Saturday, January 26, 2008

The Gipper lives

BARACK Obama, who is level-pegging with Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, committed what looked like a serious gaffe last week. According to the classic definition, coined by liberal columnist Michael Kinsley, a political gaffe consists of a politician telling the truth inadvertently. And in an interview with a US newspaper, Obama praised Ronald Reagan. In the eyes of left-wing activists, that was rather like a candidate for the papacy putting in a good word for Beelzebub. Worse, Obama praised Reagan not in saccharine generalities that might have been forgiven ("a great American", "he expressed America's can-do spirit", and so on) but more pointedly and heretically as an agent of political change.

Here are his words: "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the 1960s and '70s and, you know, government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think ... he tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Obama might have cited different Reaganite achievements that seem more important historically: for instance, his masterly waging of strategic competition against the Soviets that, in Margaret Thatcher's words, "won the Cold War without firing a shot". But such an argument would not have made all the useful political points implicit in his quote, notably that (a) Reagan changed America for the better; (b) his changes limited government and liberated private entrepreneurship; (c) these changes were necessary and reflected what Americans wanted; and, above all, (d) president Clinton really hadn't altered the trajectory that Reagan launched any more than Nixon had altered the liberal trajectory of FDR and LBJ. This list amounts to a comprehensive dissing of Democratic pieties and recent Democratic history. Obama's rivals were virtually compelled to attack it.

After a day or two it began to look as if Obama's praise for Reagan was not a gaffe at all. After all, Obama had felt no need to withdraw or even amend that praise, usually the final stage of the gaffe trajectory. On the contrary, it had wrong-footed his opponents, strengthened his appeal to Republicans and independents for November, widened his ideological options and confirmed his public image of cool graciousness. Not a bad return on saying what almost everyone, including his rivals John Edwards and Hillary (and Bill) Clinton, knows to be a fact.

That fact, however, reflects a dramatic turnaround in Reagan's fortunes. According to Gallup, Reagan's average approval rating during his time in office was a distinctly average 53 per cent. Since 1989, however, it has gradually risen to 73 per cent (a rating exceeded only by the glamorous but mediocre John F. Kennedy). Asked to rate presidents in terms of greatness, Americans in recent years have put him just under (and sometimes above) Abraham Lincoln.

Such a sharp change reflects several different factors. Retirement and death usually improve a politician's reputation. Old opponents overcome the bitterness of past conflicts; newcomers hardly remember what they were about. Anyone who today cites the striking air controllers almost certainly does so to praise Reagan's firmness. Subsequent events in the world can show someone's real mettle. Dunkirk destroyed the reputation of Chamberlain and Baldwin. The collapse of Soviet communism underlined Reagan's shrewdness and strength, and the worth of his principled anti-communism.

Reagan's domestic legacy has been equally impressive: a political structure constraining government in which his Democrat opponents have been more or less compelled to follow his trajectory. The most favourable interpretation of Bill Clinton's record, for instance, is that he implemented the more progressive parts of the Republican agenda such as welfare reform and the expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both Clintons have thus had to adopt a nervously favourable attitude to the Gipper. Anything less would be ingratitude.

Historical scholarship has limped along behind these developments. But recent studies of the Reagan presidency, including some by political liberals such as Richard Reeves, have conceded that Reagan was a successful and historically important president. As Reeves argued, it is simply implausible to imagine that the "amiable dunce" of earlier liberal imaginings could have racked up such impressive achievements.

More important, however, has been one trend utterly impossible to predict. Reagan refurbished his own reputation while suffering from, first, Alzheimer's and, second, death. Books based on his radio scripts, newspaper columns, letters and diaries - all published just before or after his death - have shown him to be a much more diligent, thoughtful, well-informed and able man than his earlier reputation suggested. We now have a clear impression of an inner man who matches the external achievements. His public image has risen accordingly.

Obama is the first politician in this campaign, and perhaps the first Democrat ever, to exploit Reagan's new standing effectively. Hillary Clinton, Edwards and even the adept Bill Clinton are still flummoxed over how to get around the obstacle of Reagan in their path to power. But the Republican candidates are hardly less flummoxed by a GOP primary process that is now in effect a contest to find another Reagan.

