended with Hitler and act as if they would have known all along not to appease him. Next time is always different for people who refuse to learn from history. As Air America's Mark Green said: "Look, Hitler was Hitler." (Which, I admit, threw me for a loop: I thought Air America's position is that Bush is Hitler.)

This is nonsense. Ahmadinejad looks a lot like Hitler did when Chamberlain agreed to meet with him at Munich, except that Hitler didn't buy his suits from ratty thrift shops. Much of England reacted just as today's Democrats would because, like today's Democrats, they feared nothing more than another war. (Lloyd George lied, kids died!) Lots of Britons cheered when Chamberlain returned from Munich and announced "peace in our time." Without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, what on earth makes Chris Matthews think he would not be among them?

As Bush said at the Knesset, "There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words." That was Chamberlain. And that is today's Democratic Party.

What Matthews and the Times are saying is this: We can have a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was. Therein lies the flaw in their logic. Yes, in the abstract, it is technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia (or in today's case, Iraq or Israel). But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler like Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing over Czechoslovakia or Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a relatively brief chat. Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a lot of Britons then, like a lot of Americans today, refused to see that blindingly obvious point.

Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides."

President Bush described such people perfectly with his reference to Sen. William Edgar Borah, the one who said World War II could have been avoided if only he could have talked to Hitler. Liberals refuse to learn from history because they put their hands over their ears and tell themselves over and over again: "Hitler was different."

Source




Linda Douglass Joins Obama

By Byron York

Marc Ambinder reports the National Journal's Linda Douglass, the former CBS and ABC News correspondent, is joining the Obama campaign as a senior strategist and spokeswoman. Ben Smith suggests that "the Clinton campaign - and Fox News - is going to have a field day with this."

At the risk of having a field day myself, Douglass' move brings to mind a story I did about her for the American Spectator back in 1998. (Not available on the web, as far as I know.) It seems she sometimes found it difficult to draw the line between reporter and source back then:

On March 14, 1994, the CBS Evening News began with word of a big shake- up in the Clinton administration. "Another high-ranking member of the Clinton team was pulled down tonight in the spreading undertow of Whitewater," anchorwoman Connie Chung announced. "The latest to resign: Webster Hubbell, a high-ranking official at the Justice Department with close ties to the president and Mrs. Clinton." Chung tossed to correspondent Rita Braver, who reported the story from Detroit, where President Clinton was attending a jobs conference; then to Bob Schieffer, who covered reaction on Capitol Hill, and finally to Linda Douglass, who was traveling with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in Colorado.

Douglass reported that Mrs. Clinton was trying to keep the focus on her health care initiative-and away from Whitewater. But she wasn't having much luck; everywhere she turned, journalists seemed more interested in her role in the Arkansas land deal. The experience was clearly troubling for the first lady, Douglass reported, and Douglass herself seemed almost saddened by the turn of events in Washington. She concluded her report on a faintly elegiac note: "This was a difficult day for Mrs. Clinton as she watched another close friend, Webster Hubbell, forced from public life," Douglass said. "She had urged him and other friends to join her to serve in Washington; yet despite her power, she's had to watch some of them fall and has been unable to protect them. Linda Douglass, CBS News, Denver."

What CBS viewers could not have known was that Webb Hubbell- who later pleaded guilty to stealing $400,000 from his old law firm and cheating on his taxes-was not just the first lady's friend. He was also a friend of Linda Douglass. From the earliest days of the Clinton administration, Douglass and her husband, an influential public interest lawyer named John Phillips, socialized often with Hubbell and his wife Suzy. Within weeks of Hubbell's resignation, Phillips put together a deal by which a California non-profit group paid Hubbell $45,000 to write a series of articles on the idea of public service. Later, Phillips and Douglass picked up much of the tab when they and the Hubbells flew to Greece for a ten-day vacation cruising the Aegean Sea. They stayed in touch after Hubbell pleaded guilty-and even after Hubbell went to prison..

Douglass says she told network management about the friendship and recused herself from covering matters involving Hubbell (as she had done earlier with respect to her friend Mickey Kantor). "I am absolutely scrupulous on this issue," Douglass says. "I pride myself on taking great care to try to avoid those situations." Once she became close to Hubbell, Douglass says, "I certainly never covered anything having to do with Webb, never covered anything having to do with his problems. I recused myself from that whole story."

Source




Stockmarkets Don't Like Obama

One of the things we've learned during the Democratic primary battle is that Hillary's victories are bullish for stocks and Obama's wins are bearish.

The clearest example was Hillary's massive West Virginia victory. Stocks opened strong the following day. But after Obama's big North Carolina win, a night he nearly carried Indiana, stocks opened way down.

Even though Hillary clocked Obama in Kentucky, since Obama took Oregon convincingly, he really carried last night's elections and now stands on the verge of gaining the Democratic nomination. Not surprisingly, stocks opened down 80 points this morning.

Markets don't like Obama. If he wins alongside Democratic gains in the House and Senate, taxes are going up big time. This is especially true for the capital-gains tax, which is the single most important levy on assets of all kind, including stocks. (One wonders if Obama's cap-gains tax hike will apply to housing, which obviously is in no need of higher taxes right now.)

Then there was Obama's Des Moines, Iowa, speech last evening. Lots of class warfare: "The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans that once bothered Sen. McCain's conscience are now his only economic policy." Obama went on, "Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth . . . a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of corporations that ship them overseas." Obama then repeated his usual litany: big-government health care, an attack on oil companies, a big spending plan for education, big bailouts for housing, and a pension assault on corporations.

This idea of rewarding work instead of wealth is just insane. Capital needs labor and labor needs capital. You can't create a new job without a thriving business. But if corporate and investment taxes are going up, how will these businesses be funded? And attacking corporations that work partly overseas is pure protectionism and isolationism. It's as bad as Obama's antipathy towards trade deals with South Korea and Colombia, as well as his Carter-like diplomatic initiatives toward Iran and other rogue states.

The stock market is a barometer of the economic health of the nation. It doesn't like these Obama statements one bit. It sees the handwriting on the wall: an attack on investors, an attack on capital, an attack on business, and an attack on trade. Most of all, higher taxes are anathema to the equity markets.

Interestingly, stocks have preferred Hillary in the Democratic fight a) because she was roughing up Obama for the general-election fight against McCain and b) because markets believe they can do business with Hillary in a way they can't with Obama.

Last night's results position Obama on the very edge of the nomination. The Intrade betting-parlor prediction markets give Obama a very strong chance of winning in November. Coupled with expected Democratic gains in Congress, we're looking at anti-growth policies that could do great damage to the stock market and the economy.

Of course, I am not counting John McCain out. He's got some important openings that could carry him to the White House. But right now I'm not surprised the stock market is going through a downward correction after the big run-up that followed the McCain surge and the Fed rescue of the banking system.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





22 May, 2008

The farm bill disgrace

Excerpt from DAVID BROOKS at the NYT, pointing out that it wasn't Obama who defied the old corrupt Washington system; It was McCain. Once again we see the paradox that McCain actually is what Obama falsely claims to be

Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest. The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk.

My colleagues on The Times's editorial page called the bill "disgraceful." My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal's editorial page ripped it as a "scam." Yet such is the logic of collective action; the bill is certain to become law. It passed with 81 votes in the Senate and 318 in the House - enough to override President Bush's coming veto. Nearly everyone in Congress got something. The question amid this supposed change election is: Who is going to end this sort of thing?

Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries. Obama's support may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.

If elected, Obama's main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he's going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can't do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?

John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: "It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it." McCain has been in Congress for decades, but he has remained a national rather than a parochial politician. The main axis in his mind is not between Republican and Democrat. It's between narrow interest and patriotic service. And so it is characteristic that he would oppose a bill that benefits the particular at the expense of the general.

In fact, in this issue, McCain may have found a theme to unify his so far scattershot campaign. He has always been an awkward ideological warrior. In any case, this year may not be the best year for Republicans to launch a right versus left crusade. But McCain has infinitely better grounds than Obama to run as a do-what-it-takes reformer. He has a long record of taking on not only the other party, but his own. In the current Weekly Standard, the brilliant young writer Yuval Levin suggests that McCain put reforming America's decrepit governing institutions at the center of his presidential race. Levin points out that the health care system, the immigration system, the regulatory system and the entitlement system all need reforms. Instead of talking about personal honor or perpetual tax cuts, McCain should focus relentlessly on modernization. In fact, Monday in Chicago, McCain declared: "In all my reforms, the goal is not to denigrate government but to make it better, not to deride government but to restore its good name."

Obama, sad to say, failed the farm bill test. McCain may have found a theme for a nation that has lost faith in its own institutions.

Source




52 Seconds of Obama Unilaterally Disarming America

In 52 seconds, he rattles off what an Obama presidency would mean for our national defense; slowing down of existing programs to build new weapons, cutting "tens of billions" of dollars in "wasteful" spending, scrapping missile defense completely, and setting up an "independent defense priority review board" (you can imagine the anti-defense liberals sitting on that board) to make sure we don't waste any money building "unnecessary" weapons.

That's not all. Obama wishes upon a star for a "nuclear free world" and to that end, he will not allow any new designs for nukes nor will be build any new ones. He wants to talk to the Russians about re-targeting our missiles and "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenal.

This is dangerous and stupid. Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term (but it looks good politically because of the money saved up front). He calls the anti-missile system "unproven" - and thank God for that because the only way to "prove" that it works is to shoot down an incoming missile. Recent successes have been incredible - shooting down a target traveling at Mach 7 is no simple matter. And almost every test shows improvement. Why scrap the system now after spending tens of billions of dollars and when we are close to success? Lunacy!

I shudder when I think his 1960's style liberal friends have a go at the defense budget. Considering the fact they don't think we face any threats, we'll be lucky to keep the Army band.

Then there's his pie in the sky notion of a nuclear free world. Everyone wishes for that. Heck, I wish that the moon was made of Velveeta cheese but wishing will never make it so. And somehow, I just can't picture him and Putin on the same page about much of anything. Obama, the charmer, the ideologue and Putin, the aggressive, canny, ruthless autocrat. Maybe we can convince a grown up to hold his hand during those negotiations.

In effect, Obama wants to gut the military to make sure we never go to war again. He has said as much on the campaign trail. And if a time ever comes, God forbid, where we would find it necessary to project our power to the far flung corners of the earth in order to protect Americans or American interests under an Obama presidency, I fear the military would be forced to tell him that it wouldn't be possible.

Obama is McGovern, Carter, and John Kerry all rolled into one when it comes to maintaining and improving our defenses. He would be a disaster as president and this video shows very clearly why

Source




The uncool Obama

Based on Barack Obama's hysterical, paranoid reaction to President Bush's remarks to the Israeli Knesset condemning the practice of appeasing terrorists, one might infer Obama was lying in wait for just such an opportunity to capture some national security street cred. After all, Democrats begin any presidential race with a national security credibility deficit, and this one should be no different, notwithstanding the unpopularity of the Iraq war. Democrats like to think they gained congressional seats in 2006 because of the war, but a better read is that Republicans did themselves in through reckless spending, scandals and other abandonment of conservative principles.

Despite his puffed-up posturing, Obama probably recognizes this, as well. Otherwise, why would he have lashed out so nastily at both Mr. Bush (and Sen. McCain) for assuring our closest Middle Eastern ally that we would stand by it? Obama was so sure Bush's remarks were aimed at him that he shed his nice-guy facade and gave the nation a little glimpse of his inner anger. For those who insist Obama is all sweet and light, I challenge you to listen to his tantrums in response to the president's non-attack. Obama shouted: "I'm a strong believer in bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days. They aren't telling you the truth."

Let me ask you: Where does Barack Obama get off proclaiming himself the high arbiter of civility and bipartisanship while he is engaged in a sputtering tirade of abject incivility and partisanship? Obama apparently expects us to assess his civility not on the basis of his conduct, but solely on the strength of his distorted self-description.

Like so many other liberals, Obama exempts himself from behavioral accountability through identification with liberal policies, which confer upon him the irrebuttable presumption that he is kind and compassionate. But those not subject to the self-deluding spell of liberalism or Obamaphilia will not be fooled by such hypocrisy. They will judge Obama's claim to civility not on his self-elevating but empty words, but on his self-damning, nasty ones.

Obama's joining with other Democrats to bear false witness against President Bush is a perfect example of the type of incivility for which he disingenuously excoriates President. Obama also decried the president's remarks as "exactly the kind of appalling attack that's divided our country and alienated us from the rest of the world." No, Sen. Obama, what have divided this country and alienated us from the rest of the world are the nonstop Democratic assaults against President Bush -- assaults that you not only did not condemn as uncivil, dishonest and divisive but also have embraced and echoed.

What has placed America in a falsely negative light to the world is the Democratic chorus of lies that President Bush misled us into war in Iraq; that he is responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians; that the United States is torturing and otherwise violating the "rights" of our enemy prisoners at Guantanamo Bay; that this very detention center is comparable to a Soviet Gulag or Nazi prison camp; that the Bush government is spying on its own citizens; that America, because of its corporate greed, refuses to lead the world against apocalyptic global warming; and that the heartland of America is inhabited by jingoistic, imperialistic, intolerant, homophobic, xenophobic, racist and reality-challenged Bible-thumpers.

President Bush is not guilty of leveling a partisan attack against Barack Obama in Israel. But if he were to change course after seven long years on the receiving end and start returning cheap shots at Democrats, say, at the rate of 10 per day for the remainder of his term, he still would be behind Democrats in this department by a sizeable multiple. Truly, it amazes me how civil, composed and un-reciprocal President Bush has been in the face of this incessant barrage of partisan vitriol.

Shame on Barack Obama for falsely accusing the president of behavior he and his party have perfected through meticulous practice. Shame on him for pretending that he offers bipartisanship when his actual record is one of extreme liberalism and is strikingly bereft of aisle crossing or compromise. Shame on him for defining bipartisanship and civility, in effect, as acquiescing to his dictates.

Obama likens his own foreign policy approach to that of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan, but reality places him closer to George McGovern or Michael Dukakis. But there is a method to his madness. He has assumed the offense against his Republican rivals to divert our attention from his demonstrable lack of toughness in the war on terror.

Source




Obama To Meet With A Leader To Be Named Later

Oh, for heaven's sake - now the Obama people want to pretend that Obama's pledge to meet, without preconditions, with the leader of Iran didn't actually represent a pledge to meet with its current President. Joe Klein of TIME wants to ride this pony right into the barn - go, Joe! Their gist - Ayatollah Khamenei, not President Ahmadinejad, is the "Supreme Leader" of Iran.... Well, if Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is the go-to guy, I suppose it is fair to ask whether he is also noxious. Let's ponder this quote reported in Dec 2000:

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Friday for the destruction of Israel, describing it as a "cancerous tumor" in the Middle East. "Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran. "The Palestinian issue is not an internal Israeli matter. It involves the interests of the whole Islamic world, including Iran. All should strive to return that piece of land to Islamic hands."

Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable": "Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews. "No one will allow a bunch of thugs, lechers and outcasts from London, America and Moscow to rule over the Palestinians," the ayatollah said in remarks broadcast on state radio.

And can we find a bit of Zionist conspiracy-mongering from Iran's latest leader? Yes We Can!

"Today, I can clearly see that there are certain hands at work to create rifts and schisms between the Shia and the Sunni. The Zionists and arrogant powers are definitely involved in the bloody incidents and explosions taking place during congregational prayers at the mosques and Friday prayer grounds. Muslims have nothing to do with the incidents taking place in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries."

I should add that the footnote claims that is from a June 2005 speech but the link now fails and Google is not delivering other references to the phrase. That said, here is a conciliatory bit from Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei that everyone attributes to Wikipedia; the source is this Guardian article, with no cite at all:

Finally, Ahmadinejad's own call for regime change in Israel - "the occupying Zionist regime of Jerusalem should cease to exist in the page of time" - has been mistranslated and distorted into the notorious phrase, "Israel should be wiped off the map" by the western media. What is never reported is that Ayatollah Khamenei stated unequivocally immediately afterwards that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country".

As to who's on first in Iran, President Ahmadinejad took the lead in 2007 when the British sailors were seized (Joe Klein's comical assertion that Ahmadinejad "has no power over Iranian foreign policy" notwithstanding), spoke at the UN, and came to Columbia, so he is the person one might reasonably expect to meet with an American President.

Regardless, it is absurd that Obama is making these bold promises with no apparent forethought; imagine if, as President, he had made a similar "no preconditions" pledge to meet with the leaders of Iran, Ahmadinejad tried to take him up on it, and Obama then explained that Ahmadinejad was not actuallly the leader he had in mind. Faux pas.

Source




Obama's vulnerable on national security

Barack Obama says the United States should not negotiate with Hamas "unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords" that Israel reached with neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians. Which of those objections does not apply to Iran? The Democratic presidential candidate has said he's willing to meet, "without precondition," with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The difference between Iran and Hamas, Obama says, is that Iran is a country and Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's also true that the State Department describes Iran as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," a provider of "extensive funding, training and weapons" to Hamas, Hezbollah and other groups, and an opponent of the Middle East peace process with "a high profile role in encouraging anti-Israel terrorist activity -- rhetorically, operationally and financially."

Obama further muddied the waters last week when he told David Brooks of the New York Times that Hamas and Hezbollah need to understand "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." What would be the "legitimate claims" of Hamas, an organization founded for the purpose of the destruction of Israel? What are the "legitimate claims" of Hezbollah, also dedicated to the death of Israel, as well as serving as the agent of Iran and Syria in trying to kill democracy in Lebanon?

Obama has asserted unequivocal backing for Israel. But his "legitimate claims" remark gives you pause, making you wonder a bit about his worldview. Would the "legitimate claims" of Hamas be on the table in "no precondition" talks with Iran? National security has been a weakness for Democratic presidential candidates and doubly so for Obama because of his inexperience. Only four years ago he was an Illinois legislator.

That vulnerability explains the touchy reaction from Obama and his supporters to President Bush's speech in Israel likening negotiations with "terrorists and radicals" to the 1930s appeasement of the Nazis. Obama's defenders immediately jumped to argue that the problem with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain wasn't that he talked with Hitler, but what he did in those meetings.

The problem is a little more complicated than that. Chamberlain entered those talks without the simple precondition that the integrity of Czechoslovakia was not negotiable. Besides leading to the sellout of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain's flying to Munich to talk to Hitler undermined the fragile German opposition to Hitler. Military leaders, convinced his intention to go to war over the Sudeten issue would lead to defeat, plotted to overthrow Hitler.

William L. Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is scathing in condemning the generals for failing to depose Hitler, but he wrote, "If, as the conspirators claim, their plans were on the point of being carried out, the announcement of Chamberlain's trip to Munich certainly cut the ground from underneath their feet." He added "such a golden opportunity never again presented itself to the German opposition to dispose of Hitler."

Presidential meetings carry consequences, for good and ill. Leaders are subject to misjudgment and miscalculation. Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev saw John Kennedy as weak after the Bay of Pigs fiasco and left a 1961 summit over Berlin with his belief about the young president confirmed. According to the New York Times, "Kennedy naively thought he could make a breakthrough with face-to-face talks." Two months later, the Berlin Wall went up. The next year, Khrushchev moved to put missiles in Cuba. He was wrong about Kennedy, but it took the Cuban missile crisis to convince him. This is not an argument against summits, only a cautionary tale of how they can go wrong.

The issue here is not whether America should at some diplomatic level engage rogue nations like Iran. The issue is whether a president should hold talks without preconditions with the world's worst despots.

Source




Barry honey, can we talk?

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Senator Obama, I think it might be time for you to do a bit of adjustment on that attitude of yours. Time to ditch some of that peevish audacity and pick up an ounce of humility. For one thing, you might want to remember that when you're out on the campaign trail, the professional female reporters are not your little maidservants, nor your girlfriends, not even your adoring groupies. And they don't fetch your coffee or even want your autograph. Calling them, "sweetie," as you condescendingly brush off their legitimate questions is starting to cause voters concern that you are somewhat uncouth without your programmed teleprompter.

But since you adopted an informal tone when speaking to members of the fairer sex, I will return the favor here, and call you Barry honey, as if we were talking across the counter of a diner in my own South.

As a lawyer, you must know that if you had called this woman, "sweetie," in the workplace, you could have been on the receiving end of a sexual harassment charge, the kind of the thing you liberals seem to love in theory but can't seem to live up to in practice. Bill Clinton is the model for this unseemly Democrat trait, but he is probably not the kind of man that someone like you, trying to pass himself off as an unblemished new kind of candidate, would want to emulate.

And, Barry honey, these lordly asides of yours might work for the little tyrant calling himself the president of Iran, and other narcissistic dictators like Chavez and Castro, but it would seem wise for you to start remembering that you are attempting to get yourself democratically elected as the President of the United States of America. And we Americans prefer our Presidents to be quite a bit more egalitarian.

They did teach you that word, "egalitarian," at Columbia and Harvard, did they not? Our all-are-created-equal "thing" in the U.S. Constitution is something we bitter folks in mainstream America cling to -- like we do our religion and our guns. But you ought to know that. You are, after all, a constitutional lawyer, are you not?

And, Barry honey, you ought not to assume that just because you send tingles up the leg of Chris Matthews, you do the same to every female. A few of us are actually immune to what you apparently deem your universal sexual appeal. David Axelrod, confirmed this mysterious allure of yours, with numerous focus groups of white women before unleashing you upon the campaign trail. But it does come across as quite conceited, arrogant, narcissistic and impervious when you automatically assume that every woman in the entire world equally shares this mystical attraction.

Barry honey, take a word of caution from this wiser, older woman: Untamed conceit puts a gaping dent in the armor of any would-be Lancelot.

Thinking you are God's gift to women will get you nowhere fast with those of us smart enough to see through your perfectly polished, wearing-thinner-by-the-day veneer.

Which, Barry honey, brings us to the matter of your wife. It has come to my attention that you have taken grave umbrage at the words of your wife, Michelle, being used in political ads. I believe I read that you sent a message, via network television, that you expect Republicans to "lay off" your wife, and that you consider using her campaign speeches in ads reflecting badly on you to be "unacceptable" and downright "low class."

Barry honey, at the risk of seeming picayune here, I would like to remind you that your wife has, for months now, been speaking in public as your other half, your surrogate, your marriage partner, your equal in every single way. Much has even been made of her own professional cred. Michelle may dress and style her hair like Jackie, but she certainly has not been the quiet, unobtrusive helpmate staying in the shadows while you, her husband, take to campaigning. And she is a lawyer herself, is she not?

So, as a simple matter of common sense, we Americans would have expected you to ensconce your little woman safely on the home front, if she is too squeamish to handle the scrutiny we necessarily give to our candidates for the highest office in the Land.

Which brings us to the matter of the current ongoing job interview for the Presidency. You seem, Barry honey, to be of the opinion that you, the interviewee, set the guidelines and behavioral rules for the interview. We, the voters, should not need to remind you that we are the interviewers, and we, not you, make the rules. We are not your doting grandparents, willing to look the other way while you dabbled in drugs and who knows what else. You, Barry honey, are not the object of undying adoration of all of us. Probably not even of a majority, though you are able to draw quite a crowd in towns like Madison and Portland.

And we are not your mommy either. As you poignantly revealed in your memoir, you felt that you were one of your mother's "social experiments," a real personal encounter with a racially mixed, more perfect society. It must feel horrible to be used in such a callous fashion, and I feel great empathy for the boy forced to endure it. But, Barry honey, it's time to grow up now and fully understand that the Presidency is much too big, much too harrowing and far too dangerous to us all to be conducting social experiments. We, the guardians of this great Nation, are duly charged with taking responsibility for the person who largely guides our own fates and those in dependent countries around the world. This is not something to be taken lightly or even with too much audacity. Seeking the Presidency of the United States of America requires a great deal more humility than audacity.

