Thomas Sowell takes a swing at Sen. Obama, the politician, not the phenomenon,
For any politician, what matters is not his election year rhetoric, or an election year resignation from a church, but the track record of that politician in the years before the election.
Yet so many people are so fascinated by Barack Obama's rhetorical skills that they don't care about his voting record in the U.S. Senate, in the Illinois state senate, the causes that he has chosen to promote over the years, or the candidate's personal character and values, as revealed by his actions and associations.
Despite clever spin from Obama's supporters about avoiding "guilt by association," much more is involved than casual association with people like Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger.
In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work. Giving someone more than 300 grand is not just some tenuous, coincidental association.
Are Barack Obama's views shown by what he says during an election year or by what he has been doing for decades before?
The complete contrast between Obama's election year image as a healer of divisions and his whole career of promoting far-left grievance politics, in association with America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, are brushed aside by his supporters who talk about getting back to "the real issues."
Exactly.
There's much more at the link, especially about Sen. Obama's fuzzy-headed kumbaya-istic foreign policy mewlings.
So, I've already thrown my hat in the ring for 2016 (so I was a little off on that 'President Giuliani' thing), somebody has to oppose Chelsea's run at the White House, might as well be me.
Watching Sen. Obama has taught me a few things about making speeches. First, don't mix up a holiday meant to honor those that have served and died with a holiday meant to honor those that have served in our military. Seems simple enough, probably best just to not make a policy heavy speech on Memorial Day.
Second, when trying to burnish my own patriotic bona fides, probably shouldn't make up tales about the military service of my grandfathers. Don't need to make up stories, anyway. Their stories are interesting enough. My mother's father (if I were an identity politics addicted DEM, I guess I'd call him my 'white' grandfather) served in Europe, and basically did the same job he had before he was drafted. He was a letter carrier back in Buffalo, and after the liberation of Paris, he sorted and delivered mail to the big wigs, including Gen. Eisenhower. My father's father (again, if I was a DEM, I'd probably mention he was my 'black' grandfather) already was a policeman here in Santa Monica (mostly did just traffic cop duties before the war), and was sent to the Pacific. Black troops weren't frontline troops, for the most part, which is one reason why Spike Lee's complaints about Flags of Our Fathers was kind of silly. But, my grandfather was at Iwo Jima, to clean up, identify the dead, bury the bodies, and type the notification letters. An unimaginably crappy duty, but according to my father, my grandfather preferred that to the frontline. Better to deal with the dead, then risk being one of them. One reason why I'll never question Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was prepared to fight a war of attrition to the last man, woman, and child,
I have received these stories second hand, so there might be gaps, exaggerations, or factual inaccuracies, and just as Obama recounting how his "Uncle" liberated Auschwitz can't possibly be true, it is certainly possible that his Grand-uncle did help liberate concentration camp, just not one in Poland.
So here's my campaign promise to you. I will only run on things that I have or haven't done, my grandfathers aren't running for President, I am. I will be running to be President for all Americans, not just bi-racial Americans like me and Sen. Obama (also I doubt I'll get 90% of the black vote the way Obama does, so I'll have to work on getting those gun-clinging, religious nuts that have been shunning The Obama). I'll be running as a Washington outsider, utterly and totally untainted by so much as a single moment in elected office at any level. I'll accept campaign donations from anybody and everyone, if folks are foolish enough to think they can buy me off, then I'll be smart enough to cash their checks. Finally, I love the United States, and I'd love it even more if the Federal government governed a lot less, and I'd be the man to bring the rest of the Federal government to their collective (and collectivist) knees.
(original photo stolen from this April 17, 2007 post at TimesOnline by Robbie Millen pointing to this post by Politico's Ben Smith about Edwards' styling habits)
So Drudge seems to think this might mean an Obama/Edwards '08 ticket. Folks who still have their Kerry/Edwards bumperstickers on their Priuses (Prii?) can just cover up the Kerry and they're good to go.
It's all about saving the planet through recycling.
Is Edwards really going to help Obama kill the whole effete elitist crap, though? Or win back pissed of Clintonites? Or prevent the return of the Reagan Democrat?
And now that The Obama has given up cigarettes, has he exchanged that addiction for a serious nimbus addiction? Just check out the current splash page on his official website.
I'm worried about him, I think he has a serious nimbus addiction, is there a 12 step program for that?
I've noticed stories in the media from supposed conservatives who have suddenly seen the light and decided that Sen. Obama wouldn't make such a bad president afterall, and that all his empty rhetoric isn't at all empty but instead the exact kind of bridge building, forward thinking, and content free, ideation needed to unite our divided country into one purposeful mass of getting things done.