Their first problem with Reagan is that he is the great man beside whom they are all bound to look like pygmies until they gain power and, thus, the chance to match his achievements (and doubtful even then). Their attempt to resemble Reagan inevitably diminishes them. Their other problem is they cannot sensibly answer the question: what would Reagan do? They tend to fall back on the reply: what he did last time. But as various conservative intellectuals - David Frum in the new book Comeback, Victor Hanson Davis on National Review Online - have pointed out, that answer is misleading because Reagan was dealing with very different problems from those of 2008. We have to ask instead: what made him a different kind of political leader? William Kristol in The Weekly Standard argues rightly that Reagan differed from most leaders and all the present candidates in being the leader of both a political party and an ideological conservative movement.

The same is true, incidentally, of Thatcher and John Howard. It explains why they could act more boldly than most (directionless) leaders but also why their supporters trusted them when they compromised. None of the three, however, was an original political thinker or a rigid ideologist imposing a prefabricated project on their nations: that is a typical left-wing misinterpretation of Thatcherism in particular. They were courageous and principled leaders applying practical conservative solutions to the problems of hyper-inflation, economic over-regulation and the Soviet advance that had been thrown at them by history. As it happened, their solutions turned out to be the right ones. But they were elicited by the problems as much as springing from conservatism.

History is throwing different problems at America today: the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Iran and Afghanistan among them. Republicans should examine these problems rather than Reagan's record. If they are both practical and conservative, they will tend to come up with reasonable conservative solutions. Obama has already figured this out. He merely thinks the best solutions to these new problems are likely to be liberal ones, and so the next agent of change a liberal version of Reagan.

With his constant inspirational calls for national unity, Obama is eerily reminiscent of the Fascists. If he spoke German he might well be inclined to adopt as his slogan Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- as Hitler did ("One nation, one government, one leader"). After all, right to the end most Germans saw Hitler as a warm and kindly father-figure. And if the ruthless power-seeker that is Hillary reminds you of Joe Stalin, don't blame me!

Put very briefly, the Fascists were (following Hegel) the "one big happy family" Left while the Communists were the deeply embittered "class war" Left. Hitler only hated the Jews. Marx, Trotksy, Lenin and Stalin hated just about everybody -- Marx particularly so. You can readily see why the two types of Leftist despised one-another.

Friday, January 25, 2008

"Change" hokum: "Many people find it thrilling that the mantra of "change" is ringing out across the land during this election year. But let's do what the politicians hope that we will never do - stop and think. It is doubtful whether there is a single human being in this entire country who is 100 percent satisfied with everything that is going on. In other words, everybody is for change. The real difference between liberals and conservatives is in which specific things they want to change, and in what way. Milton Friedman was the leading conservative thinker of his time but he wanted to radically change the Federal Reserve, the school system, and the tax system, among other things. Everybody is for change. They differ on the specifics. Uniting people behind the thoughtless mantra of "change" means asking for a blank check in exchange for rhetoric. That deal has been made many times in many places - and millions of people have lived to regret it. It is not too much to ask politicians to talk specifics, instead of trying to sweep us along, turning off our minds and turning on our emotions, with soaring rhetoric. Optimists might even hope for some logical consistency and hard facts. Barack Obama says that he wants to "heal America and repair the world." One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day."

Stifled criticism of Obama: "If anyone criticizing Obama the Political Candidate is reflexively demonized as a racist, how then will anyone be allowed to criticize Obama the Head of State? After Obama is elected, his supporters will inevitably claim that the ever-fragile self-esteem of 40 million oppressed African-Americans is utterly dependent upon the perpetuation of the good name of the First Black President. So, any verbal denigration of President Obama will bring down cries of "Racist!" And that's the most intimidating epithet imaginable today. Now that I think of it, anybody accused of "denigrating" President Obama will be presumed guilty until proven guiltier".

Thursday, January 24, 2008

The blind leading the blind: "During a "Good Morning America" interview aired Monday, Obama said, "Bill has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'." Hmmm "Statements that are not factually accurate." Well, this is almost a humorous development. Suddenly, Democrats have discovered the truth?"