So, Barry honey, if you think now that you and your wife, Michelle, are not up to withstanding the harsh glare and critical nature of this interview, we will certainly understand if you decide that it's in the best interests of America and the world for you to withdraw from our consideration. We will understand and we will not fault you for brashly jumping the gun a bit when you made the monumental decision to place your hat in this awesome ring. At the end of the day, Barry honey, we Americans tend to save electing geniality and social-experiment presidents for peacetime. In times of war, we generally go with the one who garners our respect.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





21 May, 2008

Obama and the Jews

Does he really believe he understands Israel better than Israelis themselves? Even if he is sincerely pro-Israel, his overall policies bode ill for Israel

America's Jews account for a mere 2% of the U.S. population. But they have voted the Democratic ticket by margins averaging 78% over the past four election cycles, and their votes are potentially decisive in swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania. They also contribute an estimated half of all donations given to national Democratic candidates. So whatever his actual convictions, it is a matter of ordinary political prudence that Barack Obama "get right with the Jews." Since Jews tend to be about as liberal as the Illinois senator on most domestic issues, what this really means is that he get right with Israel.

And so he has. Over his campaign's port side have gone pastor Jeremiah Wright ("Every time you say 'Israel' Negroes get awfully quiet on you because they [sic] scared: Don't be scared; don't be scared"); former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski ("I think what the Israelis are doing today [2006] for example in Lebanon is in effect - maybe not in intent - the killing of hostages"); and former Clinton administration diplomat Robert Malley (an advocate and practitioner of talks with Hamas).

The campaign has also managed to clarify, or perhaps retool, Mr. Obama's much-quoted line that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." What the senator was actually saying, he now tells us, is that "nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region." Still more forthrightly, Mr. Obama recently told the Atlantic Monthly that "the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience."

I can think of no good reason to doubt the sincerity of Mr. Obama's comments. Nor, from the standpoint of American Jewry, is there anything to be gained from doing so: The fastest way to turn whatever dark suspicions Jews may have of Mr. Obama into a self-fulfilling prophecy is to spurn his attempts at outreach.

Yet the significant question isn't whether Mr. Obama is "pro-Israel," in the sense that his heart is in the right place and he isn't quite Jimmy Carter. What matters is whether his vision for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East - and the broader world view that informs it - will have ancillary effects favorable to Israel's core interests. Take Hamas and Hezbollah, which pose the nearest threats to Israel's security. Mr. Obama has insisted he opposes negotiating with Hamas "until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements." He also calls Hezbollah a "destabilizing organization."

But if Mr. Obama's litmus test for his choice of negotiating partners is their recognition of Israel and their renunciation of terrorism, then what is the sense in negotiating without preconditions with Iran and Syria? Alternatively, if the problem with Hamas and Hezbollah is that neither holds the reins of government, what happens when they actually do? Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006; Hezbollah sits in the Lebanese cabinet. Would Mr. Obama be willing to parley if, in the course of his administration, either group should come to power?

Or take Iran, which Israelis universally see as their deadliest enemy. Yes, there are arguments to be made in favor of presidential-level negotiations between Washington and Tehran - perhaps as a last-ditch effort to avert military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. But does anyone seriously think Mr. Obama would authorize such strikes?

Instead, Mr. Obama says he favors "tough diplomacy," including tighter sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Last fall, however, he was one of only 22 senators to oppose a Senate resolution calling for the IRGC to be designated as a terrorist organization, a vote that made him a dove even within the Democratic Party. Mr. Obama argued at the time the amendment would give the administration a pretext to go to war with Iran. It was an odd claim for a nonbinding resolution.

Or take Iraq. Israelis are now of two minds as to the wisdom of the invasion of Iraq, mainly because they fear it has weakened America's hand vis-a-vis Iran. Maybe. But is it so clear that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq wouldn't further strengthen Iran's hand, and consolidate the so-called Shiite crescent stretching from southern Iraq to the hills overlooking northern Israel?

Finally, there is Israel itself. In the Atlantic interview, Mr. Obama declared that "my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth," particularly in respect to the settlements. Yes, there are mirrors that need to be held up to those settlements, as there are to those Palestinians whose terrorism makes their dismantlement so problematic. Perhaps there is also a mirror to be held up to an American foreign-policy neophyte whose amazing conceit is that he understands Israel's dilemmas better than Israelis themselves.

Source




Lieberman on Obama

Via Taranto

Last night found us at the annual dinner of the Commentary Fund, publisher of Commentary magazine (proud member of the OpinionJournal Federation), where Sen. Joe Lieberman delivered the Norman Podhoretz Lecture. Truth be told, it was more campaign speech than lecture. It was dramatic because Lieberman, a senior Democrat, was speaking on behalf of John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee.

Most interestingly, Lieberman was very tough on his own party's likely nominee, Barack Obama. (As far as we remember, he did not mention, or even allude to, Obama rival Hillary Clinton.) Lieberman noted that unlike McCain, and despite Obama's "unity" rhetoric, Obama has no significant record of working across party lines in the Senate.

He described Obama as McGovernlike, a comparison at least one backer of the Illinois Democrat, Rep. Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. of California, has also endorsed: "I think he has captured the imagination of the American public, I think he's responsible for bringing millions of new voters, new Democrats into the party, and I haven't seen that kind of movement among young voters since I first ran and saw McGovern do the same thing in 1972," Stark told the Oakland Tribune last week.

Lieberman cited at length a 1999 National Review article by Norman Podhoretz, in which Podhoretz credited President Clinton with saving Democrats from McGovernism. "I think the Democrats have been pretty thoroughly purged of the McGovernite spirit," Podhoretz wrote. "It pains to me [sic] to admit this, but I would estimate that there is now more isolationist sentiment in Republican than in Democratic ranks." Lieberman argued that in many ways, the 2000 ticket of which he was a part was more hawkish than its Republican counterpart.

Since then--really, since the end of 2002--the Democrats have turned hard to the left on foreign policy, with Lieberman a rare dissenting voice. The Connecticut senator praised President Bush for his Knesset speech last week, and said that Bush's criticism of those who advocate appeasement applies to Obama, whether the president meant it to or not.

In his most devastating criticism, Lieberman noted that Obama favors talks without preconditions with anti-American dictators in North Korea, Venezuela and Iran, while taking an antagonistic approach toward democratic allies in South Korea, Colombia and Iraq, opposing trade deals with the first two and threatening to withdraw U.S. military support from the last.



It's reminiscent of John Kerry, the Democrats' 2004 nominee, who traipsed about the country denouncing America's allies as a "coalition of the bribed and the coerced" while promising to subject American foreign policy to a "global test."




The Obama-Ahmedinejad Summit

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct, presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." - Barackobama.com

[Since when was ANY diplomacy "tough". It's deeds that are tough]

Barack Obama has enshrined the principle of unconditional summitry with Iran as one of the central foreign policy planks of his campaign for President. This despite recent efforts by Obama surrogates to confuse the electorate.

The statement above is found on the campaign website of Senator Obama and reflects his view -- repeated a number of times by himself in debates and question and answer sessions -- that the thrust of his foreign policy will be personal Presidential engagement with tyrannical regimes across the globe, including Hugo Chavez in Cuba or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. But the focus clearly will be on Iran as the campaign moves along. Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror and is developing the means to construct nuclear weapons.

What would be the consequences of such a Presidential meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad? Michael Gerson has written eloquently about the moral stain that will color the mere act of meeting with a Holocaust denier who boasts of his yearning to repeat the effort to exterminate the Jews. Obama, a man who on the campaign trail has declared that "nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have," will be extending the honor of a Presidential meeting to the most dangerous anti-Semite of all. For what benefit? As Gerson wrote,

"having made Iranian talks without precondition: his major foreign policy goal, Obama is left with little leverage to extract concessions, and little choice to move forward"

There will inevitably be pressure to offer concessions to Ahmadinejad to help ensure a successful summit. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, who will bear the burden? Who will pay the price?

Ahmadinejad has been crystal clear about his goals. He is fanatic towards Jews and toward Israel -- a type of obsession the world has witnessed before. Israel will certainly be on the agenda of any presidential meeting.* Obama would meet and perhaps even shake hands with a man who has repeatedly condemned Israel, has called it "filthy bacteria" and will hear the ritual denunciations of Israel. Perhaps, he has become inured to such bombast. He has heard it all before.

When a summit meeting occurs, there is considerable pressure to "accomplish" something, to come to an agreement. What exactly would a President Obama be willing to give to Iran in order to get back something that could be touted as an achievement of his summitry? The boost a summit (even one that led to no agreements) would give to the image of Ahmadinejad would embolden him within Iran (he faces internal pressures that directly blame him for Iran's diplomatic problems) and without. Furthermore, reformers throughout the region will be demoralized and our relations with Sunni nations,including Saudi Arabia, will be damaged as these Sunni regimes also seek to accommodate Iran.

More significant will be the impact on the one group in the region that has warm feelings toward America: the Iranian people themselves. There is a huge Baby Boom generation that is restive and angry towards the regime. As a consequence of pro-natalist policies formulated in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War, there was a surge in births in Iran. Two-thirds of Iranians are now estimated to be under the age of 30; and, significantly, only 40 percent of them are ethnically Persian. They resent the regime.

Iranians are also heirs to a culture that was historically very cosmopolitan and proud of its sophistication and openness to the outside world. Already many Iranians complain of Ahmadinejad's policies that have led to global isolation In a poll taken by the regime itself, one half (and this is probably understated because the regime was running the poll) affirmed that Washington's attitude towards Iran are "to some extent" correct. As much as they abhor the regime, they also have the most positive feelings towards America of any population in the region.

There is an old Middle Eastern aphorism: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. If Obama meets with Ahmadinejad, it will be a sign to Iranians that the world is willing to accept and to respect their regime. The reservoir of goodwill -- the hope for the future as this bulge of youth moves forward -- will be drained. They will feel the sting of defeat -- a betrayal they can lay at the feet of President Obama and America.

But what will be the reaction of the rest of the world? The consequences have already been presaged by the world's reaction to the release of the deeply flawed National Intelligence Estimate late last year. When the NIE was released, it infamously stated, "in the fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program". The report was immediately criticized across the political spectrum in America and by foreign leaders among our allies in Europe. Notably, Barack Obama endorsed the conclusions of the NIE and has continued to do so despite its revision a few months later. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline noted the irony of his accepting the validity of the earlier intelligence findings because they conform to his political plans and rejecting later revisions because they would challenge his views and plans. Nevertheless, the mere release of the report, with its imprimatur of government approval, had a disastrous effect on efforts to restrain Iran.

Over the last few years America, working with our allies and with the United Nations, assiduously (if all too slowly) has worked to impose a sanctions regime against Iran. While the breadth and strength of the sanctions have not been what many would have wanted -- and their enforcement has been spotty -- the release of the NIE all but squashed any efforts to move forward with a tougher set of sanctions. Nations rushed with an unseemly alacrity to reach deals with Iran. Russia resumed nuclear cooperation on the Busher nuclear reactor in Iran. China stepped up its opposition to further sanctions. And European nations slid back toward apathy to Iran's threat. The sanctions regime had lost its rationale and has all but collapsed.

The conclusions of the report have been all but repudiated and certainly have been superseded by Iran's success in enriching uranium and developing ballistic missiles. Yet all forward momentum toward further sanctions against Iran has halted. The NIE gave all parties who opposed the sanctions -- business interests, Russian oligarchs in charge of their nuclear export program, Chinese leaders eager to extend their influence -- a reason to oppose further efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program.

But the world's powers until now have diplomatically isolated the regime. Other world leaders have refrained from meeting with a leader who has continually issued a string of odious statements such as "Israel will be wiped off the map" and "Israel is a stinking corpse" and who denies the Holocaust.

A meeting between President Obama and President Ahmadinejad would trigger a parade of other foreign leaders to Tehran. They are merely waiting for a pretext, an excuse, that would absolve them from the shame of meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Our strongest allies in Europe, Angela Merkel in Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Gordon Brown in England, face internal pressures to engage in Iran from commercial interests and political and diplomatic figures within their nations. Until now they have courageously resisted this pressure. No leader wants to bear the burden, the odium, the shame, of being the first Western leader to grant respectability to Ahmadinejad. Diplomatic pressure from America has provided them with another reason to deny such a bestowal of prestige upon Ahmadinejad. President Obama would radically change these policies.

When other high profile political leaders will come a calling, they may not bear the bowler of Neville Chamberlain, but they will bring hats in hand, newly ready and able to strengthen diplomatic (and hence all) ties to the mullahcracy. Under the cover of diplomatic outreach, sanction-busting deals will naturally follow. European nations are eager for energy deals that will provide the wherewithal for Iran to step up its nuclear weapons program.

Indeed, just this past week, OMV, an Austrian energy company with a multibillion dollar deal with the tyrants of Tehran, gave us a glimpse into the future. The chief executive officer of the company has openly declared that a political change in America -- one that he apparently believes in and hopes for -- will make it far easier to transact deals with Iran. Most assuredly he is not referring to John McCain.

If President Obama believes in the value of such meetings, perhaps he will be bold enough to meet with Iranian dissidents and reformers, to use the prestige of his office and that of America (remember Iranians admire America) to help them and not their oppressors. President Reagan -- whom Barack Obama professes to admire -- offered such support to Soviet dissidents. So far, Barack Obama has not shown any signs that he is willing to do so.

Source




On giving Obama the benefit of the doubt

Senator Barack Obama's repudiation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright has inspired the praise of some and the denunciation of others. This broad spectrum of opinion reflects the strange opacity of Obama's character and motivation.

We know all too well what makes Hillary tick and McCain seems to be an open book. But Obama is a man of mystery; someone has called him "a man in a fog". And he himself admits that voters ask "what do we know about him?" To date, we are still not sure whether he is mendacious or confused, open or deceitful, an idealist or a shamelessly glib opportunist.

Therefore, since we conservatives pride ourselves on our objectivity, I propose that we follow the legal dictum of "innocent until proven guilty" and give him the benefit of the doubt, just as he says he did with Rev. Wright. Let us, at least provisionally, try to construe all of his actions in the most favorable possible light.

Let us first concede his strengths. He has an excellent stage presence and is a gifted and persuasive speaker. Admittedly, most voters over thirty do not necessarily consider these to be virtues; they tend to associate such qualities with con men and used car salesmen. But one can be winning and eloquent and still be honest; think of Ronald Reagan.

Let us accept Obama's claim that, throughout twenty years of close association, he never noticed that Wright was a cesspool of anti-white hatred. Let us assume that, like many of us in church, he slept through the reverend's sermons and never heard Wright call on God to damn America or describe AIDS as a government plot against blacks. Let us further accept his reluctance to repudiate Wright as a noble loyalty to an old friend and mentor.

Let us also accept the innocence of his associations with questionable characters like Tony Rezko, Emil Jones, Robert Blackwell, Hatem El-Hady, and William Ayers. Let's attribute these and other unfortunate liaisons to an inability to judge people, or perhaps to a naive nature, so high minded and forgiving that it only sees the good in others. This view would be in keeping with the idealistic character of the speeches that have made him famous.

Let us accept his habit of abstaining from voting, even in critical issues such as abortion and the budget, and his refusal to respond to Votesmart's 2008 Political Courage Test to a conscientious man's reluctance to make decisions hastily. This would also explain the vague, ill advised, or even inane statements that he has made about many important issues. Similarly, his inaccuracies of statement and occasional deviations from fact might be ascribed to honest human fallibility.

Let us also assume that the vagueries of his political philosophy, such as his failure to define "change" and his apparent flirtations with Marxism, black liberation theology, and the Black Muslim movement, are not attempts to deceive the public but merely reflect the vagueness of his innermost thoughts.

But if all this is true, then however much we may admire Obama's character, we must dismiss his candidacy on the grounds that he is utterly unfit to be President. The President of the United States should have an attractive image and be an imposing and persuasive speaker. Obama, in his own boyish way, does have these qualities. But unfortunately, they are not enough.

The President of the United States must be a shrewd judge of competence and character as he selects associates and advisors for his administration. If any of his appointees fall short of his expectations, he must be quick to dismiss and replace them with a pragmatic disregard for old friendships. Unfortunately, as we have concluded above, Obama is much too trusting and loyal to make such choices wisely and much too slow in disaffiliating himself from untrustworthy associates. He might become another Warren Harding.

The President of the United States must be quick and decisive in dealing with sudden crises. Obama has shown, by his indecisive voting record and slowness in severing unsavory associations, that he is too dilatory and hesitant to make such decisions in a timely manner. He is simply not the right person for the three a.m. phone call.

The President of the United States must express himself precisely so as to avoid any unintentional ambiguities. If Obama is as open and honest as he claims to be, then his frequent gaffes must be attributed to a mental or verbal fuzziness that might endanger the country by causing him to "misspeak" in critical situations.

The President of the United States must protect the interests of the people from a world full of hostile and devious schemers. He must be wary and tough in his international dealings. If Obama is as naive and gullible as we have charitably assumed him to be, and as other Democrats accuse him of being, then he would be no match for the belligerent heads of state in Islamic and Marxist countries. The very thought of such a child (as Maureen Dowd has described him) negotiating with deceptive and shrewd bargainers like Putin and Ahmadinejad is horrifying. Moreover, he has been accused of frequent timidity when confronting evil. Hitherto, we have often been tempted to liken Obama to Jimmy Carter. But if our assessment of his na
Of course our assumption of Obama's probity might be wrong. Perhaps he is the unscrupulously devious poseur that his critics see him to be and that his words-versus-deeds gap seem to indicate. His questionable political maneuverings and his dealings with lobbyists and favor seekers lend credence to such a view of him. This cynical assessment would absolve him from some of the shortcomings cited above. But some of us believe that such hypocrisy should of itself be an absolute disqualification for public office.

Either way, Senator Obama is utterly unfit to be President of the United States. But he would make a dandy White House press secretary.

Source




Bush was right about appeasement

And it does apply to Obama as far as we can see so far

By Victor Davis Hanson

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: `Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

So spoke President's Bush to the Israeli Knesset on the 60th anniversary of the birth of the Jewish state last week. Ostensibly the president's historical references made perfect sense for a variety of reasons. First, the state of Israel is inextricably a result of the Holocaust - a genocide that was in itself the logical consequence of an ascendant Nazi state, whose industry of death might could been circumvented by concerted action earlier in the late 1930s by the then stronger liberal democracies.

Bush was assuring the Israelis that the United States would not, in contrast to liberal democracies of the past, appease states and organizations intent on killing Jews by the millions.

Second, Bush's warning came in a climate of fear and weariness in the West, in which calls to meet without preconditions with both Iran and Hamas - the former state whose president has forecast the impending destruction of Israel, the latter terrorist organization whose charter hinges on the end of the Jewish state - have been voiced by several public figures, most prominently in recent days by former President Carter.

Third, the warning about appeasement comes not just after, and in implied defense, of military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the case of the United States, also after the September 11 catastrophe, which itself followed a decade of bipartisan inability to confront and respond to a number of al-Qaeda serial provocations.

The speech caused outrage among Democrats who insisted that it was "appalling" and a "smear" on Barack Obama, who has advocated talks, without preconditions, with Iran, and who had been informally endorsed by a Hamas official, and who had recently fired a Middle Eastern adviser, Robert Malley, for meeting with Hamas leaders. Obama fired off the following reply:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack...It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel.George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

Three questions are raised by this controversy. First: What constitutes appeasement in the 21st-century age of globalization? Second: If President Bush had wished to imply a connection with the unnamed Barack Obama, how fair would such a charge have been? Third: Has President Bush himself followed his own advice and shunned the appeasement of "with terrorists and radicals"?

Most define appeasement not by the mere willingness on occasion to negotiate with enemies (i.e., the heads of nation states rather than criminal terrorist cliques). Rather, appeasement is an overriding desire to avoid war or confrontation to such a degree so as to engage in a serial pattern of behavior that results in an accommodation of an enemy's demands - and ultimately the inadvertent enhancement of its agendas. Key here is the caveat that there must muscular alternatives to appeasement, as was true with a rather weak 1936 Nazi Germany or a non-nuclear theocratic Iran.

Talking with an Iranian theocrat like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad per se might not necessarily constitute appeasement. But continuing such talks without preconditions that made no progress in curbing Iranian nuclear agendas, or support for Hezbollah terrorists and Shiite militias in Iraq would not only be futile, but encourage further Iranian adventurism - by the assurance that negotiations were infinite and there would be few lines in the sand and little chance of military opposition to follow. In our era, the locus classicus of appeasement is the near decade of negotiations, empty threats, and drawnout diplomacy with Slobodan Milosevic, in which with virtual impunity he butchered thousands of Croats, Kosovars, and Bosnians - until a belated bombing war forced him to capitulate.

Bush in his Knesset address may have acknowledged that expansive notion of appeasement when he elaborated on his "negotiate with terrorists and radicals" line, with the proviso of futility - namely that such talking assumed an "ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." In addition, Bush's example - that when "Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided" - suggests that his reference to appeasement meant not just one-time talking, but delusional and persistent engagement that is oblivious to facts on the ground.

If the president also meant to include Obama among those who would engage in such appeasement, would there be any evidence for such a view? Obama himself has never been in a position of exercising executive judgments, so we have only his campaign statements from which to surmise. In this regard, we certainly know that Obama is willing to meet any and all our enemies without preconditions. During a televised debate he was asked directly whether he would agree "to meet separately, without precondition . . . with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea," Obama replied: "I would."

His website amplifies that answer with the boast that "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." The problem here would not be in theory talking with an Iran or Syria - Sec. of Defense Gates on numerous occasions has advocated negotiations with Teheran - but in a priori signaling to tyrants such an eagerness to elevate their grievances to head-of-state diplomacy. Under what conditions, how long, and to what degree Obama would be willing to exercise non-diplomatic options when talks proved futile would adjudicate whether his preference for unconditional talks devolved from diplomacy to appeasement.

If a President Obama were to enter into multiple negotiations with Iran, and if Iran were to continue to subvert the Lebanese government and threaten Israel through its surrogate Hezbollah, and continue to develop a nuclear arsenal while promising the destruction of Israel, at what point would he be willing not merely to cease talking, but to accept that his negotiations had done more harm than good and thus required a radical change of course - and would it be in time?

Given President Bush's admonitions about appeasement, does the president practice what he preaches?

That depends on a variety of factors such as whether enemies are nuclear or not, whom exactly we define as adversaries - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the Sudan, Libya? - and to what degree our existing negotiations are proving not only futile, but emboldening our enemies by the assurance that we will neither cease diplomacy nor threaten the use of force.

Both the president and Obama, in arguing abstractly over appeasement, do not factor in such realist concerns of leverage that govern decisions to negotiate, such as exporting ten million barrels a day of scarce oil (Saudi Arabia), the possession of nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable government (Pakistan and North Korea), or the unwillingness of American public opinion to support an armed intervention (Darfur).

In that regard, Barack Obama shows his own inexperience when he evokes past summits that a John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan conducted with the nuclear Soviets - contemporary rivalries in which escalation to nuclear annihilation was a real worry, and at the time Soviet combatants (as is true in Iraq) were not killing our own soldiers.

In short, nothing in the president's speech was inaccurate, inflammatory, or hypocritical. Whether Barack Obama believes he was a target of the president's rhetoric, or whether he would engage in appeasement, hinges on whether his overeagerness to talk without preconditions to the world's thugs and rogues would persist in the face of unpleasant facts - and so make the likelihood of eventual military action more, rather than less, likely.

Source




What a charming and gracious First Lady Mrs Obama would make!

Given Obama's recent angry demand to stop mentioning his wife, I thought that we should in fact look a little more at her



Michelle Obama, wife of presidential candidate Barack Obama, known for saying what's on her mind - candidly, spontaneously and frequently - has exposed this trait yet again in a profile in the London Guardian. Asked how she feels about Bill Clinton's use of the phrase "fairytale" to describe her husband's characterization of his position on the Iraq war, she first responded: "No." But, after a few seconds of contemplation, and gesturing with her fingernails, she told the reporter: "I want to rip his eyes out!"