Well, I thought they were all wishful thinking from Big Liberal Media, but while on the road to Damascus (figuratively, not literally, despite Majority Leader Pelosi's willingness to travel there, and Sen. Obama's willingness to have friendly chats with the Optometrist, an actual trip to Damascus is both out of my budget, and beyond my tolerance level for subjecting myself to potential danger), I was struck off my horse (again, figuratively, I do most of my travelling not on horseback, but by foot or car, I've only ever ridden a horse once, it was one of those rent by the hour operations at the stables near Griffith Park, and it was on a hot July day, and the only person more miserable about the whole thing besides me, was probably the horse I was riding in on) by a bolt from the blue and was divinely inspired to see that my anti-Obama ways have been sadly mistaken all this time.
That's right, I now truly believe that The Obama WILL INDEED wash away our sins, and The Obama WILL INDEED mark the early 21st century as a special time when we were able to collectively witness the transformative power he will undoubtably unleash upon the entire globe. He will not just be the President of these damned dis-United States, no, not The Obama, his calling is higher, he is being called to be the leader of a United Planet, and only The Obama can wash away our sins, but all our differences, too.
I am now officially an Obamaniac, and posting today will reflect this, my new reality, spread the word, proselytize on His behalf, reflect in his glory, reflect upon his countenance, reflect upon his life story, and reflect upon the tiny and small sacrifice of one small vote that he asks of you to bring about a glorious new day not only for this country, but for all of Humanity.
Obama in the Highest, Ours is the Kingdom Forever . . .
Really, why do I still inflict Andrew Sullivan upon myself? Stop me before I click again. Give me the strength to ignore the allure of that changeable mind.
And let me add - since I am not an adviser, since I have kept a very long distance from the actual official campaign, since I am not a Democrat, since I cannot be accused of being a closet Bush-supporter, since I am just a blogger.
Samantha Power is right. The Clintons are monstrous. Samantha has quit because she told the truth.
OK, that reminds me why I keep going back to this stuff, he's hilarious. That's some high-grade comedy right there (but only cause he's so damn sincere).
Good thing I don't work for Obama, given that I've compared Hillary to Ben Linus, not that I was any easier on Obama, I find Dr. Jack Shepard far more frightening as a leader than good old Ben.
Jeff Greenfield, writing in Slate, examines all the elections since 1960 and suggests that many of them have come down to a choice between Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, and the American electorate in its wisdom, always sides with Bugs.
In the spirit of that article, I think it's time we examine the last three remaining presidential candidates in terms of their resemblance to certain characters on Lost.
(some spoiler-ish comments will follow, so if you aren't caught up on the goings on, don't read this)
Sure he's crazy, sure he's cranky, but he can certainly kick some ass. Occasionally he puts his faith in the wrong people, but even when he does the wrong thing, it's for the right reasons. It's easy to picture Sen. McCain following a vision from "Tall Walt" and killing a stranger. Is that a bad thing for a President? It's for the voters to decide.
I know that's a cruel comparison to make, but I think it's valid. Graceless under pressure, somewhat self-pitying, people put faith in him where it isn't warranted. Gives all the outward appearances of being a great and natural leader, yet has no proven track record of any accomplishments that would suggest he's fit for the task, and every time he's been tested has failed miserably. Also, his proudest moments seem to be when he's making his most boneheaded decisions. One other point of comparison, really, really bad taste in women.
Always reinventing himself, always scheming, always trying to work some sort of advantage. Seems to do best when put in positions of seeming powerlessness. You can have him bound, beaten, bloodied, and bruised, and yet that's when he has you right where he wants you. Favors manipulation over leadership, yet is thrust into a leadership position through sheer lust for power. Will do anything and everything and works his shadowy connections to manipulate everyone else on the island.
Not a great choice with any of them, if it were up to me, I think we should go with Sayid (I guess the real world equivalent would be Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an able leader, who unfortunately is unqualified because of nation of birth) or even Hurley (sure he's crazy, but he's sweet and usually right about stuff, no real world analog I can think of) but they aren't running for President, so we are stuck with our choices.
(also, since there's been supposed racism on part of the Clinton campaign for darkening an image of The Obama, I washed this sucker out to the point where he's practically just a white guy with a tan)
Talk about audacity. The image above that I've pilfered and defaced, is from the official Obama website. Seriously, dude, seriously, your acolytes are scaring me a bit.