Obama's Clinton Education: "One of our favorite Bill Clinton anecdotes involves a confrontation he had with Bob Dole in the Oval Office after the 1996 election. Mr. Dole protested Mr. Clinton's attack ads claiming the Republican wanted to harm Medicare, but the President merely smiled that Bubba grin and said, "You gotta do what you gotta do." We're reminded of that story listening to Barack Obama protest his treatment by the now ex-President Clinton on behalf of his wanna-be-President wife... Now he knows how the rest of us feel. The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win. Listen closely to Mr. Obama, and you can almost hear the echoes of Bob Dole at the end of the 1996 campaign asking, "Where's the outrage?" This has been the core of the conservative critique of the Clintons for years. So it is illuminating to hear the same critique coming from Mr. Obama"

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Obama's Alinsky jujitsu: Obama is the Democrats' Elmer Gantry. The only difference between the two is that Obama's religion is nothing but one of raw political power. Should this political fraud win the White House and successfully implement his policies the result would be an economic, social and political disaster for America. Therefore, an Obama victory is the worst possible outcome for blacks

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Obama has praised Reagan and the Left has gone bananas over it: "The episode is most telling, though, for what it says about the ancient mariners of the Democratic Party and how little they've changed. Supposedly Mr. Obama committed a grievous blunder by nodding at the achievement of one of the most consequential Presidencies of the 20th century. If the rest of the Democrats can't even recognize the same, it suggests that the change they have in mind is back to the 1960s and '70s."

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Barack Obama and Israel

The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes.

However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign faOade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior.

One seemingly consistent them running throughout Barack Obama's career is his comfort with aligning himself with people who are anti-Israel advocates. This ease around Israel animus has taken various forms. As Obama has continued his political ascent, he has moved up the prestige scale in terms of his associates. Early on in his career he chose a church headed by a former Black Muslim who is a harsh anti-Israel advocate and who may be seen as tinged with anti-Semitism. This church is a member of a denomination whose governing body has taken a series of anti-Israel actions.

As his political fortunes and ambition climbed, he found support from George Soros, multibillionaire promoter of groups that have been consistently harsh and biased critics of the American-Israel relationship. Obama's soothing and inspiring oratory sometimes vanishes when he talks of the Middle East. Indeed, his off-the-cuff remarks have been uniformly taken by supporters of Israel as signs that the inner Obama does not truly support Israel despite what his canned speeches and essays may contain.

Now that Obama has become a leading Presidential candidate, he has assembled a body of foreign policy advisers who signal that a President Obama would likely have an approach towards Israel radically at odds with those of previous Presidents (both Republican and Democrat). A group of experts collected by the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz deemed him to be the candidate likely to be least supportive of Israel. He is the candidate most favored by the Arab-American community.

Much more here

Thursday, January 17, 2008

The Politics of Pigmentation

It wouldn't be Martin Luther King Day without some kind of racial dialogue, but the tiff between Democratic Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is especially instructive and ironic. While their substantive argument is ultimately pointless, it does help illustrate the perils of identity politics.

Last Monday, in response to Senator Obama repeatedly invoking the late civil rights leader on the campaign trail, Senator Clinton told an interviewer, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . It took a President to get it done." Later on, in a separate interview, Bill Clinton didn't help his wife when he described a chunk of Senator Obama's record as a "fairy tale."

The Obama campaign took umbrage at Mrs. Clinton's perceived slight of King and Mr. Clinton's patronizing remark. So did other black Democrats. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who is part of the Democratic leadership in Congress, announced he was rethinking his neutral stance in South Carolina's crucial primary. Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic operative who ran Al Gore's 2000 campaign, also rebuked the Clintons.

Team Clinton next accused their rival of playing the race card and called on black supporters to defend the record of the former President and first lady. At a Clinton campaign rally over the weekend, Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, coyly (and gratuitously) alluded to Mr. Obama's past drug use, which the Senator already acknowledged in a best-selling memoir. "Bill and Hillary Clinton . . . have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood," said Mr. Johnson. "And I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book." Mr. Johnson later said he was talking about Mr. Obama's civic work.

Let's leave aside how this exchange undermines each candidates' claims that he or she would unite the country rather than divide it like the "polarizing" President Bush. On the merits, Mrs. Clinton obviously is correct. It did take a President's signature to bring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to fruition. And the idea that saying so takes anything away from King's legacy is absurd.