Noticing an aide giving her a nervous look, she added: "Kidding! See, this is what gets me into trouble." It was the latest of a series of gaffes by the potential first lady - the first of which set off a chain of events that led to her husband's fall from grace as the clear front-runner in the Democratic presidential primary campaign.

In February, Obama set off a national firestorm with comments she made at a Milwaukee rally: "What we have learned over the past year is that hope is making a comeback. And let me tell you something - for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

Many commentators were offended by the idea that a successful woman of privilege would say she had never been proud of her country until her husband's presidential campaign. That remark was followed up with reports of a stump speech she delivered throughout South Carolina in which she characterized America as "just downright mean." She said the country is divided, life is not good, the people are "guided by fear" and cynicism. "We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," she told churchgoers in that primary state. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime."

It may have been Michelle Obama's off-the-cuff and seemingly unpatriotic remarks that led to further examination of the sermons of the couple's pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright. Reports on Wright's explosively controversial views prompted a public break between the candidate and his spiritual mentor and new questions about the viability of Obama as a presidential candidate and potential leader of the country.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





20 May, 2008

A letter sent to Obama

Dear Mr. Obama,

I am sick. I am sick of your lies, your racial hypocrisy, your pointing fingers at "Reagan Democrats", members of the Likud Party because they want an Israel of the Brave, not the Grave like your friends do, and even your own Grandmother when you don't even have the guts to confront "Rev." Wright.

I am sick to death of your Blame America, Jew Baiting friends and advisers including Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn, both of whom should be where the 58,000 who died fighting for us while they were trying to murder Americans; of Rashid Khalidi, of Senator KKK Byrd, of Samantha Power, Merrill McPeak, Zbigniew Brezinzski, Rob Malley and his Baker Boys friends - Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Danny Kurtzer, all of whom are self-loathing scum out to stick it to Israel (and they DO REFLECT your core values too), your wife, and that bigoted Reverend whom you sat through 20 years of virulent hate without saying a damn word.

Now you have the gall to chastize a President of the United States because he hit it on the head concerning Islamonazi appeasers and cowards - you've never served one day in the military - like you and Jimmy Carter. You even make derogatory remarks towards Cowboys.

Well, let me tell you something. The Cowboy is the Best American. They loved their animals, protected and loved their women and children, honored the flag and this country, and braved many hardships to do the job they were tasked to do. I'd sooner a cowboy as a friend than someone who has NO guts, No principles, Nothing. That's you, Mr. Obama.

Better a Cowboy than a Coward and Race Hypocrite.

In fact, Mr. Obama, you're not fit, morally or ethically to be my - or our President. I am just sick to death of you. Please go away, I hear Tehran or Gaza just might be your kind of place, and do take all of your friends and advisers and your spouse with you. You won't be missed.

Source




Don't know much about geography--Obama 2nd edition

The man is clueless



Barack Obama is already explaining his anticipated loss to Hillary Clinton in the Kentucky primary this coming Tuesday. In part, Obama blames FOX News. In part, Obama invokes improbable geography:

Obama conceded that he has a steep challenge to get his message and background to voters in states such as Kentucky - where he trails Sen. Hillary Clinton by 27 points, according to a poll published earlier this week - and West Virginia, where voters chose Clinton over Obama by 40 points on Tuesday. "What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

Obama does not note that Illinois and Kentucky are close enough to each other that they share a border.... Arkansas borders Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, but it does not share a border with Kentucky. This is Obama's second big US geography gaffe. You know the big media would give Dan Quail and George Bush a lot of air time for this kind of statement, but for Obama, I suspect they will just say he was tired. He seems tired a lot lately for such a young guy. I think it raises questions about his energy level and stamina not to mention having a poorer memory than his 71 year old opponent.

Source




Another Obama fantasy

Obama has a very shaky relationship with any reality at all, not only geography and history. He can't even tell the truth about his own recent past

This is pretty funny - in a recent speech Obama practically separates his shoulder patting himself on the back for entering the lion's den and, in a Detroit speech from May 2007, telling automakers they need to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets:

"We're going to have do what I did when I went to Detroit and told the automakers that they're going to have to raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. We can make more efficient cars right here in the United States. There's no way they have to be made in Japan. But, it requires that Detroit changes its ways. And I have to say that when I delivered that speech, nobody clapped. The room was really quiet. But that's OK, because that's part of what is the task of the next president."

There are just a couple of problems - the video of the Detroit speech is available, and in reality Obama was interrupted by applause at that point in the speech. And why might he have been interrupted? Well, Obama came laden with carrots as well as sticks; this is from the WaPo account of the Detroit speech:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) yesterday proposed federal assistance to help U.S. automakers cover the cost of their retired workers' health benefits if the companies invest in technology to improve their vehicles' fuel efficiency.

In a speech at the Detroit Economic Club, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a plan to ease the pain of U.S. automakers even as he reiterated support for higher fuel-efficiency standards..... Obama proposed that the government pay for 10 percent of domestic automakers' health-care costs for retired workers through 2017 if the firms plow half the savings into equipment for making more efficient cars and trucks. Obama's campaign estimates that this would cost taxpayers roughly $7 billion over the next 10 years.

In addition, Obama proposed tax incentives for retooling auto assembly plants and the extension of tax credits for hybrid vehicles beyond the current 60,000-cars-per-manufacturer limit. His campaign put the 10-year cost of his plan at $20 billion and said it would be covered by auctioning greenhouse gas permits under a cap-and-trade program that Obama also supports.

Let's hear it for taxpayer subsidies! Greg Mankiw was scathing; the NY Times was laudatory, and barely mentioned the carrot part of the Obama speech. However, they included this:

Despite Mr. Obama's sometimes harsh words Monday, the diverse audience interrupted him 10 times for applause. "I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line," said Peter Eckstein, a retired labor union economist from Ann Arbor, Mich.

He's a hero! And I know it's true because I read it in the Times.

Source




Socialism as the cure for terrorism?

The tired old Leftist idea that "poverty" is the cause of everything bad. A pity that Bin Laden is a billionaire!

David Brooks must have noticed, as I did, Barack Obama's bizarre statement on the Lebanon crisis. So he called Obama on the phone to find out if he really meant what he said:

I asked him what he meant with all this emphasis on electoral and patronage reform. He said the U.S. should help the Lebanese government deliver better services to the Shiites "to peel support away from Hezbollah" and encourage the local populace to "view them as an oppressive force." The U.S. should "find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services."

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

Brooks might not have noticed, but Obama just doubled-down on the message of his initial Lebanon statement. Samantha Power may no longer be with the campaign, but Obama articulated precisely her prescription for combating Islamic supremacist groups, who, in the Obama/Power worldview, rise to power and retain political saliency because they seek to address the legitimate grievances of a "disaffected" (Obama's word) people.

There are several assumptions at work here: that Hezbollah is popular among the Lebanese Shia because of its provision of material benefits, like medical clinics, instead of a compelling ideological message; that Hezbollah will peacefully acquiesce to western social-services projects in Lebanon; that the Shia will be inspired by promises to improve their standard of living, rather than Hezbollah's promise of religious glory and political dominance; that Hezbollah is a manifestation of domestic Lebanese conditions, and can thus be addressed by solving domestic Lebanese problems. None of these premises comes close to being true.

Obama's mention of Hamas was appropriate, but not in the way he thinks it was. Hamas slaughters Israelis on behalf of the "legitimate claims" and "grievances" of a group of people whose plight has rarely in history been more thoroughly salved with social services. The West Bank and Gaza are awash in UN- and EU-funded schools, medical clinics, and sinecure jobs programs. Even the trash in the West Bank is collected by large white garbage trucks with the letters "UN" stenciled on the sides. If social services "peel support away" from groups like Hezbollah, as Obama insists, why has Islamic radicalism become more and more popular in the Palestinian territories precisely while outside social services have gotten ever more expansive?

Make no mistake: Obama is not backing down from his promise of a dignity-promotion foreign policy. In its first act, he will insist on recognizing the legitimacy of the "grievances" of Iran's proxy terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. The message is clear: terrorism and savagery will win an audience with the American president. Please pardon me for calling this appeasement.

Source




More 'Chicago Way' Politics from Obama

ABC News, the only news outlet among the Big 3 of the old network news shows doing commendable work covering Barack Obama, has a report that Barack Obama boasted about steering large amounts of state money to African-American owned investment firms in Chicago. He neglected to mention that the head of one of these firms has been a key fundraiser for him over the years, that the firm's employees have given quite generously to his campaigns, and has allowed him to use company-owned jets (hasn't the New York Times attacked John McCain for using his wife's company's private jet?).

Obama claimed that the investment firms had excellent investment performances that justified the steering of funds to them. Well, time for a fact-check (Washington Post-time to step up to the plate). In fact, the major beneficiary of Barack Obama's efforts has been the Ariel Fund headed by John Rogers, whose mother is a power broker in Chicago and Illinois politics. The fund's investment performance among its various offerings have been sorrowful for years. The flagship fund-the Ariel Fund (ARGFX)-has a record of underperforming its peers and the market for years.

Morningstar, the premier mutual fund advisory firm, rates its return as being "Below Average". That is an understatement. Yet John Rogers and the firms employees have done quite well over the years regardless of how their investors have fared. He seems to have inherited his mother's power broker status, with a close friend headed towards the Democratic Presidential nomination. Family dynasties are a tradition in Chicago.

The company relies on investments from city and state government and union pension funds who are under a mandate (whether official or not) to boost investments and deals with minority-owned firms. Who suffers? Pensioners, government employees and urban residents. Ironically, a large number of them are African-Americans. To enrich a few lucky and well-connected African-Americans, many others suffer subpar (to say the least) returns on their retirement savings.

As our population ages, the future viability of Social Security and Medicare has come into question. Remedies have been proposed and suffered from endless rounds of political flak. How will Barack Obama fare when he is in the Oval Office, backed by a Congress that will likely be more solidly Democratic and more likely to support his policies. What will those policies be? Will any privatization proposals introduced by him fare better than those of George Bush? Who will be the beneficiaries?

Source




A Single Chicken Wing in Every Pot

Obama in Oregon yesterday:

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

First Michelle Obama threatens to take away our pie, and now her husband demands that we eat smaller portions. Can the American people subsist on a diet of extra spicy hope and saut‚ed change? Yes we can!

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





19 May, 2008

Obama looks to seal deal over Hillary

Heading into the Democrats' latest round of primary voting, Barack Obama is bidding to seal the deal against Hillary Clinton and unite the party for its larger battle to come against John McCain. Senator Obama campaigned in the north-western state of Oregon today while the former first lady was set for a rally in Kentucky ahead of the two states' nominating contests on Wednesday, when the Illinois senator could clinch a majority of elected delegates. Senator Obama was not planning to spend the election night in either state, heading instead to Iowa - the scene of his triumph in the very first Democratic faceoff in early January -- before a trip later in the week to Florida.

According to one report, fundraisers for Senators Obama and Clinton are tentatively joining forces to adopt a general-election footing against Senator McCain, the presumed Republican nominee. The Washington Post quoted Mark Aronchick, a Philadelphia lawyer and top fundraiser for Senator Clinton, as saying her supporters recognised the need to start preparing for November's presidential vote. "Only if we do this right, and see this through in the right way, will there be a chance for a full, rapid and largely complete unification of the party," Mr Aronchick said, while insisting he was not giving up on Senator Clinton's bid.

Senator Obama's campaign said he needs just 17 more pledged delegates - won through state contests - to reach a majority of 1627, not counting "superdelegates," party leaders who can vote for the nominee of their choice. Including superdelegates, the winning line to clinch the Democratic nomination is 2025. According to RealClearPolitics.com, Senator Obama has 1897 delegates in total to Senator Clinton's 1717. Polls show Senator Obama leading in Oregon, where 52 delegates are up for grabs, while Senator Clinton is ahead in Kentucky, a state with 51 delegates that has a similar demographic to West Virginia, where she won by a landslide last week.

At a fundraiser in Portland last night, Senator Obama predicted victory in Oregon and said he believed the delegates from the win would "put us over the top". "We will be able to say we have won a majority," he said. "But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us."

Roy Romer, a former governor of Colorado and ex-chairman of the Democratic National Committee who is now backing Senator Obama, said the Illinois senator's delegate lead "can't be overcome". "And the primaries that are left are going to divide about equally. So this race is over, and Obama is going to be the candidate," he said overnight on CBS television.

Senator Clinton, however, is vowing to battle on until the end of the primary season. After Wednesday, there will be just three Democratic contests left - Puerto Rico on June 1, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3. "There is no standard under which Senator Obama will have secured the nomination on Tuesday night (local time)," Senator Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson, said.

The Obama and McCain campaigns meanwhile pursued a war of words after President George W. Bush, in a speech last week to the Israeli parliament, implied the Democrats wanted to appease terrorists. A furious Senator Obama took the remark as an attack on his stated intention to talk to US foes such as Iran and Syria. "That kind of leadership, I think, is what people are looking for," Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd said on Fox News Sunday, pointing to US engagement during the Cold War with the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong's China.

But Republican Jon Kyl, Senator McCain's fellow senator from Arizona, said no US presidents had parlayed face to face with "state sponsors of terrorism", citing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Senator McCain took time out from the heated exchanges to poke fun at himself on the US comedy show, Saturday Night Live. "I ask you, what should we be looking for in our next president? Certainly, someone who is very, very, very old," he joked. At 72 next January, the Republican would be the oldest president sworn in to a first term.

Source




Obama strikes back



It took a town hall meeting in Watertown, South Dakota, but, after days of sniping, Senator Barack Obama has fired back at President George Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The senator and Democratic frontrunner said failed Republican policies had made the United States less secure, and he welcomed a general election showdown on foreign policy.

"If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I am happy to have any time, any place, and that is a debate that I will win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for," he said, noting the Iraq War was in its sixth year, Osama bin Laden was still at large, al-Qaeda was stronger than ever, Iran was emboldened and Hamas was in control of Gaza.

The Democratic frontrunner for president was responding to remarks Mr Bush made to the Israeli Parliament on Thursday that compared talks with rogue regimes to the appeasement of Adolf Hitler before World War II. While the White House officially denied the remarks were aimed at Senator Obama, the Democratic candidate took them as a direct criticism of his pledge to use diplomacy to improve ties with unfriendly regimes - and as a direct challenge on national security, the issue Republicans have ridden to the White House in the past two elections.

"After almost eight years, I did not think I could be surprised by anything that George Bush says, but I was wrong," Senator Obama said. He said that instead of celebrating the 60th anniversary of Israel's founding, the President had flouted tradition and launched a political assault before a foreign audience. "That's exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country and that alienates us from the world, and that's why we need change in Washington," Senator Obama said. "They are trying to fool you and trying to scare you. They're not telling you the truth, and the reason is they can't win a foreign policy debate on the merits, but it's not going to work."

Senator McCain, who used the row over Mr Bush's speech to argue again that Senator Obama was inexperienced in the ways of the world, did not back down at all, saying that no issue was more important than national security. The senator said he would not add to the prestige of dictators by meeting people such as Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests," Senator McCain told the National Rifle Association in Kentucky. "It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies, but that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe."

Source




The party of appeasement

At Real Clear Politics and Hot Air, Ed Morrissey points out Rookie mistakes again: Obama owns appeasement

No one in the US who runs for public office has suggested that the US break with Israel to appease terrorists. Obama certainly hasn't suggested that, and perhaps apart from the really lunatic fringes of both Left and Right, that notion doesnƒ_Tt get any oxygen at all here. Obviously, Bush wasn't referring to American politicians in this passage, but instead politicians in Europe and elsewhere who have either an animus towards Israel or appreciation for dhimmitude. Nothing - and I mean nothing - in this speech points to any candidate or the Democratic Party, unless they identify themselves as the reference.

Let's see why: The Democrat party has a long history of appeasement. You can look back to Jimmy Carter's entire administration, Madeline Albright's meetings with Arafat and Kim Jong-il, and many other instances. Let's not forget Nancy Pelosi's Hermes tour of Damascus. More recently, Jimmy Carter's "give Hamas a chance" tour and Bill Richardson's heartwarming handshake of Chavez continue to show you that the Dems can't stop loving the murderous thug-du-jour. As the Wall Street Journal said,

When the party's top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.

In this particular instance of Pres. Bush's speech, however, Marc Armbinder reports that President Bush was referring to Carter's Hamas junket when talking about appeasement. Noel Sheppard posted the entire transcript of Pres. Bush's speech. Obama took it personally. Thin skin doesn't wear well on presidential candidates.

But the important thing here is that Obama himself has declared that he would hold unconditional face-to-face talks with Iran and that Hamas and Hezbollah have legitimate grievances (h/t Pamela); and that now he's saying that he's under "a false political attack" and that discussing his foreign policy is "dishonest and divisive"

"I'm a strong believer in civility and I'm a strong believer in a bipartisan foreign policy, but that cause is not served with dishonest, divisive attacks of the sort that we've seen out of George Bush and John McCain over the last couple days,"

Absolutely not: Discussing where any Presidential candidate stands on foreign policy is an essential issue of a campaign, as it has world-wide repercussions. The Obama campaign doesn't want people to discuss why Hamas is Betsy asks,

Why isn't it a legitimate question to ponder why Hamas supports Obama?

After all, Hamas is phone banking for Obama: Indeed, we should be asking why do the Palestinians like Obama so much. Ed says that the Obama campaign's made a rookie mistake in taking offense at "appeasement" charges. Or you can say that the Obamanians have identified themselves with appeasement to the point that when the word is mentioned, they hear their names called.

Source




CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER ON OBAMAPPEASEMENT

Obama and his defenders here are really a piece of work. Remember how all this started - we saw it earlier in the show in the clip in which he answered the question in that debate, would you speak with these thugs who run Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, et cetera. He said yes, and then he immediately said that he was saying this because it is, quote, "a central diplomatic principle of this administration not to talk to them," and that, he then said, is ridiculous and disgraceful. That was in his answer.

He has repeated that in one form or another at least 20 times over the course of this campaign. So he makes it an issue of an attack on the Bush administration and its diplomacy, and if the president defends himself and defends the policy of not speaking with these thugs, all of a sudden it's illegitimate, disgraceful, and unworthy of the president.

Of course he should defend himself on this, and of course he should include Obama with Jimmy Carter, who spoke with Hamas, and with Pelosi, who went cap in hand to Damascus and spoke with Assad.

And the question John McCain asks is a good one - what exactly is he going to say to these thugs that has not already been said? If he doesn't have anything new to say, then a trip to Iran or a negotiation with Ahmadinejad is an exercise in redundancy, and in honoring him. And if he has new stuff to say, what is it going to be? It's not going to be more sticks. He is not going to be tougher on Iran than Bush and Cheney. It's going to be carrots.

So let's ask Obama - are you going to offer Iran Lebanon? Are you going to offer sway over Iraq? Are you going to offer it domination of the Gulf? Or are you are going to offer it America squeezing Israel? So it is about appeasement, and Israel is a place in which he wants to make that statement.

Source




Bush 'hit the nail on the head yesterday in Jerusalem. And today, the nails started to complain'

That succinct and so apt quote from former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton who sadly is likely to have no place in a McCain administration. But nailing the leftist whiners is apparently the meme, thank God, and Steve Schippert is playing hammer:

"Tough Diplomacy" is little more than a 2008 re-branding of 2007's Diplomatic Offensiver. And it should be noted with both amusement and sobriety that those who hustle these soon-to-be-trademarked marketing phrases least embody the identities of either "tough" or anything resembling an "offensive" when it comes to American foreign policy.

So following the earlier observation that "[e]veryone seems to have their media-seeking knickers in a bind," and while there is no shortage of keen observations by many others, permit me to add just one more.

Isn't it astounding how the peddlers of today's 'Tough Diplomacy" and yesterday's Diplomatic Offensiver are so thin-skinned and race with alacrity to declare themselves directly offended by what was (at best) an indirect comment about an idea?

Diplomacy, and especially the imagined embodiment of "tough" diplomacy as is being sold, is a skins game. And one fundamental requirement - among many - is decidedly thick skin. For those who want what they envision as "tough" diplomacy or a Diplomatic Offensiver, are these the individuals you want guiding the process?

Not just no but hell no. And while we're on the subject of denying the place of "tough diplomacy", we need to go straight to Morgan Freeberg who does his own impression of a hammer:

This is a hot, controversial issue, with each side intent on convincing the other how correct they are. Why, then, do these mint-tea-and-crumpet talkers never seem to furnish me with any details that would inspire me to see the correctness of their point of view? What's going on in these "talks"? All I see is a bunch of compromises from the reasonable people, while the unreasonable people just do whatever they want. If the unreasonable people do make compromises, they just violate them later. Just like the extended-family visit-trip plans.

Another thing I see is that when these "talks" result in an agreement, somewhere down the road it turns into a big ol' crap-fest. Yes, the mint-tea-and-crumpet talkers have their moment in the sun. They get to prance off planes with signed papers in hand that they can brandish before the cameras, and say like little kids, "Lookee What I Did!" just like Neville Chamberlin himself. But without exception, it seems the longer a "talk" takes to turn into a crap-fest, the bigger the crap-fest it becomes.

Bang. Bang. Bang. A most sweet sound.

Source




Don't Know Much About History

Barack Obama continued to display his surprisingly flimsy grasp of American history yesterday. "This whole notion of not talking to people," began the longtime community organizer. "It didn't hold in the '60s, it didn't hold in the '70s ... When Kennedy met with (Soviet leader Nikita) Khrushchev, we were on the brink of nuclear war."

There's only one problem with this analysis - Khrushchev and Kennedy met in the first months of Kennedy's term. The Cuban Missile Crisis didn't happen until 16 months later. Furthermore, if we really want to dig into the history, many historians believe that the Vienna Summit between the two leaders did much to trigger the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev, relying on the Bay of Pigs fiasco and what he later saw at Vienna, determined that his American counterpart was a weak sister who could be bullied.

Since Obama obviously knows nothing about the Vienna Summit, he surely doesn't know that in some circles it's viewed as a cautionary tale regarding the inherent risks of diplomacy with malevolent regimes (or "talking to people" as Obama prefers to think of such activities). Besides, Kennedy at Vienna was quite frankly a much tougher and more hard-headed leader than one can imagine Obama being. At one point, Kennedy responded to Khrushchev's blustering by declaring, "Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold, long winter."

More on point, what are we to make of Obama's ignorance regarding relevant historical events? Mind you, these are historical events that he chooses to talk about. I realize the senator is the victim of an Ivy League education, but he's had decades to repair that damage.

Truth be told, in yesterday's comments, Obama showed trademark characteristics of a callow, young Ivy League grad - he thinks he knows more than he does, and has the audacity to lecture others when he doesn't know what he's talking about. Obama seems perversely intent on transporting an old adage regarding Harvard over to the Crimson's law school: "You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can't tell him much." A few exit questions for you to mull:

1) Seriously, Obama's a bright guy - how is it possible that he doesn't know such basic facts of American history?

2) Is there any chance Obama really isn't so ignorant but instead misrepresents historical events to better suit his political arguments? (I doubt it, but I figured I'd put it out there.)

3) Every time Obama opens his mouth, there's a chance he'll let loose a whopper like yesterday's. Will Obama say something so foolish before this campaign's end that it will dwarf all previous political blunders?

Source




Obama Repeats Jamie Rubin's Lie On McCain

Jamie Rubin wrote a dishonest report in the Washington Post yesterday claiming that Senator John McCain holds the same position as Barack Obama on appeasing terror-sponsoring regimes and terror organizations such as Hamas.

But, later yesterday it was discovered that although Jamie Rubin was the one to interview McCain two years ago-- He had cherry-picked clips from the interview with McCain in his article. Here is what John McCain actually said:

"I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren't any, there may be a hiatus."