I haven't done one of these in more than a week, but Callimachus had a short post over at his place mentioning his discomfort about these images, so figured it was about time, plus there seems to be no shortage of kind of creepy Obama posters with which to play with.
Just take the formula indicated in this post's title, rinse and repeat, and you have my impression of tonight's CNN/Univision Texas Democratic Primary debate.
If either of these folks gets elected in November, this country will get what it deserves, they've clearly outlined how they'll ruin our economy, weaken our standing abroad, and return us back to the glory years of the mid-70s. They're both trying to portary themselves as a mix of McGovern and Carter, and it's playing well to all the folks at the debate in Austin.
Woohoo stagflation, woohoo malaise, woohoo an executive branch antagonistic with our military.
Sounds like good, good times.
McCain's not perfect, but he'd be a whole hell of a lot better than either of these two jokers.
Also, seems like Sen. Clinton is unwilling to do what it would take to win in either Texas or Ohio, tonight is her chance to really go after Sen. Obama, and so far, she really hasn't made any dent in his appeal (to other Democrats, both are doing damage to their appeal to Independents and Republicans, I think). Her attacks are mostly at the policy wonk level, and that won't be enough, if she wants to win, she needs to engender real questions about Sen. Obama's ability and character. She's got to get dirty, and rough, and throw some elbows, or else all is lost for her.
Truthfully, though, even if she does all that, all is lost, she'll turn off too many primary voters with those tactics, her only hope is that something really bad is dug up on Sen. Obama between now and March 4th.
Michelle Obama gives a speech, not about "hope", but about "hopelessness". Maybe that's not what she meant her speech to stand for, but when you break down what she says, that's what it comes down to. In essence, she states, 'unless you are a white male from a wealthy background, you are screwed'.
Her own life experience, and that of her husband, her family members, and most Americans in general, would seem to show the obvious flaws in that conceit, but that conceit still sells well in front of the kinds of audiences that Sen. Obama must sway to earn the Democratic party's nomination for President.
Pastor Jeff does an excellent job of breaking this down even further, read what he has to say on the subject.
The Washington Times has dug up a video clip of Sen. Obama speaking to a crowd of college kids back in 2004, and he weakly assents to the possibility that marijuana should be decriminalized (but not legalized).
I've always found that position asinine. Either something is legal, or not. Decriminilization is a dodge, sets people up for selective prosecution or fines, and makes the job of police and prosecutors more, not less, complicated.
But why is this post, The Audacity of Dope (Part 712)? Googling the exact phrase, "the audacity of dope" turns up 711 hits. Hopefully after this post hits blogger, this will be added to the list. Also, the posters above comes from the post that currently sits atop that search. It's good design, but probably not helpful to Obama. It's far too reminiscent of communist agitprop posters(see the blog, A Soviet Poster A Day, for examples), with a vague hint of that famous Che image. The artist in question (manifesto here) probably thinks that's a good thing, and hopes the kind of progress The Obama (he will wash away our sins) will lead us to will be an eventual workers' paradise.
I made some obvious changes to the above photo, I think my version works better on many levels...
First, they're right, race/gender issues have no place in the discussion about Sen. Obama versus Sen. Clinton. Of course, both have used their uniqueness amongst previous serious candidates for the presidency as a major selling point. Identity politics and the Democratic party go together, whether they like it or not.
Chickens. Home. Roosting
(go ahead, make that some sort of veiled racial reference, I dare you!)
Second, they're right, yet more expansion of Indian Gaming on non-Indian land would be a bad thing. Not for the reasons they state, though. I think this picking one tribe over another as to winners and losers is ridiculous, all these compacts, and deals, and treaties are a sham. Americans want gambling, they want it close by, but generally they don't want it down the street.
The whole reservation system and the fiction that these "Nations" are sovereign within the United States is a comfortable fiction that serves a few interests well, but fails the majority of the descendants of our continent's first residents. End the whole sham now, in the long run that would be the best solution for this mess of convoluted laws, compacts and 'treaties'.
I think I've made it pretty obvious that I'm pro-gambling, but anti-monopoly. People want to be able to gamble, state governments are addicted to gaming revenue, let's quit all the hypocrisy and open up the business of gambling to business interests and communities willing to come to an accomodation without some 'poor disposessed native group' fronting for professional gaming concerns.
Maybe this wasn't so historic, I agree with their conclusions, not how they got there, their reasonings are as fuzzy and wrong-headed as always. But besides being a conservative/libertarian, I'm also a pragmatist, if a liberal newspaper is willing to agree to the results I'm also looking for, who am I to argue?