Were she a true uniter, however, Mrs. Clinton might have added that the Civil Rights Act took bipartisanship as well, thanks to fierce opposition from Southern Democrats. Republicans of that era are often portrayed as opponents of civil rights. In fact, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 bill. And when it finally passed, GOP Senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader who worked closely with the bill's sponsor, Democrat Hubert Humphrey, was honored for his efforts with a NAACP civil rights award.

Democrats never miss an opportunity to play the race card against Republicans and even black conservatives like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who dare to dissent from liberal orthodoxy. So it's tempting to enjoy the political entertainment value of a race-based dust up between Senators Clinton and Obama.

But there's also a cautionary tale here in how identity politics can come back to bite. The left's color-by-numbers approach to attracting votes has essentially painted the Democrats into a corner, making it very difficult for them to prevail in national elections without winning nearly every black vote. The result is the very antithesis of what King fought for -- an over-reliance on blunt racial appeals instead of issues and ideas.

Throughout the campaign, Mrs. Clinton has led Mr. Obama among black voters, thanks mostly to name ID and her husband's popularity. With his victory in Iowa and close second in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama has started to cut into Mrs. Clinton's black support. With her remarks, she's now given him an opportunity to make further inroads. And as the fallout shows, she'll have to be very careful about pushing back on this front if she wants to keep black supporters from abandoning her en masse, not only now but in November when they could decide to stay home.


Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Obama not so different from white racist David Duke?: "I have no idea how a member of a black church that apparently feels it owes greater allegiance to Africa than to America and that pays homage to a bigot like Farrakhan, has the gall to present himself as the one candidate who can bring us all together. To be fair, I acknowledge that he has a pleasant smile and speaks better than most politicians. The truth is, he sort of reminds me of David Duke."

The most influential "third way" politician of the 20th century was that famous Marxist theoretician, Italy's Benito Mussolini, the founder of Fascism. The idea seems to have enduring appeal to Leftists. But it always seems to end up as just another mask for the same old Leftist reliance on big government and coercion. And now Obama is playing that fiddle too. Few conservatives would see any substance in Obama's third-way claims. His actual policies all seem -- as far as one can tell -- to be boilerplate Leftism. The article excerpted below from a Left-leaning Australian writer does however buy the claim. He compares Obama to Australian centre-Leftists. Australian centre-Leftists do however exhibit a lot of genuine conservatism and I am at a loss to see any of that in Obama.
Now Barack has published a book with an improbable name. The Audacity of Hope. It has been a sales pitch for his presidential run, an attempt to make himself a crossover candidate for more progressive Republicans. Describing himself as a Christian and a sceptic, he distances himself from Huckabee by confirming his belief in evolution and stem cell research, but talks up a faith-based politics while defending secularism. It's a hard act in a society where religious and ideological differences have never been so emphasised and manipulated.

Obama became famous overnight when, in July 2004, the junior senator from Illinois (he's from Abraham Lincoln's Springfield, not Homer Simpson's) electrified the Democratic National Convention with a speech that sought to bridge the divide. And the book expands on all the themes of that address. I'm listening to the audio version, read by Obama with an energy and attack that's deeply impressive. If he weren't running for the presidency he'd be a contender for a Pulitzer in journalism. The political analysis of what he calls the dead zone of US politics is superb, as is the writing.

This is the classic third way argument, developed by Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, but with refinements. Most of all, Obama reminds me of Kevin Rudd in his views on the role of a social democrat party in a 21st century Western democracy. Their natural affinity was shown in Obama's congratulatory phone call to Rudd after his recent victory. If he wins the White House the two of them will be natural allies, capable of working more closely and more cordially than John Howard and George W. Bush....

On Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, Obama was a revelation. Not once in more than 50 years of watching telly had I seen a politician so utterly and seductively relaxed. Not the faux relaxation that most affect, it seemed to come from Obama's oft-stated view that he's learned to campaign without a fear of losing. If so, it's transformational, giving him a freedom of expression and a depth of humour that leaves Hillary and Mike Huckabee for dead. He's the least processed and manufactured of candidates, and certainly one of the smartest.

For example, he opposes the demonisation of Bush. We do that, we're the losers. While powerfully opposing the President's policies, he concedes the possibility of personal decency. When he argues that the administration, though monstrously wrong, believes that what it's doing is right for the country, fellow Democrats get very angry. But it wins Obama crossover Republican votes, as evidenced in Iowa.