Of course, this is very different from what Rubin reported and from Barack Obama's pledge on his website to meet with terror regimes without preconditions.

But, that did not stop Jamie Rubin and Barack Obama from repeating the lie on McCain today. Geraldo Rivera had Jamie Rubin on his show on FOX News on Saturday: Here is what Obama said today:

Barack Obama: The irony is yesterday just as John McCain was making these attacks a story broke that he was actually guilty of the exact same thing that he's accusing me of.

That, of course, is not true. It looks like Obama is just another cheap politician trying to bring John McCain down to his level. If he was not so ashamed of his positions he probably wouldn't have to resort to this dishonest tactic. Sad.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





18 May, 2008

Obama the appeaser

President Bush, marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel, reminded the Knesset yesterday that the appeasement of evil is the route to catastrophe.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," he said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

How could anyone with even a Classic Comics understanding of history quarrel with that? Who could doubt that negotiating with terrorists is an exercise for fools? Who doubts that we've heard delusional appeasement talk all through history? Who would quarrel with the proposition that "the comfort of appeasement" has been repeatedly discredited by history? Where better to say this than to those who live with the risks and perils of appeasement of Islamist thugs in the Middle East?

Well, a lot of prominent Democrats, beginning with Barack Obama, that's who. The orator prince of the South Side of Chicago was reduced to splutter and slash. "It is sad ... this false political attack ... it's time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally in Israel."

Then he repeated the naive musings of inexperience that could be taken for appeasement talk, prescribing "tough, principled and direct diplomacy to pressure countries like Iran and Syria." Nancy Pelosi, the dowager queen of San Francisco Democrats, said the president's remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office" and Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Clinton utility man, asked whether "this president has no shame." Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, ever eager to steal the cliches of others, couldn't decide whether to affect the voice of the barnyard or reflect the twitter of the ladies' tea room: The president's remarks were "[the effluvia of a bull]" or "malarkey."

A White House aide noted that the president had sounded similar warnings before, and if the president's hysterical critics wanted to identify the appeasers, they could look to Jimmy Carter and his passionate embrace of Syrians and Palestinian terrorists on his merry prankster appeasement tour of the Middle East, just now concluded. Mzz Pelosi demanded that John McCain disavow the president, presumably in the way that she and other prominent Democrats did not disavow the peanut farmer from Plains.

"The American senator" in the president's citation, who imagined that he could have led Hitler to the Lord with a few well-chosen words in 1939, was William E. Borah of Idaho, an isolationist Republican of the early 20th century, a ladies' man of Clintonian appetite and an orator with Barack Obama's reputation for spinning smooth appeasement talk. Sen. Borah, like Sen. Obama, thought his golden tongue would resolve all arguments in his favor, and, like Bill Clinton, imagined that his sexual prowess was irresistible. Sometimes it was. He left a small-town law practice in Kansas early in the century when he got a young woman "in the family way" and her male relatives suggested that he leave town on the next train. He departed for distant Idaho. Once elected to the U.S. Senate, he cut a wide swath of notoriety in Washington, where he conducted a long affair with Alice Roosevelt Longworth, whom delighted capital gossips called "Aurora Borah Alice." You might think Sen. Obama, Mzz Pelosi, Mr. Emanuel and Joe Biden would be flattered that the president cited someone of skills and appetites so familiar to them.

Source




Telepathy or a guilty conscience?

The fact that Obama saw himself in what GWB said tells us all we want to know, I think

Barack Obama, today:

"He accused me and other Democrats of wanting to negotiate with terrorists, and said we were appeasers no different from people who appeased Adolf Hitler," said Obama. "That is what George Bush said in front of the Israeli parliament. Now that is exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country and alienates us from the world. And that is why we need change in Washington, that is part of the reason I am running for president of the United States of America."

Let's go back and review the section of Bush's speech that triggered this apoplectic response:

That is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. That is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Some people suggest that if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of our enemies, and America rejects it utterly. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because America stands with you.

The whole prepared text can be found here.

That first sentence of Obama's response is flat out false. Bush offered no such accusation of Obama and other Democrats, unless they are using mental telepathy to identify those Bush refers to as "some."

Source




Can Somebody Explain to Me ...

... how Obama sat in Wright's church for 20 years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a Bush speech that doesn't mention him and perceives a shameful personal attack?

Source




Obama Proves Bush Right-- Talks About "Legitimate Claims" of Hamas & Hezbollah

Well that took about 24 hours... President George W. Bush on Appeasement, May 15, 2008--

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.

Barack Obama on Appeasement, May 16, 2008--

"The U.S. should find a mechanism whereby the disaffected have an effective outlet for their grievances, which assures them they are getting social services... The U.S. needs a foreign policy that looks at the root causes of problems and dangers. (Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas.) Both need to be compelled to understand that they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims(?)... If they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."

Ok... "legitimate claims?" Did Obama really say that? What kind of legitimate claims is Obama talking about?

-- The right to Jerusalem?

-- The right to never recognize the raping enemy?

-- The right to burn the Zionists?

Source




OK, So What Are The "Legitimate Claims" Of Hezbollah And Hamas?

David Brooks chatted with Barack Obama on Hezbollah and Hamas, with eyebrow-raising results:

The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims."

He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."

As a former community organizer himself I suppose Obama might admire the efficacy of the Hamas and Hezbollah street level operations. But what "legitimate claims" does he have in mind? Beats me. The Confederate Yankee and Noah Pollak of Commentary are also concerned.

But I have a Bold Suggestion - since Obama is backing away from his "I'll meet with any rogue fool without preconditions" pledge anyway, why doesn't he announce one pre-condition - any bad boy dictators or lunatics who want to meet with Obama must load onto YouTube a video of themselves singing a chorus of Kumbaya. That should be reassuring.

Source




OBAMA MEETS WITH HEZBO TIED IMAM

Yes, Obama will spin this the way he is spinning his desire to meet directly with annihilationist Ahmadinejad. But so what? The meeting speaks for itself. By their acts we shall know him and so we know him.

Imam Hassan Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, said in an email that he met with Obama at Macomb Community College. A mosque spokesman, Eide Alawan, confirmed that the meeting took place. During the meeting, the two discussed the Presidential election, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Iraq war, according to Qazwini....

The meeting with Obama came about after Qazwini had asked David Bonior, the former U.S. Rep. from Michigan, if he could meet with Obama during his visit. Qazwini was not selected to be part of a group of 20 people who met with Obama, but Qazwini later got a private meeting with Obama, Alawan said. "They gave him an opportunity for a one-on-one," Alawan said.

ZTruth has more on Qazwini: check out her post last March on Qazwini here. And go over to FrontPage. Schlussel here:

Qazwini is very open about his support for Palestinian homcide bombings, HAMAS, and Hezbollah. And he's a good friend of Hezbollah spiritual leader, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah--the man who issued the fatwa to Hezbollah terrorists to murder over 300 U.S. Marines and U.S. Embassy civilians in cold blood. Qazwini's mosque has held rallies and celebrations in support of Hezbollah, and many of Hezbollah's biggest money-launderers and agents in America are his congregants.

When I went undercover to his mosque in 1998, he and others welcomed Nation of Islam chief racist Louis Farrakhan as "our dear brother" and "a freedom fighter." Qazwini applauded Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements saying that Jews were the "forces of Satan" and that there needed to be a "jihad" on the American people.

Source




Rove anticipates the Obama counter snark

Karl Rove launched a wide-ranging attack on Barack Obama during a speech at the National Rifle Association Convention Friday, blasting him for his recent comments calling some small town American's "bitter," and suggesting the Illinois senator is an effete politician unable to connect with a broad swath of Americans.

The comments, received enthusiastically by the large crowd in Louisville, Kentucky, are a likely sign Obama's words at a San Francisco fundraiser last month may be a major Republican talking-point should he capture the Democratic Party's nomination.

"You know in the age of Barack Obama I don't know exactly what to call you, because after all, as he said, because we're bitter and economically anxious, we `cling to our guns and we cling to our faith," Rove told the crowd to laughter and cheers. "You probably didn't know you hunted out of economic anxiety, and if gas was a $1.50 a gallon, you probably wouldn't be hunting," he continued. "You probably thought you hunted because you enjoyed the outdoors and companionship with family and friends."...

"We here have news for Barack Obama," Rove said. "The values of those people you diminished are the values of America. And those people don't like getting patronized, or viewed as an alien species, by a fellow who pretends to embody a new kind of politics, and especially by someone who wants to be president not of red states or blue states, but the United States." ....

"It is distracting to say in a Democratic primary when you are trying to cozy up to Moveon.org that an American flag on your lapel is a quote 'substitute' for true patriotism," Rove said. "Belittling all those who care to wear our country's flag, calling them false patriots, and then when you focus on the general election, like this week, start to showing up with an American flag on your lapel again. That's distracting." ....

"We know what he's going to say-- it's divisive, distractive, keeps us from coming together. After all, he says, we are the change we have been waiting for. what the heck does that mean?" "Does it mean we've been keeping ourselves waiting? Why was change late anyway? I don't get it. let me tell you what's divisive. It is divisive to undermine the Second Amendment, to undermine to constitution of the United States."

"It is divisive to say one thing and do another, to belittle the values of the people -- which is exactly what Obama was doing in San Francisco. Our answer is no we won't."

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





17 May, 2008

Hillary Clinton's female avengers to hit Obama

The backlash from women to Hillary Clinton's almost certain defeat for the Democratic Party's nomination has started in earnest. While many supporters accept Senator Clinton made strategic mistakes in her campaign, they are pointing to "intense sexism" in the race, where, among other things, the former first lady has been likened to the Glenn Close character in the movie Fatal Attraction - a psychopathic jilted female who haunts a suburban family, and in the end, keeps refusing to die.

An Ohio-based group of Clinton supporters has announced it will actively work against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee for the party, saying Senator Clinton has had to fight gender discrimination from party leaders and the media. Organisers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, say they are organising women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan - all important swing states in November - to protest at Senator Clinton's treatment. "We have been vigilant against expressions of racism, and we are thrilled that the society has advanced that way" in accepting Barack Obama as a serious candidate, Ms Ruccia told online political magazine Politico. "But it's been open season on women, and we feel we need to stand up and make a statement about that, because it's wrong."

In a press release, the group said: "We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee. We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don't listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later." As calls grew for Senator Clinton to quit the race, Ms Ruccia said women felt "we're being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program".

For his part, Senator Obama has been gracious towards Senator Clinton. He says the nomination fight is still joined and any decision to quit is up to her. While no one has accused Senator Obama of sexism, some, such as columnist Marie Cocco, say the campaign has exposed "the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture". Writing in The Washington Post yesterday under the heading "Misogyny I Won't Miss", she noted: "I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan 'Bros before Hos'. The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the internet," she wrote. "I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts."

Senator Clinton has not played the gender card often in her campaign - she is vying to be the first female president of the US - and Barack Obama never discusses his historic candidacy as the first black man vying to be president. But as her campaign appears to be closing down, Senator Clinton has spoken about how tough it is for women to succeed in professional life. "Do you know how difficult it is for women to say we're the best at anything?" she told a fundraiser in Washington last week.

Also last week, comedian and magician Penn Jillette, satirising the animus to Senator Clinton in the US, said on cable TV: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?"

While Senator Obama looks set to be the nominee, his path is not without prejudice. He has been subject to racist threats and gained Secret Service protection soon after he launched his campaign in February last year. His offices, particularly in places such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, have been sprayed with graffiti and had windows broken. And some voters openly admit they would never vote for a black man. Senator Obama is the only black person in the 100-member US Senate. Senator Clinton has 14 female colleagues.

Source




Barack Obama: the new Great Redeemer

First it was Kennedy... now the US media are prostrating themselves before the saviour

Every decade or so the people who control the way we see the world anoint some American politician the Redeemer of a Troubled Planet. In the late 1960s the media placed the halo on Robert Kennedy, the tragic dynast whose antiwar and civil rights credentials made him in life - as he remains to this day in death - a kind of devotional figure for most political journalists.

Kennedy at least had charisma and intelligence. But to prove that these were by no means necessary preconditions for the honour, it was conferred a few years later on Jimmy Carter, the plodding nonentity elevated by a willingly compliant press into Everyman, brandishing his steely sword of Truth against the Manichean mendacity of Richard Nixon's Republican legacy.

Partly because of the Carter embarrassment, the 1980s were barren years for the idolators. Try as they might, they couldn't work themselves into much ecstasy over Walter Mondale in 1984 or Michael Dukakis in 1988, though they had little flings with bit-part players Gary Hart and (I kid you not) Bruce Babbitt, a genial former Governor of Arizona.

But by the 1990s a new Democrat, or rather a New Democrat, was come among us, a man the media told us would lift our eyes from our selfish greed and rid the world of the ineffable misery left by 12 years of reactionary rule. It's hard to imagine now, after the battering he's taken from his old friends in the press these past few months, but Bill Clinton was once their idol. His cleverly cynical balancing act - promising a return to high-minded tolerance while executing mentally ill prisoners in Arkansas, for example - was lauded as a brilliant synthesising of traditional liberal ideology with the political realities of the modern age.

The alert among you will have noticed by now that what all these spiritually uplifting leaders have in common. They are all Democrats. Never in any of the chapters of this hagiography does a Republican, a conservative, appear in a remotely similar light. These alien creatures by contrast have always been portrayed as cartoonish representatives of the Dark Side of humanity, or, if they were really lucky, simply idiots, failed B-movie actors and irredeemably ignorant hicks with embarrassingly neanderthal views on women, religion and communism.

It's been a while coming - neither Al Gore in 2000 (before the luminescence created by his recent joint Nobel/Oscar triumphs) nor John Kerry in 2004 quite fit the bill. But it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.

You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled "The O Team". This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.

Mr Obama is portrayed throughout as an immanently benevolent figure. Not human really, more a comforting presence, a light source. He is always eager to listen to all aides of an argument, always instilling confidence in the weak-willed, resolutely sticking to his high principles and tirelessly spurning the low road of electoral politics. I stopped reading after a while but I'm sure by the end he was healing the sick, comforting the dying, restoring sight to the blind and setting prisoners free.

The panegyric included the now conventional wisdom in the media that Republicans have only ever won elections in the past 40 years through lies and fearmongering - smearing their opponents and spreading false fears that a vote for a Democrat would open the country to foreign invasion.

To be fair, the Newsweek credo was only the latest and perhaps most shameless phase of the pro-Obama liturgy in the media. Some cable TV channels prostrate themselves nightly before him. Most newspapers worship at the altar. They have already set up a neat narrative for the election between Senator Obama and John McCain in November - the Second Coming versus Old Grouchy, The Little Flower of Illinois up against the Scaremongering Axeman from Arizona.

There's a special irony here. Senator McCain is the Republican who has received probably the single most favourable treatment from the media in the past 40 years. He has been a favourite because he conformed to the first law of contemporary political journalism: the only good conservative is a bad conservative. His willingness to defy his party on everything from taxes to global warming, to take on George Bush, has earned him at least an honourable mention in the martyrology of American politics of the past 40 years. But now that he's up against Oh! Bama! he will have to be recast in the more familiar Republican mould of villain and scaremonger-in-chief.

This media narrative is not only an outgrowth of the journalists' natural enthusiasm for a Democrat such as Mr Obama. It is also a clever ploy to pre-emptively de-legitimise any Republican critique of the Democratic nominee. It is designed to prevent Mr McCain from asking reasonable questions about Mr Obama's strikingly vacuous political background, or raising doubts about his credentials for the presidency.

The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee. If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.

Source




Fuel prices: Too `Complex'?

By Thomas Sowell

The sheer irrationality of Obama does have a good explanation

Some people think that the reason the public misunderstands so many issues is that these issues are too "complex" for most voters. But is that really so? With all the commotion in the media and in politics about the high price of gasoline, is there really some terribly complex explanation? Is there anything complex about the fact that with two countries- India and China- having rapid economic growth, and with combined populations 8 times that of the United States, they are creating an increased demand for the world's oil supply?

The problem is not that supply and demand is such a complex explanation. The problem is that supply and demand is not an emotionally satisfying explanation. For that, you need melodrama, heroes and villains. It is clear that many people prefer to blame President Bush. Others prefer to blame the oil companies, who have long been the favorite villains of the left. Politicians understand that. Numerous times they have summoned the heads of oil companies before Congressional committees to be denounced on nationwide television for "greed," with the politicians calling for a federal investigation to "get to the bottom of this!"

Now that is emotionally satisfying, which is the whole point. By the time yet another federal investigation is completed- and turns up nothing to substantiate the villainy that is supposed to be the reason for high gasoline prices- most people's attention will have turned to something else. Newspapers that carried the original inflammatory charges with banner headlines on page 1 will carry the story of the completed investigation that turned up nothing as a small item deep inside the paper. This has happened at least a dozen times over the past few decades and it will probably happen again.

What about those "obscene" oil company profits we hear so much about? An economist might ask, "Obscene compared to what?" Compared to the investments made? Compared to the new investments required to find, extract and process additional oil supplies? Asking questions like these are among the many reasons why economists have never been very popular. They frustrate people's desires for emotionally satisfying explanations.

If corporate "greed" is the explanation for high gasoline prices, why are the government's taxes not an even bigger sign of "greed" on the part of politicians- since taxes add more to the price of gasoline than oil company profits do? Whatever the merits or demerits of Senator John McCain's proposal to temporarily suspend the federal taxes on gasoline, it would certainly lower the price more than confiscating all the oil companies' profits. But it would not be as emotionally satisfying.

Senator Barack Obama clearly understands people's emotional needs and how to meet them. He wants to raise taxes on oil companies. How that will get us more oil or lower the price of gasoline is a problem that can be left for economists to puzzle over. A politician's problem is how to get more votes- and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to be a hero who will save us from the villains.

You have heard of the cavalry to the rescue. But have you ever heard of economists to the rescue? While economists are talking supply and demand, politicians are talking compassion, "change" and being on the side of the angels- and against drilling for our own oil. Has any economist ever attracted the kinds of cheering crowds that Barack Obama has- or even the crowds attracted by Hillary Clinton or John McCain? If you want cheering crowds, don't bother to study economics. It will only hold you back. Tell people what they want to hear- and they don't want to hear about supply and demand.

No, supply and demand is not too "complex." It is just not very emotionally satisfying.

Source




NObama

Over 90% of black Democrats support Obama. So, asks Cinque Henderson in a must-read New Republic article,

What the hell is up with that other 10 percent? Are they stupid? Do they hate their own race? Do they not understand the historical import of the moment? I can shed some insight on this demographic anomaly. In gatherings of black people, I'm invariably the only one for the Dragon Lady. I'll do my best to explain how those of us in the ever-shrinking minority of a minority came to our position.

And shed light he does! But before he even starts he lays his cards on the table:

I disliked Obama almost instantly. I never believed the central premises of his autobiography or his campaign. He is fueled by precisely the same brand of personal ambition as Bill Clinton. But, where Clinton is damned as "Slick Willie," Obama is hailed as a post-racial Messiah. Do I believe that Obama had this whole yes-we-can deal planned from age 16? No, I would respond. He began plotting it at age 22. This predisposition, of course, doesn't help me in making the case against Obama, especially not with black people. But, believe me, there's a strong case to be made that he isn't such a virtuous mediator of race. And it's this skepticism about Obama's racial posturing that has led us, the 10 percent, into dissent.

First, he doesn't like the fact that

Barack is the black person [white liberals] want the rest of us to be - half-white and loving, or "racially transcendent," as the press loves to call him. And, since picking a candidate makes you allies with his other supporters, why would I want to be allies with educated whites whose glorification of Barack depends in large part on their implicit denigration of the rest of us?

But he dislikes Obama for reasons that go far beyond the fact that white liberals like him. In fact, he writes, "once you stare past the radiant glow surrounding Obama and begin to study the exact reasons for his so-called racial transcendence, you can't help but conclude that it is mostly hokum."

Channeling Malcolm X

It is Obama's biography, we are told, that will govern his behavior. He was raised by a mother who supposedly didn't see color, so he doesn't see color. He was born into tolerance and multi-racial understanding, so he will practice tolerance and multi-racial understanding. Except, that is, when it's not useful to him....

It's worth remembering that the majority of blacks still think O.J. Simpson is innocent. And, in times like these, when a black man is out front in the public eye, black people feel both proud and vulnerable and, as a result, scour the earth for evidence of racists plotting to bring him down, like an advance team ready to sound an alarm. Barack needed only a gesture, a quick sneer or nod in the direction of the Clintons' hidden racism to avail himself of the twisted love that rescued O.J. and others like him and to smooth his path to victory, and, therefore, to salvage his candidacy. After Donna Brazile and James Clyburn started to cry racism, Barack was repeatedly asked his thoughts. He declined to answer, allowing the charge to grow for days (in sharp contrast to how he leapt to Joe Biden's defense a month earlier). But, while he remained silent about the allegations of racism, he gave speeches across South Carolina that warned against being "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" by the Clintons. His use of the phrase is resonant. It comes from a scene in Malcolm X, where Denzel Washington warns black people about the hidden evils of "the White Man" masquerading as a smiling politician: "Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us," he says. "You've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled."

But all that is prelude, in my view, to his most powerful reason for resenting Obama, a reason that will be familiar to those of you who've been following my Obama threads here.

As the son of a Baptist minister, I can attest that Wright is and was an extreme aberration from how the overwhelming majority of black Christians worship. In church, black people hear about Peter, Paul, Mary, and how to get into heaven. How to forgive. How to love. Not how to vote.

But here was Barack suggesting that Wright's behavior was commonplace in black churches: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." He generalized Wright's ridiculousness to distract from his individual choice to worship under a buffoon for two decades. I have a cousin who attended Wright's church for three weeks and then left, never to return. She had no interest in hearing his nonsense from the pulpit.

Barack obscured the true nature of black religious life because, to do otherwise, he would have had to answer the question, "Why are you a member of a church that is this racially divisive and such a sharp aberration to how the rest of black people worship?" When Barack beautifully suggested that the beliefs pronounced from the pulpit of Trinity in Chicago are not uncommon, he was feeding us garbage. But Barack needed to protect his reputation as a race-healer and unifier, so he told a lie about black religious life to help keep the glow of his own reputation alive. And now the evidence suggests that Barack didn't, in the end, break with Wright over his outrageous racial claims, but over his suggestion that Barack is just a politician.

I've tried to say that several times, but for some reason I suspect the point will be more credible coming from a Hillary-supporting son of a black Baptist preacher. Indeed, the only think in this article I disagree with is its support for Hillary.

Source




The Lessons of West Virginia

I suppose it is fitting that the news media and the super delegates are ignoring the significance of a thrashing of monumental proportions. After all, this campaign is being brought by to us by a media that gives new life to a traditional proverb satirist Jonathan Swift's once cited that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Swift may have been a product of the Enlightenment, but he anticipated the relationship that much of the modern media political narrative has to the concepts of reason and truth.

What I saw Tuesday that caused my eyes to go wide was Fox flashing exit polling results showing that while 63% of West Virginia Democrat primary voters found Hillary Clinton honest and trustworthy, less than half said the same of Barak Obama. While I find it mind boggling for any politician named Clinton to poll so well on the issue of honesty, it was equally startling how far voter perception may have shifted on Obama. In the hard fought campaigns in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania in which Hillary ultimately won, Obama's supporters were quick to note that their man had prevailed in the character question in the exit polls, sometimes by an impressive margin. This, they said, certainly made him the best choice for the general election. Now that their man gets walloped by a Clinton on the question of who is the more honest and trustworthy their tune has changed. Now perceptions of honesty don't matter at all to voters.

At NRO, Jim Geraghty noted that Obama supporters are now insisting that there's an antipathy to Obama unique to white, working class voters across Appalachia that just isn't shared by their counterparts in the rest of the nation. Thus those West Virginia, western Virginia, East Tennessee, Southern Pennsylvania, Western North Carolina and (presumably) Eastern Kentucky voters who voted against Obama can all be safely ignored even though recent results have totally eviscerated the initial narrative that Obama's campaign transcends race, class and culture. So what if the facts show the only thing this race is about right now is identity politics based on race, class and culture? It's best for everyone that those facts get ignored. Clinton was expected to win West Virginia. She won so it means nothing to the narrative. Move on.