. . . strong praise for Pres. Reagan's vision from an unlikely source (via Althouse). An unsurprisingly negative response from the TPM crowd. I understand that Sen. Obama doesn't directly praise any specific Reagan administration policy, just acknowledges that he came along at an inflection point in history and lead us out of a decade in the wilderness.
But even the recognition that Pres. Reagan's campaign and vision was transformative within the American political landscape is enough to be controversial amongst many current Democrats.
On top of that, Sen. Obama not so subtly places Pres. Nixon and Pres. Clinton in the same sentence as presidents who had no transformative agenda or appeal.
The Obama is saying he will be transformative, don't demand specifics now, just know that The Obama will transform our country, how other countries respond to us, and how we interact with each other across the political spectrum.
If it was off the cuff, it was a dangerous aside, that could damage him with a constituency he still hopes to woo. If it was calculated, it may have been the most brilliant 30 seconds of seemingly casual political speech that you are ever likely to see.
If he doesn't run away from this, it could be his Sister Souljah moment, he marks himself as a person concerned with America first, not progressive politics or the Democratic Party. He wants the votes of Reagan Democrats, and Reagan Republicans, he wants to assure them that he recognizes the failure of the big government programs of the 60s and 70s, and he won't repeat them. Plus he recognizes that in its way, Clinton's time in office was as destructive to the office of the presidency as Nixon's and during an Obama administration, he'd bring back the decorum and respect that Pres. Reagan had demonstrated.
Or not, I might be over-parsing this.
I was an English Major, I can do that with the best of them.
And as far as calling him "The Obama" (just in case you are wondering), it's more about how people are reacting towards him than what he does (though he does nothing to discourage this reaction). Just as "The Oprah" is every white woman's bestest black girlfriend, "The Obama" has potential to be everyone's bestest and favorite Exceptional Negro (not a term I made up, that would be Undercover Black Man's doing).
Electing Sen. Obama president will automatically be a transformative event for how Americans see themselves and relate to each other, even if he really doesn't do anything to deserve the transformative label. Even though electing a woman, Sen. Clinton, should also be a transformative experience, because she is who she is, it doesn't work that way for her. She's too tied up in the psycho-drama and divisions of the 90s to represent something new. She'd be Clinton II, not the first woman elected president.
I personally don't think a superficial transformation of racial politics in America is enough of a reason to elect a big government liberal at a time when big government liberalism can do a great deal of harm. But I do recognize that a successful Obama presidency could heal a lot of still open wounds in this country. I'm not rooting for him, but it's hard to root against him.
And the beginning where Sen. Obama slowly says, "I don't want to present myself as some sort of a singular figure...", is his way of saying, 'I can't say it about myself, but feel free to think that about me as you vote for me on election day'.
. . . I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Sen. Obama will win the Democratic party's nomination. I know that runs counter to current convential wisdom, but as this becomes a two person race, Sen. Obama's positives will become greater just as Sen. Clinton becomes swamped by her negatives.
There's a huge segment of folks who feel compelled to vote for The Obama, for The Obama shall wash away your past sins of prejudice. I think that was one of the dynamics at play in Iowa (which was helped by the public nature of a Caucus), and this dynamic will strengthen rather than recede as the race goes on.
Rather than counsel you against voting for The Obama, I won't challenge your need for feeling good about yourself, but I will ask that you do one small thing for the country should your compulsion to elect Sen. Obama overwhelm you.
Please, pretty please, pretty please with sugar, a cherry, and a pink pony on top, please split your ticket. If you must give back the executive branch to the Dems, then for pity's sake ensure that both the House and Senate are controlled by moderate Republicans.
If the Dems get a fillibuster proof Senate, plus keep the House, and add the executive branch to their spoils, then you can add the judicial branch over the next 20 years minimum to their prizes as well.
In that scenario, expect Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens to all retire before the 2010 election. You'll have 'progressive' jurists in their 40s or early 50s entrenched on the court, and with current life expectancies, you can expect them to remain on the court for close to half a century.
Do we really want a "living constitution" to be the dominant view of the Supreme Court from now till 2050? If any of the current conservatives leave the court or fall ill over the next 8 years, then expect the entire judiciary to resemble the Ninth Circuit. Rather than a judicial body, the Supreme Court would become a supra-legislature, unelected, unresponsive to popular will (not always a bad thing, admittedly), and free to impose policy from the bench.
Oh no, not the dreaded Sen. Kerry endorsement. This can't be good for Sen. Obama's campaign, he should have said, 'thanks but no thanks' when Sen. Kerry came calling.