More here

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Some of the doubts about Obama: "When Hillary Clinton warned that Barack Obama had not been thoroughly "vetted", as she has been, she was hinting darkly at trouble to come over her rival's radical pastor and shady patron in Chicago, the Illinois senator's home town.... The smear that Obama is secretly a Muslim, or too close for comfort to that religion, has already taken hold among some voters. "We have to peel back his identity," said one elderly white voter in South Carolina, a state Obama must win on January 26. "Did you know his middle name is Hussein? He is a Muslim and was raised in an Islamic school." ... The unorthodox pastor of Trinity church is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who is refusing all interviews. He married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptised their two daughters. He is already attracting attention on right-wing websites for describing the September 11 attacks as a "wake-up call" to America for ignoring the concerns of "people of colour", and for claiming that Americans "believe in white supremacy and black inferiority . . . more than we believe in God". The other potential threat to Obama comes from the indictment of one of his leading donors, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a Syrian-born property developer in Chicago, who is accused of extortion.
Change: the empty word: "It's hard to think of a more meaningless political watchword than "change," but "change" is what the presidential candidates are promising. Barack Obama's endless repetition of the word won him the Iowa caucuses, prompting other Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to make it their mantra too. Hillary Clinton and [RINO] John McCain won in New Hampshire by arguing that they too wanted change and that they had the experience necessary to bring it about." And Mark Steyn rightly points out that it is WHICH change that matters, not just any change.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Sen. Obama's Calls for Unity Are Not What They Seem

By Dennis Prager

We are repeatedly told by the news media that there is a deep, almost palpable, yearning among Americans for unity. And Sen. Barack Obama's repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party's nomination for president of the United States.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama's sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity -- whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) -- do not tell the whole truth.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: "I want everyone to unite -- behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine."

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side's values. Barack Obama wants American troops out of Iraq now. About half of America believes that American troops abandoning Iraq will lead to making that country the world's center of terror and to the greatest victory thus far for the greatest organized evil in the world today. How, then, will Mr. Obama achieve unity on Iraq? Mr. Obama believes in repealing the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration. How will he achieve unity on that? Many of us believe that re-raising taxes will bring on a recession.

And what is the "unity" position on same-sex marriage? Either one supports it or one supports keeping marriage defined as the legal union of a man and a woman. The only way to unite Americans on this issue -- and I don't know what is more seminal to civilization than its definition of marriage -- is to convince all, or at least most, Americans to embrace one of the two positions.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama's "unity" supporters engage in -- they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country's national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as "divisive."

In case the reader should dismiss these observations about calls for unity as political partisanship, let me make clear that they are equally applicable to calls for religious unity. For example, one regularly hears calls by many Christians for Christian unity. But how exactly will this be achieved? Will Catholics stop believing in their catechism and embrace Protestant theology, or will Protestants begin to regard the pope Christ's vicar on earth?

Ironically, one reason America became the freest country in the world was thanks to its being founded by disunited Christians -- all those Protestant denominations had to figure out a way to live together and make a nation.

Given what Sen. Obama's calls for unity really mean -- let's all go left -- it is no wonder he and his calls for unity are enthusiastically embraced by the liberal media.

For nearly eight years the media and Democrats have labeled President Bush's policies "divisive" simply because they don't agree with them. They are not one whit more divisive than Sen. Obama's positions. A question for Democrats, the media and other Obama supporters: How exactly are Mr. Obama's left-wing political positions any less "divisive" than President Bush's right-wing positions?

Second, the craving for unity is frequently childish. As we mature we understand that decent people will differ politically and theologically. The mature yearn for unity only on a handful of fundamental values, such as: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Beyond such basics, we yearn for civil discourse and tolerance, not unity.

The next time Sen. Obama speaks with his usual passion and eloquence about his desire to unite Americans, someone must ask him two questions: Why are your left-wing positions any less divisive than President Bush's right-wing positions? And if you are so committed to uniting Americans, why did you vote against declaring English our national, i.e., our unifying, language? Without compelling answers, Sen. Obama's calls for American unity are no more than calls to unite around his politics and him.