What an amazing way to run a campaign! Those who continue to consider Obama a great political candidate are not unaware that his voting record has moved further to the left each year that he has been in the U.S. Senate until he now stands to the left of all 99 of his colleagues. They just dismiss it as irrelevant. As the number of voting blocs finding serious flaws in the vision of Obama as a unifier continues to expand, it is amusing to hear the Obama media claque bleat even louder about his unique political skills on the one hand, as they dismiss voters who say they're just not comfortable with Obama's philosophy and his experience with the other. No appeal to working class whites in Appalachia? Big Deal. They're too stupid and racist to matter. Weak appeal to observant Catholics? Nobody cares about sexually uptight anti abortion zealots anyway. Jews voters are uneasy? They're Jews. Who cares to begin with? We don't need any of them.

So much for the big tent concept in this crowd. Should Puerto Rico go for Clinton, the political tent under construction by this claque is at risk of looking so small it might find itself marketed by Mattel as part of the Barbie Goes Camping ensemble. Their attitude is rapidly approaching that of why even count the votes anyway? America has been offered a compelling narrative supported by the people who really matter: Us few. We the smug. We the Obama-maniacs. And if you're not one of us, it must mean you are a racist. What a recruiting slogan!

As I observe much of the media coverage of this election I sometimes have to make sure I have not picked up a copy of Gulliver's Travels by mistake and am inside at the School for Political Projectors at the Academy at Lagado in Balnibarbi That's because much of the recent primary analysis in the media is laden with extravagant and irrational nonsense that our self-described political philosophers maintain as truth. Principal among such irrationality is the idea that a 40 point loss by the purported Democrat frontrunner in a state that was solidly Democrat until 2000 is irrelevant.

White working class voters in Appalachia are unimportant? To whom? They certainly were important to Al Gore. For the last eight years the Obama-maniacs have been blaming imaginary Republican dirty tricks in Florida for his defeat. In really it came at the hands of voters in West Virginia and Eastern Tennessee, states that Gore was an early favorite to win. The second part of the proverb Swift cited in his Polite Conversation applies here: The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.

Source




Is Obama Smarter Than A 5th Grader?

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has an indicted, Syrian-born Chicago shyster named Tony Rezko for a financial mentor. He has a screwball, race-baiting, America-hating pastor named Jeremiah Wright for a spiritual mentor. He has an unrepentant domestic terrorist named William Ayers for a political mentor. And he has one of the angriest wives ever to aspire to the position of First Lady. Obama refuses to wear a flag lapel pin because he thinks it is more patriotic to criticize his country than to support it, or even to wear a symbol of its support. Obama thinks those of us out here in flyover country are all a bunch of bitter, gun-toting, Bible-thumping bigots furious at 'those who don't look like us.'

That really should be enough to sink this lightweight candidacy filled with vague language about 'hope' and 'change' - what George Will has called 'rhetorical cotton candy.' But wait. There's more. Just when we thought Obama had shot himself in the last foot he had available, he presents us with another gift.

On top lapelgate and pastorgate and bittergate, now comes stategate. It seems that the brilliant Barack Obama doesn't know how many states there are in our union. In an off-the-cuff statement you will not hear about on the nightly news, Obama declared that during his presidential campaign, he has visited 57 states. He also said that he has one more to visit: Alaska and Hawaii. I swear to you, that's what the man said. Here are his exact words: 'I've now been to 57 states'I have one more to go'they wouldn't let me go to Alaska and Hawaii.'

Now, try to imagine if John McCain - or any other Republican - had uttered such a stupid statement in public. Is there any doubt that person would have been pilloried and Dan Quayled for the remainder of this campaign? (At least when Quayle questioned the spelling of potato, he had some basis in fact for his inquiry: the plural of the word is 'potatoes' - with an 'e.') McCain is still being vilified for referring to Iran-supported terrorists in Iraq as al Qaida, as if the vast majority of Americans care about the distinction between a Sunni and a Shiite terrorist.

Entire books have been written about the gaffes of George W. Bush. He has been castigated for everything from his mispronunciation of the word 'nuclear' (he always says 'nucular') to his inability to communicate with the press. His mangled syntax has been regular fodder for the crew at 'Saturday Night Live' for his entire two terms in office. 'Misunderestimated' was always one of my personal favorites. But even the most misinformed American can tell you this country has 50 states, having learned that information in what? Kindergarten?

But fear not, Obama supporters; excuses will be made by the mainstream media. 'He was tired,' we will be told, or 'he misspoke.' And they will only tell you that if they are forced to report on the matter at all. The New York Times (and most other major newspapers), CNN, ABC, CBS, tax-supported PBS and especially NBC are so pro-Obama it is downright embarrassing, and make no mistake, they will continue to circle the wagons around this guy, just as they have done throughout this campaign.

Perhaps Obama should be a contestant on Fox's 'Are you smarter than a 5th grader?' Or maybe Jay Leno could interview him out on Hollywood Boulevard as part of his Tonight Show 'Jay Walking' segment. How many of our states have you been to, Senator Obama? Fifty-seven? That's very impressive. I hope you get the chance to see the other one. Or is it two?

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





16 May, 2008

Bush, Obama clash over 'politics of fear'

White House hopeful Barack Obama has accused President George W Bush of tainting US foreign policy with the "politics of fear" after the US leader implied in Israel that Democrats would appease terrorists. President Bush's comments, in a speech to the Israeli parliament, ignited a fierce election-year row between the White House and the Illinois senator, in the president's most direct clash yet with Democrats vying to succeed him.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said, drawing parallels with 1930s accommodation of the Nazis. "We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The White House denied the comments directly targeted Senator Obama, who has said he would be ready to hold direct talks with leaders of US foes including Iran and Syria, which the Bush administration has shunned. But an angry Senator Obama, who holds an overwhelming lead in his Democratic nominating contest against Hillary Clinton, swiftly hit back in a statement, as his campaign accused Bush of adopting "cowboy diplomacy."

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicisation of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel," Senator Obama said. "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack." "Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria."

Obama's intervention came as his campaign tries to shift the focus away from his climaxing nominating tussle with Clinton and towards a general-election showdown with Republican John McCain.

White House press secretary Dana Perino was asked whether President Bush had intended to refer directly to Obama. "I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you - that is not always true and it is not true in this case," she said. Another Bush spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said "it is not specifically referring to any individual and doesn't exclude any individual".

Senator Obama said in a Democratic presidential debate last July that he would be willing to hold talks, without preconditions, with the leaders of top US foes including Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba. In a subsequent debate in April, Obama renewed his offer for direct talks at a leaders' level with Tehran, saying the Islamic Republic should be pressed with "carrots and sticks" to end its nuclear program. But also said he would take no option off the table to stop Tehran from using or obtaining nuclear weapons.

The row overshadowed a major speech by Senator McCain, who for the first time laid out a timeline to end the Iraq war, arguing he would get most US troops home by 2013 if elected president. The Arizona senator said also that al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed, and that the threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan would be greatly reduced by the end of his first term in the White House. "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom," McCain said in Columbus, Ohio. "The Iraq war has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension," he said in his crystal ball speech.

Senator McCain's comments appeared to be an effort to neutralise an attack by Democrats who argue he is ready to fight a 100-year war in Iraq, as he limbers up his campaign for November's general election.

Source




The dummy's latest gaffe

He knows nothing outside his Chicago milieu

ABC News' David Wright and Sunlen Miller Report: Sporting a shiny new American flag pin at an appearance in Rush Limbaugh's hometown, Sen. Barack Obama came up with some novel reasons why the U.S. may be struggling in the war in Afghanistan.

"We don't have enough capacity right now to deal with it -- and it's not just the troops," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Obama posited -- incorrectly -- that Arabic translators deployed in Iraq are needed in Afghanistan -- forgetting, momentarily, that Afghans don't speak Arabic. "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then its harder for us to use them in Afghanistan," Obama said.

The vast majority of military translators in both war zones are drawn from the local population. Naturally they speak the local language. In Iraq, that's Arabic or Kurdish. In Afghanistan, it's any of a half dozen other languages -- including Pashtu, Dari, and Farsi.

No sooner did Obama realize his mistake -- and correct himself -- but he immediately made another. "We need agricultural specialists in Afghanistan, people who can help them develop other crops than heroin poppies, because the drug trade in Afghanistan is what is driving and financing these terrorist networks. So we need agricultural specialists," he said.

So far, so good. "But if we are sending them to Baghdad, they're not in Afghanistan," Obama said.

Iraq has many problems, but encouraging farmers to grow food instead of opium poppies isn't one of them. In Iraq, oil fields not poppy fields are a major source of U.S. technical assistance.

After seeing the report team Obama doubled down on ignorance.

Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesperson, disputes this report, writing in to say, "This poorly researched and written piece is inaccurate in that it just completely ignores the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan, and the need for agricultural specialists in Iraq. It is irresponsible to report such issues so matter-of-factly without checking out the actual facts. Please reference these very simple and easy to find websites to learn more about these issues: on the need for agricultural specialists in Iraq; and on the foreign fighters in Afghanistan.

To which, ABC News' David Wright responds:

Interesting pushback from the Obama campaign on this story. It begs a response. They point out that the U.S. has indeed deployed agricultural experts to Iraq, in an effort to work with aid organizations to rebuild Iraq's food infrastructure. Other technical experts were deployed early on to southern Iraq to help rebuild the ravaged ecosystem of the Marsh Arabs, whom Saddam Hussein sought to exterminate. The U.S. and its allies sent much and varied assistance to the Iraqi people, including agricultural aid. My bad.

However, Obama's point seemed to be that the Iraq effort constituted a brain drain in the Afghanistan agricultural problems, that the experts deployed to Iraq would otherwise have gone to Afghanistan to encourage Afghan farmers to grow food not poppies. That strikes me -- as someone who has covered the conflicts in both countries extensively -- as doubtful. The main problem now in both Iraq and Afghanistan is the lack of security, which makes it too dangerous for the experts to do their work.

Actually some of the best farm help in Afghanistan are displaced farmers from Zimbabwe. They are having an impact as has the increasing prices for food. Because of the nature of the drug trade the farmers get a small fraction of the street value of the drugs. Food has become a completive commodity to poppies for the farmers. Another plus to food is that they are dealing with a higher quality purchaser.

There reassertion that Arabic translators are needed in Afghanistan still seems strained even if al Qaeda fighters make up part of the fighting force. The main function of the translators is to work with the locals to help find the bad guys. There are no Arab farmers in Afghanistan. Like his previous gaffe on the Anbar Awakening, whenever Obama drifts from "hope" and "unity" into specifics he is in trouble.

Source




Obama '08 "All the Way With DSA"

If Barack Obama's campaign for the US presidency has an unofficial slogan, it should be "All the way with DSA". The Marxists of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America helped launch Obama's political career and have supported him ever since. DSA linked unions have endorsed Obama's campaign for the Deocratic nomination and DSA linked figures such as Congresswomen Jan Schakowsky and Barbara Lee have come out strongly for the Senator.

While the iron disciplined Communist Party USA has committed itself totally to the Obama cause, the looser DSA is less obvious about its support. Traditionally DSA allows its members more freedom to back candidates of their choice, but several prominent DSA members have stood up for Obama in recent times. These range from senior union officials, to street level supporters, to well known academics.

An interesting example of Obama/union/political solidarity occurred in Chicago on March 3rd 2007. I quote from blog Public Affairs

Speaking in a vernacular and cadence that showed the Harvard Law School and Columbia University trained Barack Obama can connect with working class people, the third year U. S. Senator wowed and energized a mostly labor union crowd of about 1600supporters this morning...

The event attracted some of Labor's big hitters to join Obama on the dais and speak, including John Sweeney, President of the AFL-CIO and Gerald McEntee, President of AFSCME. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky [D-Evanston, 9th CD], an early and big-time supporter of Obama's in the 2004 Senate Primary and Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL] also spoke...

Eight other individuals spoke at the rally, including local labor leaders and health care workers, as well as a local favorite for liberals, Dr. Quentin Young.

Cong. Jan Schakowsky [D-Evanston, 9th CD]: . Employers can intimidate, fire, threaten to move people from the day shift to the graveyard...it is a new day in our nation's capital, it's a new day for Resurrection workers and their friends, it's a new day for immigrant workers, it's a new day for all our working Americans who dream of the justice that ONLY the Union Movement can deliver. And, to the doubters I say, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait until we have a Labor Department under President Barack Obama.

Its a safe bet that Jan Schakowsky is angling to head the US Labor Department under President Obama. John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO is the USA's most powerful labour leader. he is also a long time DSA member. Gerald McEntee, the nation's top public sector unionist is a strong Sweeney ally. He is also allegedly a DSA member. According to San Francisco DSA member Michael Pugliese;

BTW, for what it's worth McEntee, is one of the DSA notables in the labor bureaucrat column. As is John Sweeney.

Quentin Young is a well known Chicago DSA member and early Obama backer, who seems to have come back to the cause, after a period of disillusionment with his friend and neighbour. Jan Schakowsky has close ties to DSA. Dick Durbin is a strong Obama backer and is regarded as one of the most far left members of the US Senate.

More here




Obama and the Cross

I have been telling Brody File readers for months that if Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee he will make a pitch to win over independent/moderate Evangelicals. Well, we now have evidence. Look at the flyer below:



In Kentucky, he is making a direct appeal to Evangelicals with flyers that mention his conversion experience and they highlight a big old cross. Remember Mike Huckabee's supposed subliminal cross in his Christmas campaign ad? Well, the Obama campaign ditches the subliminal and goes for the in your face cross. Look at the flyer here.

The Obama campaign has consistently believed that their candidate can compete for the "religious vote". A lot has been made about how Obama hasn't done as well with Catholics compared to Clinton. But let's remember one thing: Obama has a story to tell about how Jesus came into his life. You can bet we will be hearing more details about it on the stump in the fall. (if Obama is the nominee)

Meanwhile, John McCain won't be partaking in the "Evangelical speak" or handing out these types of flyers in the south which makes you wonder if Huckabee could help McCain shore up the Evangelical base and at the same time play to the Independent middle with his populist streak.

I know the conservative policy purists will say that Obama is liberal and therefore Evangelicals won't buy his "Evangelical speak". Not so fast. Remember, many people vote based on an emotional connection to a candidate or if they can relate to that person. Obama may need to work on this perception that he is "elite" but when he talks about Jesus and the Bible and the fact that he's a sinner, it makes him more real and in the process, more electable too.

Source




Obama and crime

With Illinois Senator Barack Obama almost certain to be the Democratic nominee, Republican groups are focusing on his vulnerabilities. They are highlighting some of his positions during his eight years in the Illinois state legislature, from opposing extending the death penalty for gang members to supporting the ``decriminalization'' of marijuana and refusing to back restrictions on porn shops. ``I would be amazed if crime was not used extensively to show how out of step this guy is with the mainstream of America,'' said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican strategist unaffiliated with the campaign of the party's presumptive nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain. Fabrizio said the crime votes, in particular, were ``something visceral.'' ``If McCain's people and Republicans run the right campaign against Barack Obama, John McCain can win in a landslide,'' Fabrizio said.

The Obama campaign said the charges are unfounded and the candidate has been consistently tough on crime. As a state senator, Obama's campaign said, the candidate sponsored laws to remove the statute of limitations for first- degree murder and to extend it for sexual assault; to protect victims of domestic violence; to increase penalties on drunk drivers and white-collar crime, and to protect victims' rights. Obama, 46, also worked on legislation to crack down on sex offenders and drug dealers and repeatedly voted to lengthen sentences for criminals, the campaign said. He also supported measures to address gang violence.

Republicans are trying to ``distract, deflect and distort the record,'' said David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, and the effort is ``destined to fail.'' ``It's not going to deflect attention from the fact that Senator McCain is carrying the tattered banner of the Bush administration on economic matters and foreign policy,'' Axelrod said.

McCain, 71, has yet to raise the crime issue, though Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, said his ``record will stand in stark contrast to either of the potential Democratic nominees for president.''

Meanwhile, Republican surrogates, mainly independent groups, are resurrecting the strategy that sunk former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's 1988 presidential bid. Floyd Brown, creator of ads that played to racial fears and portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime, recently produced an ad that attacks Obama's 2001 vote against a bill that would have made gang members eligible for the death penalty. Brown's 1988 ad against Dukakis, who lost to Republican George H.W. Bush after failing to quell concerns that he was weak on crime, focused on a Massachusetts parolee, Willie Horton, who committed armed robbery and rape. The current spot recounts the stories of three Chicago residents murdered by gangs.

``They're trying to use the old Republican trick of law and order and crime as code words for race,'' said Leonard Steinhorn, a political communications expert at American University in Washington who was a volunteer speechwriter for Dukakis. ``If it's going to succeed with any cohort, it's the cohort of older Americans because they're the ones who have the most outdated racial attitudes.'' Depending on how far the activists take the issue, McCain may have to distance himself, Steinhorn said.

Even some Republicans said the strategy has its limits. ``Those issues won't work in this election,'' said John Weaver, a former senior adviser to McCain. ``In a change election in a country that's in a recession and in a war, issues like that tend to be not as important.''

Much of the crime material comes from research compiled for former Illinois Republican Senate candidate Jack Ryan, whose 2004 campaign against Obama collapsed after lurid details about his marriage were unsealed in divorce court. The research cites Obama's 2001 vote against a bill restricting ``adult-use'' establishments near schools, churches and homes; and his failure to support tougher laws against sex offenders. Obama said at the time the adult-use issue was a local zoning matter and that the Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act would deny due process.

In 2004, Obama said the U.S. should ``re-think and decriminalize our marijuana laws'' though he didn't support legalization. The campaign has since said that he believes too many first-time, non-violent drug offenders are being sent to prison. Other items include Obama's 2001 vote against extending the death penalty to murders committed by gang members. The state's Republican governor vetoed the bill, calling it ``misdirected,'' and Obama said Illinois already had ``sufficient laws on the books.''

Limey Nargelenas, deputy director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said Obama isn't weak on crime. The candidate, he said, broke with the majority of Democrats in the state Senate by supporting legislation allowing retired police officers to carry firearms. ``Democrats tend to be more liberal,'' said Nargelenas, a Republican. ``But with Senator Obama, we found he takes a look at the issue and looks at both sides.''

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





15 May, 2008

Dissecting Hillary's Win in West Virginia

Ninety-five percent of Democratic primary voters in West Virginia today were white. About 70 percent of them did not have a college degree. Among white voters without a college degree - largest demographic in the state - Hillary carried, 72 percent to 25 percent. She won white voters with a college degree, 55 percent to 41 percent. Back of the envelope calculation gives Hillary a floor of 64.15 percent... winning by 29 points at least.

As discussed last Tuesday afternoon, the dominant voices in the press are ready to declare the race over. Last Tuesday night, we saw some of the most influential voices in television news (Russert, Stephanopolous) declare the primary over. Terry McAuliffe is complaining that 90 percent of the media are in the tank for Obama. (Welcome to the party, pal.)

You'll see the press, and Obama's surrogates (perhaps I repeat myself) insist that tonight's result means nothing, and indeed, in the delegate count, the effect is marginal. But superdelegates ought to be sweating. White working-class voters, and various overlapping demographics - the elderly, Catholics, Jews - just aren't warming up to Obama, and they've been the backbone for the party for generations. Liberal bloggers (and Saturday Night Live, and arguably the Washington Post) are responding by suggesting Hillary's supporters are racist; these people may not be so eager to vote for Obama in November as the pundits insist. Once you insult a voter by calling them racist, they may not be eager to meekly repent by doing as their moral betters in the pundit class demand.

Hillary Clinton is still the underdog, and she faces long odds to overcome Obama in the delegate and superdelegate fights. But the fact that anointed-nominee Obama couldn't make any traction in any key demographic in West Virginia ought to keep the superdelegates awake at night. And she will be invigorated by this win; landslide victories tend to do that. The exhausted mainstream media bigfoots tried to end this story one chapter too early.

Source




Life is Old There

As expected, Hillary Clinton beat the you-know-what out of Barack Obama in West Virginia by something on the order of 66% to 27%. This is becoming a White v. Black primary battle. According to the exit polls, 95% of the voters in West Virginia were White and, according to the AP piece written by Dave Espo and Matt Apuzzo: "Nearly a quarter were 60 or older, and a similar number had no education beyond high school. More than half were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less, and the former first lady was wining a whopping 69 percent of their votes."

If you want this primary campaign to be over, then you write-off the Mountain State and continue your fantasy that Clinton will have some epiphany tonight and wake up tomorrow morning proclaiming Barack Obama is the one and true nominee of the Democratic party. If you are not on illegal drugs, you look at her better than 2-1 win last night and say, "Why would she want to get out after a huge win in a state which is no less legitimate than North Carolina (which Obama won handily last week).

The only major difference between the two is that WV is almost completely White and North Carolina is about 22% Black. The issue for Democrats is that according to the 2000 census, Blacks make up less than 13% of the total population of the United States, and so winning even overwhelming majorities of Black voters in November will not be enough to win the Presidency if he is getting the support of a minority of White voters. I am not in favor of people voting on the basis of race but, obviously, people do.

Hillary Clinton is a Woman. Barack Obama is Black. John McCain is 71. Those are facts. For most people those particular facts don't matter. For some, maybe for a lot, they do.

I did a phone interview with a newspaper reporter yesterday afternoon and after sparring for about 20 minutes, the reporter finally asked me "and you can answer this off the record, if you want" whether I thought America was ready to elect a Black President. I said (on the record) that America was ready for a Black President, but I didn't think it was ready for this particular Black man (Obama) to be President.

I reminded the reporter that Obama has been in the US Senate for three years and has been running for President for two of them. Remember, that Hillary Clinton said at the debate in Cleveland this past February that Obama "chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan." To which Obama responded: "Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007."

He was too busy running for President to (a) do the things a Senator is paid to do, or (b) learn the things that a President needs to know. Go figure.

I told this reporter that, as far as I was concerned, someone like [NY Congressman] Charlie Rangel might make a formidable candidate for President having served in the US Congress since 1991 and, (according to Wikipedia) is the "Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. He is the first African-American to chair the committee. Rangel earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in the Korean War."

Compare and contrast that to Barack Obama who didn't serve a day in military service, and has spent two-thirds of his entire three-year US Senate career running for President. Thus he has been, by his own admission, too busy to do any substantive work on the important Committees to which he is assigned: Foreign Relations; Veterans Affairs; Health; Education; Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

See what I mean? According to the New York Times, in his eight years as a State Senator in Illinois, Obama "effectively sidestepped" difficult issues by voting "present . nearly 130 times as a state senator."

Hillary won big in West Virginia last night and only a fool would bet the family homestead that she will be leaving this race any time soon.

Source




Obama Ends Hezballah War With Two Sentences



Now this is the sort of foreign-policy acumen I've been waiting for. Sayeth the Lamb of Chicago:

This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately.... It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

Ah! Well that ought to do it then. Noah Pollak notes that "those who have influence with Hezballah" -- that is, Iran and Syria -- are precisely those encouraging Hezballah to make war on Lebanon. So precisely why "those who have influence with Hezballah" would work to stop them from doing exactly that which they've ordered them to do is not exactly clear. But Bush, you know, is an idiot.

Oh, and Here's a Shock: Having successfully wooed the hard left under his banner in the primaries, Obama decides it's okay to display the "false patriotism" of a flag pin again, just in time for the general election campaign.

Source




Obama On Affirmative Action: A Class Act?