The Runaway O Train

A lot of what I am putting up today concerns Obama. The New Hampshire results mean that he is far from inevitable but he is still a serious threat to the good governance of the USA. The excerpt from Bob Parkes immediately below is one viewpoint about why Obama is doing as well as he is so far

It would appear, unless he commits the mother of all gaffes, Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. Why the finality here? Because we've been there, done that.

Less than two years ago, a similar train left the station. In Massachusetts, it was the D Train. Deval Patrick carpetbagged into the state, campaigned on "Together We Can", and sought to become the first Black governor of The Bay State. There was the allure of history being made and the guilt-ridden bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

His opposition was a female Republican that, unfortunately, delivered the same old, antiquated message. We got the same old AARP-era, focus group vetted, plastic deliveries. Deval Patrick spoke from the heart, while the Republican stuck to the script. Patrick went on to a resounding victory over an opponent no one has heard from since.

When Obama takes the oath, will he be all that he promised? Deval Patrick should be in a wheelchair, considering how many times he's shot himself in the foot. The state of Massachusetts is in a financial quagmire, hemorrhaging businesses and people fleeing unchallenged liberal regulations and taxation run amok.

Barack Obama has offered mucho "change" and "hope". "Change" and "hope", when it comes to politicians, often has a hefty price tag. When history is made, the moment will be, we'll all feel special, and people move on. The D Train lost its luster, and so will the O Train.



Yuk!: "Obama's appeal in part is that he incarnates the Democratic Party. He is both a highly educated member of the upper middle class and a half-minority. As one of my acquaintances put it, referring to the way Obama blends an educated articulation of policy positions with the uplifting cadences of the African-American preacher: "Who better to represent us?" Some continue: "Who better to heal our racial wounds?" When I press them on this point, explaining that I live in the most racially diverse neighborhood in the U.S. and that I'm not looking for a priestly President who can absolve me of my sins, I'm told that such absolution is a good thing-whether I want it or not."

Obama - A Clean, Well Spoken Idiot: "It's almost like the "Second Coming", but not of Martin Luther King, as Hillary notes. But to see how the MSM and a lot of America is fawning over Barak Obama is indicative of how gullible we have become. After all this is the America that celebrates third-rate, drug addicted trailer trash - such as Britney Spears, and yet still considers her a "celebrity"..... it appears that the fact that Obama, who is even more of a leftist than Hillary Clinton, who can speak well and - in the words of Joe Biden is a - "A Clean Black", is wooing everyone into submission (did I say submission?). Which is more indicative of just how stupid we have become as a nation. Forget the substance, just sit dumbly and get mesmerized by the music. Note that no one is talking about his ideas which in the case of foreign policy border on the insane, or even of his background, much of which has yet to be answered for. It's all about how he looks and talks, as if those were the only criteria. So we may have an idiot as the next president, albeit a well spoken one."

A remarkably sober comment from a Leftist: "Obama has a great deal of crossover ideological appeal, based primarily on style and mood rather than policy substance. By standard measures, Obama is on the most left-hand side of the respectable political distribution (things like ADA and ACU scores). Now, these may not be great predictors of his behavior in office. In fact, my gut tells me that he's not highly committed to Democratic government producerist interests, and that he has a considerable libertarian streak. But there's just no way to know, and it's not quite clear that he even really knows, since he hasn't had to figure out what his abstract positions mean when faced with lots of zero-sum choices between alternative courses of action (see above on experience). A considerable part of Obamania syndrome (of which I am a victim) is a tendency to project our own beliefs onto the guy. So, more moderate Democrats and even conservatives extrapolate from the fact that he is respectful toward their views, that he is sympathetic to them. Which may be true, but probably isn't"

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

In line with their usual love of boogeymen, various Leftists (example here) have been speading the fear that Obama will be assasinated by "gun-toting racists" (one of the many abusive Leftist tems for conservatives). It presumably reflects the way Leftists themselves would act if Obama were a conservative. Why? Because the threat is entirely made-up. There have been no events leading to it. Daniel Pipes has pointed out however that Obama is an apostate Muslim and that IS cause for him to be assassinated -- by Muslims, not by conservatives. No Leftist so far seems to have mentioned that the last successful political assassination (of RFK) in America was by an anti-Israel Arab (Sirhan). The Leftist post I mentioned above goes right through the history of political shootings in the USA without mentioning the name Sirhan. But a dishonest summary of the facts is routine for Leftists, of course.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Obama Shows the Audacity to Exaggerate & Make Stuff Up: "Barack Obama did not have the slightest idea what he was talking about when he touched on the Anbar Awakening tonight in the New Hampshire Democratic Debate on ABC. Obama says it wasn't the troop surge-- it was the Democrats winning in 2006 that caused the Anbar Awakening! In reality- the main ones cheering the Democratic win in November were Khamenei, Iran, Al-Qaeda, North Korea, etc. Not only that... Obama also said the Anbar Awakening was an attempt by the Sunnis to make peace with the Shia. SORRY- The Anbar Awakening was an agreement among Sunni Tribal Leaders to join together to fight Sunni Al-Qaeda terrorists. It had nothing to do with the Shiites. Obama showed that besides hope- he also has the audacity to make things up.... the actual formalization of the Anbar Awakening had been ongoing for more than a year. It wasn't something that just happened when Pelosi the Terrible took over the House... Try February 2006."

Monday, January 7, 2008

Barack Obama wants to end the US "Occupation" of Iraq: "In an 11-minute interview with hometown Chicago radio broadcaster and journalist, Roland Martin, Barack Obama revealed that his first act, if elected president, would be to pull our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible: "Well, we will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I will give them a new assignment and that is to bring our troops home in a careful, responsible way, but to end this occupation in Iraq".

Obama races to 10-point lead over Hillary: "Barack Obama the 46-year-old senator aiming to become America's first black president, has stormed into a 10-point lead over Hillary Clinton in this week's critical New Hampshire primary, threatening to send her campaign into meltdown. The Rasmussen survey, which was carried out the day after Obama's victory in last Thursday's Iowa caucuses, put his support at 37% in New Hampshire, compared with 27% for Clinton. The poll of 510 likely Democratic voters signalled a further swing away from the 60-year-old former first lady, whose campaign portrayed her as the "inevitable" victor until she was beaten into third place in Iowa".

Thursday, January 3, 2008


Post below excerpted from Evan Sayet. See the original for links

Who is Barack Hussein Obama and why is he anything more than an afterthought in the Democrats' quest for power? The answer is, of course, that we have no idea. He hasn't even served one term in the United States Senate, a place where he is one of but one hundred voices. His legislative efforts as the junior Senator with no experience has equally been missing while on the campaign trail his great policy initiatives have been to utter meaningless words like "hope" and "change" always devoid of substance.

Who is Hillary Rodham Clinton that she should be the leading candidate for the Democrats' nomination in the fall? She's a one-term Senator, a carpetbagger who calculated that she would be a "lifelong Yankee fan" so long as she could get a stepping stone to personal power. Her claim to experience -- the fact that she was married to a president -- would be laughable except that, compared to Obama, she IS the more tested and learned. After all, at least she was sometimes within shouting distance when her narcissistic husband would orgasm with an intern. This -- again, one of one hundred, like Scott Baio sitting in on that game show -- junior Senator from a far-leftists East Coast state, has put forth few policy initiatives, seeing the Senate not as a job but as a necessary line on the resume before instantly jumping into the Presidential sweepstakes.

Who is John Edwards? He's a one-term Senator -- one in a hundred bodies to hide amongst as he accomplished nothing -- who began running for President in 2002 -- two years into his Senate term. His campaign is based on creating hatred for the boogeyman, "the rich," a group that only a very, very few belong to at the level of this man himself (can you say "self-hate"?).

In fact, of the three Democrats given a chance of winning the nomination, not one has served more than a single term, not one hasn't hidden amongst a hundred, as the junior senator from their state, and not one is saying anything of substance.

It's not like the Democrats don't have candidates with executive experience. Bill Richardson was a governor. It's not like they don't have Senators with more than a few years experience, there's the elder "statesman," Joe Biden. Yet these people are way back in the pack -- also rans -- to a bunch of Juniors. Why? Because the more the American people know about a Democrat the more they reject them as duplicitous and damaging. (Ever wonder why Hillary didn't run for Senate from her home state where they know her best?)