Richard Kahlenberg, who's been campaigning for class-based affirmative action for years, has an article on InsideHigherEd yesterday arguing, quite persuasively, that

nothing could carry more potent symbolic value with Reagan Democrats than for Obama to end the Democratic Party's 40 years of support for racial preferences and to argue, instead, for preferences - in college admissions and elsewhere - based on economic status....

... to catch the attention of working-class whites, he needs to do something striking, which further distances himself from the Rev. Wrights of the world, who view life through the lens of race, and also signals to working-class whites that he understands that they deserve a helping hand too. Switching the basis of affirmative action policies from race to class would do just that.

Kahlenberg's right. Of course it would. It's such an obvious good move for Obama that he may well do it. But will he? Who knows? His hints - primarily saying to George Stephanopoulos once that his own daughters "probably" don't deserve preferential treatment - so far have been guarded, tentative, opaque, and quite confusing, as no doubt they were intended to be.

It's not as though Obama has said nothing about affirmative action - in fact, he's been as close to it as he has been to Rev. Wright - and to reject race preferences now he'd have to reject just about everything he's said in the past. Of course, since he's now rejected Wright he could reject preferences as well. In fact, following his shock! shock! at learning, after all these years, what Wright really stands for, he could claim, with similar persuasiveness, that in all the years he supported affirmative action he never realized that in practice it amounted to actual racial preferences.

If anyone wants to follow a fairly detailed trail of what Obama has said about affirmative action, and what others have said about what he's said, you can begin by looking here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Since I agree with the excellent points made in all those posts (I should, since I made them!), I'm sorely tempted to reprise them all here. But - you may issue a sigh of relief now - I'm not going to. The reason I'm not - other than my confidence that I don't need to because you remember them all- is that the purpose of this post is to point you to Kahlenberg's article, and Kahlenberg doesn't argue that Obama will substitute economic preference for race preference, only that he should. (In that wish, although he might shudder at the thought, he agrees with Ward Connerly.)

Now, if you doubt my fear that Kahlenberg reads too much into Obama's opaque utterances (utterances that I've called a "model of waffling obfuscation" on more than one occasion), that at best all Obama wants to do is substitute preferences for some poor whites for some rich blacks while leaving the massive structure of race preference intact, then you'll need to repair to the above posts and study Obama's quoted comments carefully.

If you do that, let me ask you to take the following quiz that I asked readers to take last November, some four months before The Speech but as relevant now as then, if not more so, after I quoted from Obama's verbose but obfuscatory comments on affirmative action in an interview:

Does Obama believe it is wrong to burden some and benefit others because of their race? Always? Usually? Sometimes? Never?

Are "qualities such as leadership, motivation, teamwork, and ability to effectively communicate" found primarily among disadvantaged blacks? If race were not a factor, would placing more weight on those qualities increase or decrease the proportion of blacks who are admitted to selective colleges?

How can affirmative action programs that treat race in a preferential manner be "properly structured" so that they give additional opportunities to blacks "without diminishing opportunities for white [or Asian] students"?

What is the nature of the "diversity" provided by blacks and Latinos in math and science, and why is it important?

How would "a scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields ... broaden the pool of talent that we need to prosper in the new economy" more than a scholarship program that was not racially restrictive? If such a program were racially restrictive, why would it not "keep white [and Asian] students out of such programs" who could not attend without a scholarship?

Does Obama believe [as I've already asked, here and here] that all minority applicants who, like his daughters, "are pretty advantaged" should receive no preferential treatment?

Would Obama award preferences to those "who are still struggling, ... who are in the middle class [but] may be first-generation as opposed to fifth- or sixth-generation college attendees" only if they are "African-American kids," or would he "take into account" those facts equally for all applicants, regardless of their race?

In short, does Obama support or oppose preferences based on race? If he opposes them, why did he make ads opposing their abolition in Michigan?

I now repeat what I said back in November:

Done? Good. Now you'll have to grade your own quizzes, since I don't know the correct answers.

The fact that we still don't know the answers to these questions (and many more, but I'll refrain for now) is a sad commentary on the lack of probing analysis and questioning from the mainstream press.

Source




The Donks need a man as Veep to Obama

So will Clinton be Obama's running mate in the general election, as many Democrats seem to want? Don't look for that to happen, Bositis said. "I've told people all along, even when Hillary was leading, that whichever one of the two won, the other would not be the vice presidential candidate. "You're talking about a significant break with the past. The party is going to nominate an African-American and white men have not only been the president when Democrats have won but always the nominee. They are not going to make such a big break as to not have a white man on the ticket.''

Bositis added: "The vice presidential candidate will be a white man to help them win the general election. The Democrats' problem in recent years has been lack of support from white men. "If Hillary had been the winner, she would pick a white man as her running mate. The change taking place is radical enough. It would be too radical not to have a white man on the ticket. You're talking about changing history, not a revolution, but the changes in this case will be incremental.''

And Bositis told me that we shouldn't feel too sorry for Hillary Clinton because she'll still be famous. "She's been the first lady, she's been elected a U.S. senator, and the Clintons are major fundraisers for the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy thought he was going to be elected president, but he didn't disappear when it didn't happen. In fact, some people say he has gone on to be the most important senator in the nation.''

Well, that's some good food for thought. And, as Bositis said, expect Hillary Clinton to keep on keeping on until the primary season ends June 3. After all, she has brought some new voters to the table, and they will be very important for the Democrats come November.

Source




The no change candidate

THE PRESIDENTIAL candidate who promises to change Washington raced into Washington's arms right after the media crowned him as the presumptive Democratic nominee. During a Thursday visit to the nation's Capitol, Barack Obama was fawned over by those he critiqued two days earlier: "Washington didn't give us much of a chance," he said during his North Carolina victory speech. Clearly, that's no longer the case.

But, being hailed as a winner is different from being hailed as the change agent Obama pledges to become. Obama changed the rhetoric and style of the 2008 contest and would make history if he becomes the first African-American president. A Democrat in the White House would change the dogma. But what else, besides the face of Washington, will he change?

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright called him out as a politician, a description that angered Obama as much as any other declaration by his former pastor because it exposed an unflattering truth. Obama held Wright close when it was politically advantageous and cut the controversial minister loose when it was politically advantageous.

The Obama campaign discouraged revotes in Michigan and Florida. It's running the clock when it comes to coming up with a solution about seating delegates from those states. Both states ignored party rules when they scheduled their primaries, leading the Democratic National Committee to strip their delegates. The Obama campaign did not rush to find a way to seat them and help Hillary Clinton add to her delegate count.

During the long primary season, Obama was occasionally asked to answer for actions that add up to very ordinary politics. One example is the flap over the North American Free Trade Agreement and an Obama representative's suggestion that what the candidate was saying on the campaign trail would not govern his actions as president.

He worked with lobbyists as an Illinois legislator and US senator, even as he distances himself from them as a presidential candidate. The Republican National Committee sent out a press release Thursday, noting that a former lobbyist, Antill E. Trotter, held a fund-raiser for Obama that night in Washington. Trotter specialized in telecommunications, transportation, and environmental issues from 2000-2004. The RNC release also contained reminders of an ABC News report that Obama introduced nine bills to make certain chemicals tax-exempt at the request of some corporate lobbyists; and a Boston Globe report about Obama's work with an insurance lobbyist to make healthcare legislation more acceptable to insurance companies.

A first term senator, Obama's relative newness to Washington helps him draw a symbolic contrast with Clinton and Republican John McCain. But in recent weeks, as more Democrats in Congress fell in step behind Obama, the establishment provides a familiar backdrop for his fresh face. During Thursday's visit, he looked like anything but an outsider. Greeted like a celebrity, he shook hands with members of both parties and posed for photographs during a stop in the House of Representatives.

The positive side of this image showcases a candidate who can unify his party and work with Republicans if elected. But part of Obama's appeal to voters is his promise to dramatically change the political culture in Washington. Savoring last week's primary victory, he said, "What North Carolina decided is that the only game that needs changing is the one in Washington, D.C."

The senator from Illinois walks a delicate line. He's the newcomer who crashed the 2008 campaign and changed the script from Clinton's inevitability to his own. He argues that he's best suited to challenge Washington's political culture because he isn't steeped in it. Today, Clinton is scorned by Democratic insiders and McCain is more maverick than darling of the GOP.

Obama speaks exquisitely about change; the signs at his rallies and speeches underscore one pledge: change. After eight years of partisanship and unproductive chill between the executive and legislative branches, it's a change to see a presidential candidate warmly embraced by the establishment. But if Obama wins the Oval Office, the next step is calculating how much distance it takes to truly change the status quo.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





14 May, 2008

Barack Obama Crusades for Driver's Licenses for Illegal Aliens

Barack Obama is easily winning the African American vote, but to woo Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in states such as California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.

Clinton stumbled into that minefield in a debate last fall and quickly backed off. First she suggested a New York proposal for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants might be reasonable. Then she denied endorsing the idea, and later came out against them. Asked directly about the issue now, her California campaign spokesman said Clinton "believes the solution is to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

"Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Pena, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."

Obama's intention is to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on what are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with earned legalization.

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses, a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

Obama made the promise to Latino leaders to take up immigration reform in his first year after Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said his party might not raise the divisive issue again until the next president's second term, assuming a Democrat wins.

Latino leaders felt betrayed. For them, an immigration overhaul is a top priority in light of state and local crackdowns on illegal immigrants and federal raids in workplaces across the country. Clinton has not made such a promise, saying only that she would make her best efforts.

"Those issues are huge," said Obama supporter and state Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, vice chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus.

Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a direct warning on the driver's license issue in an analysis last month designed to guide Democrats through the treacherous immigration quagmire. "The findings about driver's licenses are particularly notable," they said. Two-thirds of surveyed voters oppose them, the pollsters found, and the safety argument fails to dent the widespread conviction that granting a driver's license rewards illegal behavior.

But it will definitely work with Latinos, said John Trasviana, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "Clinton and (Sen. John) Edwards have said no driver's licenses for unauthorized immigrants," Trasviana said. "Sen. Obama has said you get a driver's license if you know how to drive. And that message I think will resonate in the Latino community as we get closer to California."

Hillary Clinton's biggest asset is "El Presidente." Thanks to Bill Clinton's presidency, during which he lavished attention on Latinos, and her own eight years as first lady, Hillary Clinton enjoys enormous name recognition among Latinos. Hillary picked up early endorsements from leading Latinos such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and fabled farmworker organizer Dolores Huerta. Clinton opened her new East Lost Angeles campaign office Saturday with three Latina members of Congress: Hilda Solis, Grace Napolitano and Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Obama has lined up several lesser-known officials, including Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, as well as Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Cerritos, who split from her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Clinton backer from Garden Grove.

While Clinton has the backing of the United Farm Workers, Obama has picked up the endorsement of Unite Here, a heavily immigrant service workers union.

Both camps discount speculation of simmering racial hostility that might make some Latinos reluctant to vote for a black man. "The familiarity with President Clinton has given her a very, very big lead from the beginning," said Maria Elena Durazo, secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor who is campaigning for Obama.

If there were racial animosity, "obviously we would have to address that very directly," Durazo said. But mostly the response Durazo gets when she asks Latinos about Obama is, "Who is he? I don't know who he is," whereas with Clinton, the answer comes back, "We know Presidente Bill Clinton."

Maria Echaveste, a UC Berkeley law lecturer advising the Clinton campaign, agreed. "Everyone is so quick to jump on" the racial angle, she said. "But, frankly, I think the explanation is a much greater number of people know her and love Bill Clinton."

Huerta, a longtime Latina activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union, scoffed at Obama's credentials with Latinos. Clinton worked in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas as a young woman, she said, while Obama was missing in action during two major activist events in Chicago, once when Elvira Arellano sought church sanctuary to avoid deportation, and another time when two Latino men were falsely accused of murder. "He's now trying to build a relationship, but it's just not there," Huerta said. In Nevada, casino workers dubbed themselves "Hilarios," she said, meaning Hillary supporters. "This came from the people."

With Obama, she said, "A lot of them would say, 'Senator como se llama?' They didn't know Obama's name."

Latinos also trust Clinton, Huerta said. "Support for her is not just support; it's enthusiastic support. In fact, I haven't seen anything like this since the Bobby Kennedy campaign back in '68."

Obama has begun airing campaign ads on Spanish-language TV and his supporters are working hard to promote Obama's activist Chicago roots, which Pelata declared forged "a personal connection with Latinos that no other candidate has had."

Added Durazo, "He's the son of an immigrant, he's the son of a single mother who sacrificed a lot to make sure he got his education. All of those issues resonate with a hotel housekeeper, a construction worker, a day laborer. ... I have great hope that we're going to break through that gap in a big way."

Source




Obama as 'apostate'

Islam is a religion one can embrace but never leave. If one is born to a Muslim father, or becomes a Muslim by conversion, forced or otherwise, one is a Muslim for life; and should one convert to another faith, the crime is considered capital -- above all others in Islam -- and the punishment is severe. Thus, Barack Obama, who was born a Muslim to a Muslim father and later formally converted and was baptized as a Christian may be a Christian to all the rest of the "infidel" world -- but is a Muslim apostate to Muslims. As Edward Luttwak explains in an op-ed in today's New York Times:

His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is "irtidad" or "ridda," usually translated from the Arabic as "apostasy," but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder...

With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings....

It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Iran's Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.

While assassination of Obama by Muslim fundamentalists here or abroad, should he accede to the presidency is not very likely for a variety of reasons, an American president who is regarded as a reviled criminal in much of the world and in many countries where it is both religiously and politically forbidden to guard his safety can cause considerable problems, as Luttwak further explains:

Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama - not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law - another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.

At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama's conversion to Christianity once it became widely known -- as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House.

Perhaps some Obamessiah cultists who care not for his empty record of expereince and accomplishment, not his ultra-liberal philosophy, nor his record of odious personal associations, would be well off to put his unbreakable bond to Islam into their hookahs and smoke it -- especially the mealy-mouths who are so worried about what other countries think of us and our leaders.

Source




Obama: Israel a 'constant sore' that 'infects...foreign policy'

Prez Ahmadinejad of Iran says Israel is a "tumour" too

Obama's mask slips even further: Interviewed in The Atlantic, Barack Obama tells us that Israel is a "constant wound... a constant sore..." and an infection. Gateway Pundit caught Obama's latest inflammatory remarks.

Jeff Goldberg:--- Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

Barack Obama:--- No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.

Note: Obama partisans are claiming that he said that the Midle East conflict is a constant sore. But quite clearly the antecedent to "this constant wound, that this constant sore" in the question is "Israel." Perhaps the Harvard-trained lawyer who tells us that words are important wants us to believe he was just sloppy. Or maybe words don't matter when he doesn't want them to? David Frum at National Review Online adds some additional commentary

Obama: [S]ome of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

Notice what is embedded here:

(1) a condescending assumption that the so-called hawkish position on the Arab-Israeli dispute is "blind" and adopted by US politicians only because they seek political safety - there's no acknowledgement that the dovish position was ever tried or that it in fact produced a terrible war in 2000-2003;

(2) the attitude, common on the Democratic left, that real friendship to Israel consists in compelling Israeli governments to do things that most Israelis regard as dangerous;

(3) acceptance of the red herring that it is "settlements" that are the source of the Arab-Israeli dispute;

(4) enormous and unexplained confidence that he can solve a problem through his personal intervention.

Jennifer Rubin also comments at Commentary Contentions. He was asked if he was "flummoxed" by Hamas' endorsement. The answer is not likely to set your mind as ease:

I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

No one is right or wrong, it's all "gray" and he's just the guy to let everyone know. What is jaw-dropping, however, is his assumption that Hamas might be impressed with his "worldly" outlook. That's what Hamas has been searching for: someone who is worldly. And notice the evasion he employs ("talks with people") to escape stating the obvious: they are thrilled he's offered direct talks with their sponsor and Holocaust denier Ahmejinidad.

Source




Obama's Inability to Hire Good Help Rears Its Head . Again

We started covering Sen. Barack Obama's inability to hire good staffers in June 2007, when he blamed staffers for some opposition research trying to link Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, to outsourcing in India; for injecting some venom in the David Geffen/Hillary Clinton fight; and for missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire.

In December, we noted again that Obama was blaming the answers on a 1996 questionnaire on a staffer; and was blaming his touring with "cured" ex-gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin (which antagonized gays and lesbians) on bad vetting by his staff. Those five buck-passing incidents were apparently not enough.

Yesterday, in an interesting New York Times look at Obama's rise in Chicago politics, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel's security fence. Reports the Times: "In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that 'none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel's security.'"

In January, during MSNBC's presidential debate in Las Vegas, Obama was asked about a document put together by one of his South Carolina staffers that listed comments made by the Clinton campaign that some perceived to be attempting to stoke racial fires. "In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?" asked Tim Russert. "Our supporters, our staff get overzealous," Obama said. "They start saying things that I would not say, and it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign."

In February in a meeting with the Chicago Tribune, Obama was asked about an earmark that went to the University of Chicago while his wife Michelle Obama worked there. "I don't think that I was obligated to recuse myself from anything related to the university," Obama said, adding, "when it comes to earmarks because of those concerns, it's probably something that should have been passed on to [U.S. Sen.] Dick Durbin, and I think probably something that slipped through the cracks. It did not come through us, through me or Michelle, and Michelle has been very careful about staying separate and apart from any government work. But you could make a good argument that this is something that slipped through our cracks, through our screening system."

In a March 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun-Times to answer questions about Tony Rezko, Obama was asked about the fact that Obama had told the newspaper in November 2006 that he had never been asked to do anything to advance Rezko's business interests. But the Sun-Times had subsequently learned about a October 28, 1998 letter Obama wrote to city and state housing officials on behalf of a housing project for seniors that Rezko was working on. The letter, Obama said, "was essentially a form letter of the sort that I did all time. And that I wasn't, by the way, aware of." A reporter asked: You weren't aware that he was associated with the project?

Responded Obama: "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter. The answer that I gave at the time was accurate as far as I knew...This was one of many form letters, or letters of recommendation we would send out constantly for all sorts of projects. And my understanding is that our letter was just one of many. And I wasn't a decision maker in any of this process."

The Sun-Times also pointed out that in November 2006 Obama estimated that Rezko had raised somewhere between $50,000 and $60,000 for him during his political career. But since that answer, Obama has given back almost $160,000 in Rezko-related contributions. "The original estimate was based on, I asked my staff to find what monies they attributed to Rezko, and this was the figure given to me," Obama said.

So, for those keeping track at home, that's ten instances of Obama publicly blaming his staff for various screw-ups. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10! (You of course could also add Austan Goolsbee, Samantha Power, Gordon Fischer, and retired Gen. Tony McPeak.) That would be 14. We will continue to keep track.

And for the record, yet again, let me state that I find Sen. Obama's staff unfailingly competent and polite, courteous and efficient, and I once again express my regret that Sen. Obama does apparently not feel the same way.

Source




Barack Obama has already been "Swift-Boated"

You know, one of the funny things about watching the Democrats is their alternation between fear and bravado about whether Republicans will "Swift Boat" their candidate this time around. Orwell once said that "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable.'" This is roughly the way the Democrats use the term "Swiftboating" to suggest a political attack of thoroughgoing fraudulence and impropriety concocted out of whole cloth. Never mind that each and every one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a combat veteran, including a number of highly decorated veterans; it's casually accepted that they were all liars, knaves and pawns.

But the irony of conducting this discussion in the future tense ignores the fact that, by any reasonable definition, Barack Obama has already been Swift-Boated. A true Swift-Boating proceeds in five predictable stages:

1. The Democrat makes some claim that forms the center of his appeal and convinces his followers on the left that he can reach out to voters in the middle.

Kerry: I served with honor. Thus, you can trust me on national security. Bring it on. That dog won't hunt. Go read Doug Brinkley's book.

Obama: I am a post-racial candidate. I will lead us beyond the age of race-baiting preachers and grievance-mongers. I'm also a religious man who will end the Democrats' secular fixation. Go read The Audacity of Hope.

2. The Democrat's own words are accurately quoted against him, his own actions and associations are turned back on him.

Kerry: The video of his Senate testimony. The Winter Soldier hoaxes he peddled. The Christmas in Cambodia nonsense.

Obama: Rev. Wright, the main who coined "Audacity of Hope," turns out to be just another race-baiting preacher. Obama sneers at other people's faith and has to flee from his own church one step ahead of a bitter gun-toting mob.

3. The Democrat stops answering questions and hopes the media will drop the story.

Kerry: Six weeks where his only interview or press conference was with Jon Stewart.

Obama: Hey, I answered eight questions. Let me eat my waffle. No more debates.

4. The Democrat and his supporters whine and screech about the unfairness of the thing.

Kerry: They questioned my patriotism!

Obama: Racists! Distractions from the Real Issue, which is not my words or my judgment but my...uh....

5. Denial.

Kerry: I'm a strong closer.

Obama: Hey, that was the primaries. Did I mention that John McCain was old?

Source




Wright's weird Trumpet

To the question of the moment--What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?--I answer, Obama knew everything, and he's known it for ages. Far from succumbing to surprise and shock after Jeremiah Wright's disastrous performance at the National Press Club, Barack Obama must have long been aware of his pastor's political radicalism. A careful reading of nearly a year's worth of Trumpet Newsmagazine, Wright's glossy national "lifestyle magazine for the socially conscious," makes it next to impossible to conclude otherwise.

Wright founded Trumpet Newsmagazine in 1982 as a "church newspaper"--primarily for his own congregation, one gathers--to "preach a message of social justice to those who might not hear it in worship service." So Obama's presence at sermons is not the only measure of his knowledge of Wright's views. Glance through even a single issue of Trumpet, and Wright's radical politics are everywhere--in the pictures, the headlines, the highlighted quotations, and above all in the articles themselves. It seems inconceivable that, in 20 years, Obama would never have picked up a copy of Trumpet. In fact, Obama himself graced the cover at least once (although efforts to obtain that issue from the publisher or Obama's interview with the magazine from his campaign were unsuccessful).....

I obtained the 2006 run of Trumpet, from the first nationally distributed issue in March to the November/December double issue. To read it is to come away impressed by Wright's thoroughgoing political radicalism. There are plenty of arresting sound bites, of course, but the larger context is more illuminating--and more disturbing--than any single shock-quotation. Trumpet provides a rounded picture of Wright's views, and what it shows unmistakably is that the now-infamous YouTube snippets from Wright's sermons are authentic reflections of his core political and theological beliefs. It leaves no doubt that his religion is political, his attitude toward America is bitterly hostile, and he has fundamental problems with capitalism, white people, and "assimilationist" blacks. Even some of Wright's famed "good works," and his moving "Audacity to Hope" sermon, are placed in a disturbing new light by a reading of Trumpet.

What about patriotism? While many consider Wright's call for God to damn America irredeemable, others might argue that "in context," Wright's prophetic denunciations actually prove his love of country. Unfortunately, neither Wright nor any of the other regular Trumpet columnists displays a trace of this "I'm denouncing you because I love you" stance. On the contrary, the pages of Trumpet resonate with enraged criticism of the United States. Indeed, they feature explicit repudiations of even the most basic expressions of American patriotism, supporting instead an "African-centered" perspective that treats black Americans as virtual strangers in a foreign land.

Although the expression "African American" appears in Trumpet, the magazine more typically refers to American blacks as "Africans living in the Western Diaspora." Wright and the other columnists at Trumpet seem to think of blacks as in, but not of, America. The deeper connection is to Africans on the continent, and to the worldwide diaspora of African-originated peoples. In an image that captures the spirit of Wright's relationship to the United States, he speaks of blacks as "songbirds" locked in "this cage called America." ...

The man's hatred for America is clear. The question is how could Obama have missed it? If he wan not paying attention to what those closest to him were saying, what does that say about his ability to pay attention to the details of the office of the President? Either he knew and accepted this message for 20 years, or he was not paying attention to what his closest associates were saying. Neither makes him a good candidate to lead this country.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





13 May, 2008

McCain targets 'vulnerable' Obama

BARACK Obama is bracing himself for a ferocious onslaught from Republicans who, even before he finally wraps up the Democratic nomination, are already mapping out their plan of attack for November's general election. Strategists working for John McCain believe that Mr Obama is a vulnerable target who can be portrayed as inexperienced on foreign policy and a "limousine liberal" out of touch with the concerns of voters.

"We'll make the case that Barack Obama is a wonderful new voice selling old, discredited ideas, including the most massive tax increase since Walter Mondale ran for president," said Steve Schmidt, a McCain adviser. "It's a combination of weakness, not being ready to be president and not being able to deliver on the things he says he will deliver on."

Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee which has already amassed a 1000-page dossier on the Democratic Senator, put it more bluntly: "We are going to exploit Obama's youth and inexperience."

Others, operating in the shadows outside Mr McCain's campaign, are identifying Mr Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko - a Chicago property developer indicted for corruption - or his links with violent 1960s radicals like Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. "There's plenty of stuff out there, I'm kinda like in a candy store," said Floyd Brown, who has been responsible for some of the most negative Republican advertising in previous elections.

One proposed TV advert is said to show a series of Democratic politicians, except for Mr Obama, wearing a Stars and Stripes lapel pin, before a message fills screens asking: "What's he got against the American flag?"

Last week Mr Obama denounced Mr McCain for repeating "a smear" that he had been endorsed by the militant Islamic group Hamas. The Democrat insists that his policy is not to negotiate with this "terrorist organisation". But on Friday one of his advisers, Robert Malley, resigned from the campaign after admitting that he had held meetings with the group.

Mr Obama has begun to sharpen his own attacks against Mr McCain who, he says, is standing for a "third Bush term" and represents a business-as-usual approach to Washington politics.



His campaign is also said to be weighing how far it can make an issue of Mr McCain's age - 71 - by presenting Mr Obama as a candidate offering "generational change". He is impatient to switch the focus from the remaining Democratic primaries against Hillary Clinton and raise the sights of his party towards the fight with the Republicans in November.

Mr McCain, meanwhile, suffered the embarrassment of seeing the executive picked to run the Republican convention in September being forced to resign over his links with Burma. Doug Goodyear, whose firm received $US348,000 in 2002 from the country's military junta, said that he was quitting "so as not to become a distraction in this campaign".

Although Mr Obama will make token appearances in West Virginia and Kentucky today - two states that Mrs Clinton is expected to win - he is expected to spend tomorrow in Missouri, which has already narrowly backed him for the Democratic nomination, and is set to be an important battleground in the general election.

Mr Obama has an insurmountable lead over Mrs Clinton among elected delegates and has now finally edged ahead of her in the race for the elite super-delegates that were once seen as her last, best hope for securing the nomination. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, promised that the fight would go on, saying: "Anything can happen." But Mr Obama's aides are confident that, "barring tragedy or travesty", he will be able to declare victory as soon as next week. They are being gracious towards Mrs Clinton and have down-played her incendiary remark last week that his "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" was weakening.

The Obama campaign says that the race is likely to be less of a barrier to him winning the presidency than questions about his experience or his liberal positions on social issues such as gun ownership, gay rights and abortion.

The Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill said she did not believe the colour of Mr Obama's skin was going to be a "deal breaker" in her state. "The key is going to be whether Barack can avoid getting on defence on social `wedge' issues and can stay on the offence on economic issues," she added.

Source




As Hillary Clinton fades, Barack Obama sketches outlines of November race against John McCain

Barack Obama began sketching the outlines of his expected presidential contest against Republican John McCain on Saturday, saying the fall election will be more about specific plans and priorities than about questions of political ideology or who is more patriotic. Barely mentioning Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama said he was open to campaigning with McCain in "town hall" events. But he also warned that controversial issues such as McCain's ties to the Keating Five savings and loan scandal are fair game, and he called McCain's proposal for a temporary halt in the federal gasoline tax a pander and a gimmick. He did not mention that Clinton supports a similar plan.

Obama also said he soon will campaign in Michigan and Florida, two battleground states whose Democratic primaries were essentially nullified by party disputes, angering many voters. He is scheduled to campaign Tuesday in Missouri, marking the first such visit to a state where the primary is over and McCain awaits him in the fall.

Saying he still has not secured the nomination, Obama nonetheless entertained several questions about the likely outlines of a contest against McCain. As he campaigned in Oregon, whose primary is May 20, Obama picked up four superdelegate endorsements, erasing Clinton's once-substantial lead among the party leaders who will determine the nominee.

Many party leaders feel it is only a matter of time before the former first lady must concede defeat. But Clinton forged ahead Saturday, holding a fundraiser in New York. "Let's keep going, stay with me, this is a great adventure and we're going to make history," she told the crowd.

Speaking with reporters in Bend, Ore., Obama brushed aside suggestions that the fall campaign may be largely about his race, liberalism or patriotism. "In a contest between myself and John McCain," he said, "there is going to be a very clear choice on policy that I don't think is going to have to do with ideology and who theoretically is more liberal or who's more conservative. I think it is going to have to do with who has a plan to provide relief to people when it comes to their gas prices, who has a real plan to make sure that everybody has health insurance, who's got a real plan to deal with college affordability."

"So rather than an abstract set of questions about, 'Is he too liberal, is he too conservative, how do voters handle an African American, et cetera,' I think this is going to be a very concrete contest around very specific plans for how we improve the lives of Americans and our vision for the future," he said.

Obama said he realizes he must continue introducing himself to millions of Americans who do not know him well, and acknowledged that some question his patriotism because he no longer wears a lapel flag pin. He said the test of patriotism "is whether we are true to the ideals and values upon which this country was founded," and willing to fight for them "even when it's politically inconvenient."

Obama said McCain has received "a free pass" while he and Clinton have battled for months. McCain, he said, "has a straight-talker image, but it's not clear that lately he's been following through on that image. I mean, this gas tax holiday was a pander. He didn't even have a way of paying for it." The McCain campaign noted that Obama, as an Illinois state senator, once voted for a temporary gas tax suspension. Obama now says he made a mistake.

Obama was asked Saturday if the fall campaign might touch on the 1987 Keating Five scandal, in which the Senate Ethics Committee said McCain used "poor judgment" for allegedly pressing regulators to go easy on the owner of a failed Arizona savings and loan who was also a campaign contributor. Obama said there is no doubt the Keating Five case is "germane to the presidency." "I can't quarrel with the American people wanting to know more about that," he said.

Clinton, meanwhile, spent the afternoon in Manhattan raising money for her cash-strapped campaign. She made her pitch to a crowd of several hundred people, most of them women - appealing to the group that has largely been responsible for keeping her in the race this long. In the primaries to date, Clinton has held a 60 percent to 36 percent edge over Obama among white female voters.

Appearing with her daughter, Chelsea, Clinton took questions from the audience after a short speech that touched on issues like equal pay for women and balancing work outside the home with family responsibilities. She barely mentioned Obama, only noting their differences on health care and the gas tax. She said it would be "exciting to have the first mother in the White House." "Part of what that would mean is that we would have someone who has lived the experiences that many of us share," she said.

Clinton has struggled to raise money in recent weeks, and was set back further this week when she squeaked by with a narrow win in Indiana while Obama won handily in North Carolina. Aides also disclosed that Clinton had lent her campaign $6.4 million since mid-April, and said she had not ruled out doing so again. The recent loans come after a separate $5 million loan in February.

Source




Obama's Darn Likablity

You'd be so nice to come home to.... - Cole Porter, 1942

Lurking just beneath all that defiant bravado about Obama's unacceptably left wing voting record, disgusting associates and yawning gap where his experience ought to be, is the unexpressed Republican fear that the charming Illinois Senator just might be that easy-to-live-with guy America wouldn't mind coming home to.

In any event, now that all doubt of Obama's inevitable nomination has been dispelled, it's high time John McCain, his minders and independent supporters acknowledged the enormity of the struggle they face between now and November. The stakes are huge, the political terrain a veritable wasteland, and their opponent singularly formidable.

It should be no difficult task to convince conservatives of the first (the chasm separating McCain and Obama on national defense, federal judges and taxes, to mention but three simplicities, should suffice). No sane person disputes the wretchedness of the political terrain. But there is disturbing talk among McCain supporters about the alleged weakness of the opponent. One hears and reads about a possible McCain walkover, stemming, variously, from Obama's hard left voting record, his inexperience, his awful associations or some combination of the three. These are all indeed legitimate campaign issues and themes, and they need to be hammered home ruthlessly, but any talk of making an easy case against Obama should cease.

Sensible McCain supporters need to begin this struggle with the following painful acknowledgement: on a personal level Barack Obama is one of the most ingratiating, likeable, least threatening, and intelligent-seeming men to run for the Presidency in the last hundred years. There. Though I would no more vote for him than for Robespierre, I said it. It is a fact of consequence that needs to be faced.

In personal gifts relevant to political success, only three Americans during the twentieth century merit mention with Obama: Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan. This trio, as the historically well-schooled will recall, shared not only great political talent, but a common destiny: they all won. So let's have no more talk of how much obviously weaker an opponent Obama is than what's-her-name. He is formidable enough, particularly for the execrable circumstances we confront.

I can almost sense the rage of the convinced rising up in blogosphere : "He is the most dangerous leftist to run for the presidency in a hundred years, perhaps ever;" "His odious associations will sink him like a concrete block." "He has the most Liberal voting record of any United States Senator." "He is a typical academic elitist who can't relate to the common man." Yes, yes, yes. All true. But there's a problem: to me -- a reliably conservative, serious and dour male of considerable vintage -- Obama seems like a nice guy.

This confession angers you? It's keeping me awake nights with worry. Justice Scalia put the Republican dilemma nicely when he explained why he and Ruth Bader Ginsburg like each other so much and get long so well: "Some very good people have some very bad ideas," he observed, simply and intelligently. To fit the ever prescient Scalia's thought to the Obama situation, can we safely assume that a majority of voters won't simply refuse to believe that someone so pleasant as Obama could possibly share any of the views of the creeps he's consorted with?

A bit of history that seems relevant to the present situation: In 1980, back when communication was effected through messages chipped into stone tablets carried by horses, Ronald Reagan ran for the presidency against an incumbent named Carter. Carter enthusiasts breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Republican nomination was settled. They all knew their man was in trouble, but what luck! The Republicans had nominated an out-of-the-mainstream right wing extremist! The only man Carter could beat!

Reagan's overall world view in fact was probably somewhat to the right of most Americans'. But in the event, Reagan won in a landslide, tremendously assisted by his ingratiating manner. There's more, of course, to why he won, but no one would dispute the importance of his manner. People simply couldn't believe that a man as nice as Reagan, as warm, as humorous, self-deprecating, unthreatening, and pleasant to listen to, could be dangerous. Sound like anyone you've heard of recently?

Of course, Reagan's conservatism, though probably somewhat more intense than the country's as a whole, was more in synch with 1980 America than Obama's liberalism is with the America of today. But in the Youtube, three TVs in-every-house era, would you bet the SEP IRA that Obama's undeniable affability will not trump his apparent politics?

I am not the first person, nor will I be the last, to observe that Barack Obama could turn out to be the Ronald Reagan of the left -- just nice enough to make his alleged political persona and entourage seem implausible and/or unimportant to a large segment of the great American middle.

One of the possibly unintended consequences of our amazing technology is that today an enormous percentage of our huge, three hundred million plus, citizenry regularly hears, sees, and feels it knows, a would-be President, a far greater percentage than achieved such familiarity during, say, the time of Washington (who got to be the President of a cozy little nation of about four million, while remaining a total stranger to all but a few thousand people).

But today, through technology, more or less all of America lives with its president, almost like family. He is in our living rooms and kitchens every evening. As Cole Porter whimsically penned, we come home to him. Would Obama be nice to come home to? To a lot of ordinary people, particularly those in the electorally critical and generally non-ideological middle, the answer to that question is more to be sought in easily perceptible manner than in obscure substance.

It worries me that I don't mind listening to Obama. I don't mean what he actually says, of course, which is either airy nonsense or garden variety hyper-liberal utopianism, but his manner of talking. As he talks, he actually seems to be translating current thoughts into words, to be engaging in what we used to call conversation. He doesn't yell. His voice rises and falls at appropriate moments. He has humor. He benefits from possession of a pleasantly modulated, mellifluous voice that tends to calm and sooth rather than to excite.

Compare that to the speech patterns of those inflicted on us by recent history, as either presidents or would-be presidents. In the late 70's I had to turn off any electronic device that brought the sanctimonious, unctuous Carter into my house. My skin crawled when he spoke. I grabbed just about as quickly for the power switch when the humorless, trite, lethally boring Mondale or Dukakis started to talk.

Reagan, of course, was a brief exception -- a man America liked to listen to -- but that was a long time ago, and even Reagan, in the later years of his presidency, as he aged, had his problems without a written text.

Bush Senior never encountered a thought he couldn't mangle in English, so actually listening to him was not only like work, but unpleasant. The raspy-voiced Clinton (Bill), contrary to popular myth, was also a hard listen, not just because he usually seemed to be recovering from bronchitis, but because he was always cutting too fine a point and bloviating a one minute thought into a thirty minute verbal assault. And in the latter stages of his presidency, of course, his infamously loathsome conduct made one immediately wonder, when his voice was heard, whether the women-folk were safely inside the house and the silverware secured.

Gore, so far as I'm aware, has never really talked at all, rather, he has yelled, raged and fulminated, an unfailingly loud, angry and desperate-seeming man -- attacks of nervousness and temporary hearing loss were always risks when he was on, so with him, too, people tended to move the dial to the "off" position.

Kerry was so flat-out nauseating when he spoke it was hard to keep food down; no event, however serious, up to and including the end of the universe, could possibly warrant all that faux Brahmin-accented, relentlessly ponderous, fake gravity.

Clinton (Hillary) may well have lost the nomination because of her unfortunate speaking voice, combined with her curse of invariably sounding rehearsed and false; but mostly it was the voice, grating, harsh, vocal chords all used up, a mediocre mezzo ten years past advisable retirement.

And then there is our present President. This is hard for me, because I genuinely like and respect the man, and I admire his major decisions, choices and policies. To me he is an enormously sympathetic figure, especially now, in the final agony of his unfairly pilloried presidency. Posterity will be much kinder to him than his contemporaries have been. Kinder to him, I said, not to his use of language. He can't talk extemporaneously. Period. He admits it, jokes about it and there are no dissenters from this truth.

In sum, it's been a long time since the White House occupant, or anyone with a serious chance of becoming one, has been easy to listen to. As long as one disregards what he's actually saying, which, as I say, many normal people automatically do when listening to a politician, Obama is pretty easy on the ears. This salutary gift, and the personal likeability that comes with it, is going to be a considerable asset in his coming struggle against (yet another) verbally challenged Republican.

The McCain team, and its independent supporters, needs to think fast, hard and seriously about all this. For what it's worth, I vote to tag Obama early, hard and often with the truth about who he is politically and whom he will bring to Washington. And to do so bluntly, using all the visual and factual aids he and those closest to him have provided. Outrage will immediately issue forth from all the usual places, but this is no time for squeamishness. Selling the substantive reality will be hard, because it is so at variance with the persona. Rely on the obvious, and repeat it often. If not this, what? Substance aside, who would you rather come home to?

Source




Bugged by the miracle of Obama

Is anyone else bothered by the superhuman rise of Barack Obama? Granted all his virtues, his intelligence, his fast footwork, and the grand rhetoric of his stump speech. Does anyone feel bothered by the fact that he has a conspicuously invisible track record, and that his Illinois years are marred by doctrinaire leftism and intimate connections with the Chicago Machine?

Here's a telling fact: Michelle Obama is the daughter of a Daley Machine precinct captain. She grew up watching Chicago politics up close; now she is its biggest homegrown star. Maybe it's not that hard to understand Obama marrying Michelle and blasting off like a Delta rocket at Canaveral. Lots of Chicago loyalists must be counting on their share of the 2,700 appointed positions in a new US administration. Others are figuring how to get fat government contracts -- to help the poor and oppressed, of course.

All the Rezkos and Auchis and Khalidis that we haven't heard about yet are counting on access to the halls of American power. Once those Obamanites are in charge in Washington, DC, they will apply the lessons of Chicago politics because that's what they know. After all, the Clintons brought their Arkansas politics to Washington. We're told this is the Second Coming, but it might just be a war of political machines.

Look at other Democrats who rose to instant stardom. Jimmy Carter -- dubbed "Dhimmi Carter" by Mark Steyn -- came out of obscurity on to the national scene. As president Jimmy performed like Buster Keaton, one spectacular pratfall after another, and continues thirty years later to harm our national security with pigheaded self-righteousness. Carter is now giving speech after speech slamming democratic Israel against terrorist Hamas. We're supposed to believe that our friend Dhimmi is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. But then Carter undermined American security, too, when he was president. I guess that shows his finely tuned sense of moral balance.

After Democrat Dhimmi Carter we had Democrats Bill and Hillary, whose own rise from nowhere was greeted with the same numbskull adoration that the media are now ready to bestow on Obama. Bill and Hillary conducted a slick sucker play, and libs by the millions fell on their knees and worshipped. When just a tiny piece of Clinton corruption was finally exposed by Monica and the others, the liberal masses just couldn't believe that Our Guy Bill was a scammer.

By now they are beginning to see through Billary, sort of, but they still can't admit to themselves how completely they were taken in for seventeen years. They never learn. In 1991, guided by our media cheerleaders, they fell in love with ole' Bill, just as they are furious with him now for thwarting the New Messiah. And now they are just as eager to be cuckolded again. Verily, the ways of True Believers are a wonder to behold.

So now we witness Barack and Michelle -- from nowhere to stardom, Zap-o! Change-o! Now you see it, now you don't! It's amazing.

I voted for W in 2000 because I knew about his family. We knew what values he was raised with. The Bushes are personally decent and very dedicated Americans. I disagree with them sometimes, but I don't doubt their integrity and genuine good will. George H.W. Bush, Sr., Bob Dole, John McCain, every one a true war hero. Dole doesn't talk about the grinding Italian campaign in World War II, where he was badly wounded, but look it up if you don't know about it. Two of those three men suffer from lifelong combat wounds. One reason that John McCain looks awkward at times is because his shoulders are frozen; chances are that he is in chronic pain. But like Dole, he will never talk about it. As for Bush Sr., he is still jumping out of airplanes in his eighties.

Look how they stack up against Carter, Clinton and Obama, just as human beings. See any pattern? All three Democrat Saviors represent straight Leftist ideologies. All three are awash in far too much self-esteem; they are incapable of modesty. All three pranced onto the national stage so quickly that nobody had time to look at their back stories. All three pulled off a dazzling media act for a while. But faced with a harsh reality, Carter and Clinton turned into national security disasters. The 9/11 terror assault was a direct result of Clinton's gross negligence in office. It was the most preventable catastrophe in American history.

We now know the Clinton Justice Department purposely blocked the flow of terror intelligence to the CIA. FBI agents who picked up terrorist threats couldn't even get a hearing in Washington, DC. We know the Clintons stacked the bureaucracy with militant Leftists like Janet Reno, who rose to fame based on dubious prosecutions of decades-old child abuse cases, and ended up killing 76 people in Waco on the mere suspicion that children were being abused. Even today, the FBI and CIA seem a lot more scared of the Politically Correct Police than of Osama Bin Laden.

President A'jad of Iran just told the world on Israel's 60th birthday that the Jewish nation is nothing but "a stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Sane human beings don't talk that way. Tehran is awash in deadly hatred; it inculcates it into toddlers, and for thirty years its legions of fanatics have been taught to chant "Death to America, Death to Israel!" Naturally, our libs feel sure they must be kidding. Just a barrel of laughs, these mullahs.

Obama's foreign policy advisor Joseph Cirincione argues that Israel should surrender its own nukes to make peace with Tehran. Mr. Cirincione is a militant voice against US missile defense. I wonder if he also wants to disarm all the cops in his neighborhood, so the muggers and rapists can do their work without fear? By his mad logic unilateral police disarmament will guarantee a crime-free neighborhood forever. Two of Obama's foreign policy "thinkers" have already resigned for blurting out whacky things --- and this guy is still on the team? What does that tell you?

The Khomeini cult is still defended by Dhimmi Carter after killing tens of thousands of Iranians, terrorizing women and gay people for three decades, enriching uranium, and sending teenagers on suicide missions into Saddam's minefields wearing green plastic "Keys to Paradise" around their necks, so that Allah would welcome them to Paradise as soon as they blew up.

A'jad is constantly excused by Jimmy Carter's team, just as 9/11 is still being spun by Bill Clinton and Sandy Berger. Liberals never, ever learn. They go way beyond normal bumbling incompetence; they display malevolent bumbling incompetence.

So maybe the slicksters on the Left have figured out that the only way for liberals to win is to run stealth candidates. But if we get another Ship of Fools in the White House, next time we'll get attacked with a lot bigger bombs. Those who don't learn from history ...

Our only hope is for the conservative media to do more research on our new Savior, who just happened to pop out of nowhere right in time for election season.

Mark Steyn has pointed out how just one Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, was able to change Canada into a Politically Correct autocracy, with its own parallel Leftist "Human Rights" courts, empowered to imprison people without due process. Those tyrannical PC Commissars are now persecuting Mark Steyn for his free speech in Canada. They are easily suborned by Islamists -- single-party elites are remarkably simple to corrupt.

The same kangaroo courts operate in Politically Correct Europe, which is why their societal survival is now threatened. In Europe and Canada, elections have become less and less meaningful. The ruling elites have lifetime sinecures anyway, so they just shaft the voters. There are no consequences for political failure after failure. Europe is decaying fast, Canada is well on its way down, and the Democrats are looking enviously at those shining examples. They think we should be just like them.

One instant Democrat Savior might be a coincidence; two begins to look like a pattern; and three is... what?

Source




Fighting On



Die hard Hillary Clinton supporters are not giving up the fight. The Washington Post tells of one small group in West Virginia that came out to support Clinton, despite the insults from Obama supporters. Clinton's most loyal supporters — the ones still standing on street corners — have adopted their candidate's motto, even as she trails Sen. Barack Obama by an insurmountable margin in pledged delegates: to fight like hell, despite dim odds and denigration, until someone officially wins the Democratic nomination.

But on this day, the intersection of Highway 480 and German Street, where they stood, divided Shepherdstown into two factions. College kids from Shepherd University approached from the north, angry that Clinton has remained in a race she appears destined to lose. Truck drivers and farmers approached from the south, their support for Clinton fortified by her perseverance.

The two groups met at the intersection in a cacophony of honking horns and shouting that echoed across this town of about 1,000 near the Maryland border. After two hours, Luanne Smith had heard enough. "It's become so personal, just one insult after another," Smith said. "These sides are starting to feel some hate for each other. Everybody is angry, but I'm going to keep at this as long as I can. I never want to look myself in the mirror and say, 'You quit. You didn't do your part.' "

An indication of just how badly divided the Clinton and Obama supporters are comes later in the story: "Give up already," shouted a woman in a red jeep. "Boo. Clinton's a loser," said a man in a blue sedan. "What are you doing?" asked a passenger in a weathered Pontiac. "Didn't you hear Clinton already lost?"

After each insult, Smith and Kuzma glared straight ahead, venting to each other only after the drivers had pulled away. "This just isn't very nice," Kuzma said. "These are some mean people." "Every one of them is the same — skinny kids who've never experienced anything but college," Smith said. "The more I'm involved, the angrier I get. Every call for her to get out of the race just incenses me. It makes me crazy. Who are you? Who in the world are you to tell this woman who's done so much that it's time for her to be quiet and sit down?"

I doubt Clinton can win regardless of what happens in the few remaining races. But it also looks increasingly likely that Obama will not be able to heal the rifts his supporters have caused. It has gotten too ugly and too personal.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





12 May, 2008

Refusal of whites to support Obama is racism

That's the "L.A. Times" message below. But one-eyed black support for him (now up to 91%) isn't racist, of course.

In Hardy County, Democrats outnumber Republicans more than 2 to 1. But there is little enthusiasm for Barack Obama in this mountainside enclave, a portent of trouble for the Illinois senator in next week's West Virginia primary and the general election beyond. Nearly 97% white, the county is as conflicted as any rural and working-class Democratic bastion as it struggles to adjust to the likely prospect of the party nominating its first African American presidential candidate.

Obama may have emerged from his double-digit victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in North Carolina and his razor-thin loss in Indiana on Tuesday with a virtual lock on the Democratic nomination. But his performance did little to reassure political leaders here concerned by his sagging numbers among once-loyal white Democrats, who have steadily abandoned their party over the last several presidential elections. "I'm not yet convinced that Barack Obama is more substance than fluff," said Clyde M. See Jr., a former Democratic speaker of the West Virginia House of Delegates and two-time gubernatorial candidate who heads a small law practice in Moorefield, the county seat. "He's a fine speaker, mind you, but I'm still not sure he's got the right stuff to win the general election."

The concerns of party members who live amid this rolling landscape of soybean fields, poultry plants and retirement cabins mirror those of many white Democrats nationwide: Some fear voters will be turned off by Obama's black heritage. Others, they say, will find reason to doubt his patriotism or will perceive him to be an elitist. It remains unclear how racial unease will factor into election-day decisions come November. Those hidden impulses are elusively difficult to capture in polling. But seasoned Democratic players here reckon that some racially tinged voting will inevitably occur far beyond Hardy County's cresting hills. "There's a lot of bigotry in the country, not just West Virginia," See said.

Fearful that the GOP will exploit Obama's "otherness," many still insist that Clinton's ebbing campaign offers the Democrats a better shot come November. Even those who say they would support Obama worry about his electability, convinced that many of their neighbors will defect to the presumed Republican nominee, John McCain. "My worry is there's just too many people in this country who aren't ready to elect a black president," said Charles L. Silliman, a retired Air Force officer who is Hardy County's Democratic Party co-chairman. "There's a lot to like about him. But I'm just afraid that too many people will vote against him based on their fears and prejudice."

Silliman and his wife, Carmen, are Clinton supporters, drawn by her healthcare plan and her endurance on the campaign trail. Still, the couple repeatedly have found themselves defending Obama, correcting acquaintances who relay baseless rumors about his name and religion. Carmen Silliman has collected a sheaf of poisonous e-mails that have flowed into her in-box. "We do not need a Muslim to lead the good ole USA," reads one. Obama is, in fact, a Christian.

Neil Gillies, an Obama supporter who runs a local environmental nonprofit group, glumly recounted the gibes that his wife, a schoolteacher, hears regularly from her students. "They're convinced [Obama] is a Muslim, a terrorist, a guy who's coming to take away their guns," Gillies said. "It's just sad."

Slung along the bottom of West Virginia's eastern panhandle, Hardy County was once rock-solid Democratic. Senior citizens fondly recall the day Eleanor Roosevelt arrived to dedicate the opening of Moorefield High School in 1941. But socially conservative church groups and gun-rights supporters here have helped tilt the vote Republican in recent presidential elections. In 2004, Hardy County lined up for George W. Bush by a 3-1 ratio. [So that was racism too?]

"It's just not going to be easy for Obama to woo crossover Democrats back into the fold," said P. Merle Black, a professor of politics and government at Emory University and a longtime analyst of Southern voting patterns. "In addition to the race factor, you've got huge cultural differences between them and Obama on guns and religion and many of the issues that would make those voters think he doesn't represent their interests."

Obama has made an effort to highlight his religious beliefs and his support for hunters' rights. But his former pastor's racially charged sermons -- and the candidate's own comments about small-town Americans who have lost their jobs and "cling to guns or religion" -- have not helped his cause. "I've got 50-some guns, and I wasn't crazy about Obama's talk about small towns," said Sam Vetter, 64, a farmer and lifelong Democrat who regrets voting for Bush in 2000. "Besides," he added, "Obama just doesn't sound right for an American president."

Despite a well-financed television campaign and endorsements from Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV and Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, Obama is expected to finish well behind Clinton in West Virginia's primary, which will award 28 pledged delegates. "We've got our work cut out for us," acknowledged Tom Bowen, a spokesman for Obama's West Virginia effort. Democratic registration statewide is up by more than 16,000 voters since 2006, compared with an increase of 4,000 for the GOP. But that reflects "as much interest in the local races as there is in the national," said Greg Ely, Hardy County clerk.

Source

West Virginian Don Surber has a few comments.




Why Jews MUST NOT Vote for Barack OBAMA

Sometimes, the biggest Jew haters I meet are--well Jewish. It is my own brethren who look at me funny because I am wearing a Kippah in public. In my thirty plus year career another Jew was the only one who ever urged me to work the second day of Rosh Hashanah because, he only took off one day. Then there are the ones who I call "shhhhh Jews." In other words, "shhhhh we don't want to upsent the non-Jews!" One of the biggest issues to the shhhhh Jews is the presidential race. They don't like it when I point out Senator Obama's failings, "what if he wins?" They ask. "If Obama wins," I tell them, "then it is TOO late." If Barack Obama becomes president of the United States, it will be a major disaster for American Jews, Israel and the United States of America.

Although He keeps saying that he is anti terror and friend of Israel, that is a political expediency, just like his Wright Speech last week. Not only is the Senator Weak on Terror issues, EVERY SINGLE ADVISER TO HIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTS PUSHING ISRAEL TO APPEASE TERRORISTS. If he had Just a few pro-Israel or anti-appeasement advisers he could make a case of being balanced. Lets look at the facts:

* Not only is his former pastor Anti-Israel but the movement his church is affiliated with, the United Church of Christ is Anti-Israel, the UCC's Boston Branch even hosted a worldwide Israel Hate-fest this past October.

* He has no problem supporting terrorist leaders because Barack Obama Says Morality Should not be a Foreign Policy Consideration. He doesn't even believe that Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which is running terrorist operations in Iraq, is a terrorist group.

* Look at his advisers Zbigniew Bzrezinski-- Robert O. Malley-- Samantha Power-- Gen. Merrill A. McPeak-- Joseph Cirincione-- and Daniel Kurtzer one of the "Baker's Boys." Baker's Boys" was the nickname of former Secretary of State James " F**K the Jews Baker's top three middle east advisers, Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, and Kurtzer. All three were Jews (some would say self-hating) and they helped the Baker-run State Department become the most Anti-Israel Department in my lifetime (even worse than Carter's).

* His statement that it is Israel's fault that there is no peace, or the fact that he acted differently toward Israel before he appeared on the national stage

* His Anti-Israel Congressional Buddies, Lugar and Hagel

Folks EACH one of the links above refer to His statements, the statements of his advisers or other witnesses. If there was simply one or two that I could point to one could say that I was over reacting....but there are more than a dozen above and I could have posted triple that . The time for "emotion" is over. The time for racism is over. YES Racism. Jews have been oppressed for over 2,000 years and as such we like to see another oppressed group make it "big." But when faced with real facts that the man would be a disaster when facing major issues involving the United States and Israel, not treating him the same as any other candidate is RACISM. And worse yet, it would be suicide for the Jews, for Israel and for the United States of America.

Source




BUSTED!... Obama Can't Rewrite History When It's Still Posted On His Website!

Charles Johnson caught this attempt by the Obama Campaign and The New York Times to rewrite history today:

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that "for political purposes, Senator Obama's opponents on the right have distorted and reframed" his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet "unconditionally" with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called "rogue" state. Mr. Obama believes "that engagement at the presidential level, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate preparation, can be used to leverage the change we need," Dr. Rice said. "But nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work."

Charles points out that Obama did announce he would meet with Iran unconditionally, in front of a lot of people, at the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate last July. And, Charles even found the video . During the debate when asked if he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" Obama answers, "I would." AllahPundit at HotAir also found that Obama reaffirmed his position later in an interview with The New York Times itself. And, then there's this... It's posted on his website at BarackObama.com:

[Click here to see screenshot]

Here is what the Obama website says about meeting with Iran: Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

That's bad. The next time the New York Times wants to rewrite history they may want to check the Obama website first.

Source

Hot Air has more




Obama ditches another "friend"

Syrian-born Malley really is a poisonous bill of goods. What took Obama so long?

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him. Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama's Middle East advisory council. "I've never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people," he added.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future." The rapid departure of Mr Malley followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama over Middle East policy.

Mr Obama, who has been trying to assuage suspicion towards him among the influential Jewish and pro-Israel lobby, spoke at a Washington reception marking the 60th anniversary of Israeli independence on Thursday when he promised that his commitment to the country's security would be "unshakeable". However, Mr McCain has high-lighted the Democrat's pledge to negotiate directly with nations such as Iran - whose leaders talk of wiping Israel off the map - and a statement from Hamas saying that it hoped that Mr Obama would win the presidency.

This was denounced as an offensive smear by Mr Obama, who repeated earlier statements saying that Hamas was "a terrorist organisation [and] we should not negotiate with them unless they recognise Israel, renounce violence".

He went on to suggest that Mr McCain's attack showed that he was "losing his bearings". This remark triggered a furious reaction from Mark Salter, the Republican's senior adviser, who said that Mr Obama was "intentionally raising John McCain's age as an issue" - a claim the Democrat vehemently denied. The intensity of this dispute reflects both Mr Obama's desire to move beyond his battle with Hillary Clinton and how Republicans are already beginning to train their sights on him.

The Republican National Committee has amassed a 1,000-page dossier on Mr Obama, with researchers spending weeks in Chicago seeking fresh material. He is already being criticised for his links with Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who has branded Israel an "apartheid system in creation".

Mr Malley, a respected commentator on Middle Eastern issues and part of President Clinton's negotiating team at the Camp David talks, has come under attack in recent months from right-wing bloggers. Yesterday, asked if Obama campaign was aware of his contact with Hamas, he said: "They know who I am but I don't think they vet everyone in a group of informal advisers."

Randy Scheunemann, Mr McCain's foreign policy chief, suggested that Mr Malley was part of an emerging pattern in which other advisers had been repudiated after throwing confusion over policies on trade and Iraq. "Perhaps because of his inexperience Senator Obama surrounds himself with advisers that contradict his stated policies," he said.

Source




Obama Unstained by Chicago Way

The Chicago Tribune's John Kass:

The presumptive Democratic presidential candidate's politics were born in Chicago. Yet he is presented to the nation as not truly being of this place, as if he floats just above the political corruption here, uninfected, untouched by the stain of it or by any sin of commission or omission. It is all so very mystical.

Perhaps viewing Obama as a Chicago political creature would conflict with the established national media narrative of Obama as a reformer. Actually, there's no "perhaps" about it....

[Obama is] a guy who, as we say in Chicago, won't make no waves and won't back no losers.

Obama the reformer is backed by Mayor Richard M. Daley and the Daley boys. He is spoken for by Daley's own spokesman, David Axelrod. He was launched into his U.S. Senate by machine power broker and state Senate President Emil Jones (D-ComEd)...

Why is Obama allowed to campaign as a reformer, virtually unchallenged by the media, though he's a product of Chicago politics and has never condemned the wholesale political corruption in his home town the way he condemns those darn Washington lobbyists [?]

Many people are aware that Chicago's political system is corrupt, but it is hardly ever described in a concrete way, especially by the national media.

Here's what you'll never read in the national media about the corruption in Chicago: In the last 36 years, since 1972, 27 Chicago alderman have been convicted of crimes. Not accused of wrongdoing, not just accused of lapses in judgment, not brought before an ethics panel for questionable dealings. Convicted of crimes. Sent to the hoosegow. Three more former alderman are currently under indictment.

To put this in perspective, there are 50 alderman in Chicago's City Council. If Chicago's level of corruption and number of subsequent convictions in its legislative body was replicated in the US House over the last 36 years, more than 200 congressman would have been convicted of crimes. All from the same political party.

But it's not just relegated to Chicago's city limits, nor the County of Cook. Since 1960, seven governors have been elected in Illinois; three of the seven have gone to jail. And current Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojavich is presently under an ethical cloud due to startling revelations emanating from the trial of political fixer Tony Rezko.

And some wonder why many of us are totally skeptical of the national media's repetition of the 'Obama as change agent' theme. A 'change agent' from Chicago? Are they serious?

Source




Will Team Clinton Play the Kenya Card?

How much do the Clintons want the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination for Hillary? Obviously enough to loan more than $10,000,000 of their personal funds to Hillary's presidential campaign. But enough to play the Kenya card (that is, call public attention to Obama's Kenyan ties)? Would they dare to do that?

With exits polls showing that rookie United States Senator and now front-running Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is taking more than 90% of the black vote against Hillary, will the Clintons finally play the Kenya card?

The liberal media blasted Team Clinton for supposedly playing the race card when Bill Clinton compared Obama's success in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary in South Carolina to earlier successes of Rev. Jesse Jackson.

The liberal media blasted Team Clinton when a photograph of Obama in traditional African garb was publicized.

The liberal media blasted Team Clinton when Bill Clinton complained that Team Obama had played the race card against him.

So the liberal media would blast Team Clinton for calling attention to Obama's Kenyan ties and call it racist.

But political reality is that Team Clinton cannot beat Team Obama so long as they assert, as Hillary did long ago, that she and Obama might run together for president and vice president, or, as Hillary said during the Pennsylvania debate, that Obama can be elected, or, as Hillary publicly stated during the latest Super Tuesday night, that she would support Obama if he won the Democrat presidential nomination. Reality is that Team Clinton needs to show that Obama is unfit to be President of the United States in order to win.

Obama inadvertently contributed greatly to that perception among non-black voters by the way he handled his Rev. Jeremiah A. "God damn America" Wright, Jr. problem, first refusing to disavow Rev. Wright personally as equivalent to disowning the black community or his white grandmother, and finally doing so only after it finally became politically imperative, because Rev. Wright not only reiterated his crazed views at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., but essentially said that Obama had deceived the public about his genuine beliefs when he had distanced himself from Rev. Wright's incendiary remarks with respect to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack, AIDS as an instrument devised by the United States government to exterminate blacks and, of course, God damning America.

Since Obama became the Democrat frontrunner, some of Obama's problematic associations--Rev. Wright, domestic terrorist William "I should have done more bombing" Ayers, slumlord Tony Rezko and wife Michelle "America is downright mean" and "Black Community first and foremost" Obama--have received significant public attention, to Team Obama's consternation.

But that scrutiny of Obama associations came only AFTER he had become the Democrat frontrunner, too late for Team Clinton, and Team Clinton has NOT played the Kenya card to show how politically extreme Obama really is and how Obama is tied to the radical Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga (who told the BBC that he is Obama's cousin on his father's side and who ran an unsuccessful race for president of Kenya posing as an apostle of change).

Unfortunately for Team Clinton, the media has not compared and contrasted the Odinga and Obama presidential campaigns and scrutinized the Odinga-Obama connection, although it certainly should have.

If Hillary is to become the 2008 Democrat presidential nominee, Team Clinton will not only have to brave the reflexive charges of racism, but convince the American people, including most Democrats, that the man who disparaged religion, denigrated small-town America and supported Rev. Wright as long as politically possible is a false messiah and an extremist, not a unifier-in-waiting who will solve America's racial problems because he happens to be half-black and half-white.

Source

(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)





11 May, 2008

Barack Obama, Imperialist?

Obama's amazing confusion of America's states with Heinz beans ("57 varieties") can only be responded to sarcastically, which is what we read below

By now you've seen the footage of Barack Obama ruing the fact that he hasn't been able to visit all 57 states in this great union of ours. If you haven't, scroll down a bit and read Goldfarb's post on the matter. I'll wait.

This faux pas is beyond weird; I know the guy is tired, but "How many states are there in America?" is the kind of question they ask you at the hospital after you've had a seizure to see if your brain is still working. I speak from personal experience on this matter, by the way. When I had a random seizure in 1996, the guy at the emergency room asked me how many states there were and then who was president. I responded with a ten minute rant on Whitewater - he urgently ordered up more tests.

But I digress. What I'm trying to say is there is no way Obama could have been so disoriented as to have even momentarily forgotten that we have but 50 states. Besides, there was something about Obama's additions to the Union that rang a bell. Then I remembered - Grand Strategist (and likely Obama supporter) Thomas P.M. Barnett in his seminal work "The Pentagon's New Map" urged America to add several states to the nation, perhaps as many as a dozen.

Has Obama absorbed such expansionist designs to such an extent that he's already counting his proverbial new chickens before they've hatched? Is he planning on adopting Canada? Perhaps he only has his eyes on the cool parts of Canada like Montreal and Toronto, and will let the remainder of our northern neighbor peacefully tend to its hockey playing and curling. And what of our neighbors to the south? Will we find ourselves in an Obama administration forced to refer to Haiti as Really South Dakota?

Regardless, I'm shocked that Obama apparently believes in a hyper-muscular 21st century version of Manifest Destiny. Truly, I didn't see that one coming.

Source




Black Community Is Increasingly Protective of Obama

But no-one is calling it racism!

Bill Clinton is no longer revered as the "first black president." Tavis Smiley's rapid-fire commentaries on a popular radio show have been silenced. And the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., self-described defender of the black church, has been derided by many on the Web as an old man who needs to "step off." They all landed in the black community's doghouse after being viewed as endangering Sen. Barack Obama's chances of being elected president. And the community's desire to protect the first African American ever to be in this position may only grow with his win in North Carolina and his close loss in Indiana this week.

"I have parents who are still living who are very enthusiastic about Obama," said Valerie Grim, the chair of Indiana University's Department of African American and African Diaspora Studies. "They live in Mississippi. For a time, my parents couldn't vote, and when they could, their only choice was a white person. "This means more than just saying there's a black person on the ticket. It represents the things they had been denied. It's being able to see the unbelievable, that the impossible might be possible. It represents for them a new day, a new opportunity to see that black people can contribute, on the ultimate level, to the social order." Given such sentiment, it has not taken much for other public figures to move from icon to pariah.

When Bill Clinton called Obama's position on Iraq a "fairy tale" in New Hampshire, "I think black people felt betrayed," said Andrea Plaid, a blogger who writes under the pen name the Cruel Secretary. African Americans continued to regard Clinton highly even after he was impeached for lying under oath. "And you turn around and do this to us?" Plaid said.

Smiley, the renowned black author and commentator, took issue with Obama for skipping his "Covenant With Black America" event in New Orleans so he could campaign in Texas and Ohio. The resulting backlash left Smiley feeling "hammered" and "barbequed" by black Americans. "There's all this talk of 'hater,' 'sellout' and 'traitor,' " Smiley said at the time. ". . . They are harassing my mama, harassing my brother." The animus dogged him even on the radio, where his commentaries on black causes for the popular "Tom Joyner Morning Show" were renowned. In a terse statement issued last month, Smiley announced that he was leaving the show to focus on other ventures.

Smiley "did a disservice to the black community," said L.N. Rock, the blogger known as the African American Political Pundit. He noted that Smiley billed the New Orleans gathering as an event for the people. But while the people agreed with Obama's compromise of dispatching his wife, Michelle, to speak in his stead, Smiley balked. "He should have been hammered for that," Rock said.

Wright has been hailed by many in the black clergy as a brilliant liberation theologian. But after his speech and question-and-answer session at the National Press Club last month, people commented on the blog Jack and Jill Politics -- billed as a political sounding board for the "black bourgeois" -- that the minister should have known better than to pick a fight with the media at such a crucial point in the presidential campaign.

Source




Obama: Flawed or Fantastic?

Buyer's remorse was beginning to afflict supporters of Barack Obama before Tuesday's primary election returns showed he had delivered a knockout punch against Hillary Clinton. The young orator who had seemed so fantastic beginning with his 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner speech in Iowa disappointed even his own advisers over the past two weeks, and old party hands mourned that they were stuck with a flawed candidate.

The whipping Obama gave Clinton in North Carolina and his near miss in Indiana transformed that impression. The candidate who delivered the victory speech in Raleigh, N.C., was the Obama of Des Moines, bearing no resemblance to the gloomy, uneasy candidate who had seemed unable to effectively deal with bumps in the campaign road. Returning to his eloquent call for unity, the victorious Obama in advance dismissed Republican criticism of his ideology or his past as the same old partisan bickering that the people hate.

John McCain as the Republican candidate does not like that kind of campaigning, either. But a gentlemanly contest between the old war hero from out of the past and the new advocate of reform from the future probably would guarantee Democratic takeover of the White House. The Republican Party, suffering from public disrepute, faces major Democratic gains in each house of Congress -- leaving the defeat of Obama as the sole GOP hope for 2008.

Republicans were cheered and Democrats distressed by an inexperienced Obama's ineptitude in handled adversity the past month. The new Republican consensus considered Obama the weaker of the two Democratic candidates. Indeed, Hillary Clinton had finally shaken off pretensions of entitlement and consigned Bill Clinton to rural America, raising speculation that she would decisively carry Indiana and threaten Obama in North Carolina.

Clinton's failure Tuesday was a product of demographics rather than Obama's campaign skill. Consistently winning over 90 percent of the African-American vote, Obama is unbeatable in a primary where the black electorate is as large as North Carolina's (half the registered Democratic vote there). Indiana differed from seemingly similar Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Clinton scored big wins, because it borders Obama's state of Illinois, with many voters in the Chicago media market.

As the clear winner and the presumptive nominee, Obama in Raleigh Tuesday unveiled his general election strategy. Dismissing McCain's "ideas" as "nothing more than the failed policies of the past," Obama denounced what he called the Republican campaign plan: "Yes, we know what's coming. ... We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas."

Thus, Obama seems to be ruling out not only discussion of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright but also any identification of the Democratic presidential candidate as "liberal" or as an advocate of higher taxes, higher domestic spending, abortion rights and gun control. These issues appear to be included in what Obama at Raleigh called "attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences."

The test of Obama's strategy may be his friendship with and support from William Ayers, an unrepentant member of the Weatherman terrorist underground of the 1960s. Instead of totally disavowing Ayers as he belatedly did his former pastor Wright, Obama potentially deepened his problem by referring to Ayers as just a college professor -- "a guy who lives in my neighborhood." He then compared their relationship with his friendship with conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, as he had compared Wright's racism with his white grandmother's.

Democrats abhor bringing up what Obama calls Ayers' "detestable acts 40 years ago," but it will be brought into the public arena even if it is not McCain's style of politics. A photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag in 2001 has been all over the Internet this week. That was the year Obama accepted a $200 political contribution from Ayers and the year in which the former Weatherman said: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

While McCain will demand no response from Obama, others will. How the prospective nominee handles this in the future will help define whether he is seen as flawed or fantastic in the long campaign ahead.

Source




The Champ Is Here: Will Barack Obama defeat Barack Obama on November 4?

It seems that John McCain's strategy for victory this fall is for Obama to self-destruct on such a grand level that voters consider McCain the only suitable choice on the ballot. McCain and the GOP are not in prime condition: the Republicans are unpopular because of the extended Iraq War and domestic economic anxieties, and McCain is still unpopular among key factions of his own party. Yet, a McCain victory is still quite possible.

An argument can be made that, over the past twenty years, GOP Presidential victories occurred not because the Republican contender was dominant, but because the Democrat contender botched things up so spectacularly that right-minded voters could not cast their lot with that candidate. Michael Dukakis blew a seventeen-point lead in 1988 with his incompetent approach to campaigning and debating. Al Gore had the benefit of perceived peace and prosperity in 2000, but he ran one of the most pathetic campaigns of all-time (remember that idiotic catchphrase of his, "The People vs. The Powerful"?), alienating enough voters to force his loss to George W. Bush. Four years later, John Kerry-who had the benefit of economic worries and the perceived embarrassment of the Bush Administration's failure to find large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq-destroyed himself with such gaffes as his "global test" remark and his decision to vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Even with an energized, focused, well-financed left-wing juggernaut behind