I get twisted up when I think that a professional candidate, a man who has run for three and held two offices in a period less than three presidential terms, may be president. It just has an air of deception to it -- not on Obama's part, while his being disingenuous certainly has a hand in it.
It is a shame that it comes down to him and a long-time leader and individual-thinker -- McCain (I can still hope for the maverick to be there, in his soul, can't I?), because Obama is no dummy and I have genuinely liked him, in hits and misses, during the campaigning. His smug language, and his smug grins, I can do without; his glib brushing off of credible criticisms, and refusal to take a stand on any number of things, I do not appreciate. He is no world-class leader, in short.
Obama has enjoyed the crudest of attacks on McCain, Palin, and even "Joe the Plumber" by surrogates who are falling all over themselves to be insulting and outrageous and insulting for him, so he need not say anything controversial. The media is doing it for him. By contrast, where's the attack machine that makes fun of Biden the flake, and Obama the indecisive and naive? Not on TV, folks. Not even on Fox News!
That Obama avoids anything controversial is nothing new. How he will avoid candid and awkward face time when the heat gets turned up if he becomes president, I cannot be sure. If he wins, perhaps he will redefine the job an elected honorable chairmanship: staff and surrogates would do all of the tricky work and make all the statements he thinks might dirty his reputation, or he would simply move to something less controversial (just like the old days in the state senate). Won't miss those great chats at the podium, though, with foreign leaders. Just what those will be about -- who knows! Redistribution of wealth? Eek!
It seems, based on what people who worked with him have said, that the party gave Obama lots of protection, going all the way back to his first state senate run. He didn't only cover himself with it, he didn't bat an eye to use that cover against anyone to get where he wanted to be. That's called blind ambition. Ambition is admirable to a point, but me-thinks Obama has taken it too far. Politicians who are given too much coverage to travel within without the friction usually given are not generous in their leadership, they are often autocratic. Hitler was given a role in government, and then some added power, then he took more. I am not trying to say he is in other ways similar to Hitler, such as ideologically or in mental stability, most people understand that Hitler came to power because they were trying to shut him up. Obama is not the same deal, but I lack another example of such a sheltered political rise, frankly. He takes a position, then changes it, and has not even got a voting record to fall back on. He is a perfect candidate in one sense: he has little shame and is not bothered by not having a long record of consistency or of voting, period.
Obama has been given a lot of latitude in his political career. He used it, calculatingly, and coolly, and he is handling this campaign with excellence. He has also been given some golden advantages. The economic crisis, while hardly the fault of the GOP, nor GW Bush, and certainly not McCain, is like the final gift for Obama in his campaign against GW Bush. Too bad McCain cannot also campaign against GW Bush, however inaccurate it is in any case.
Obama talks of how the election is about all of us, that it is not about him. Well, it seems to be about him an awful lot. He cannot even define the change he made the center of his campaign. Sadly, change from eight years of GW Bush is all a lot of people care about. But for what? Spreading the wealth? No thanks. I know how business works, and good businesses want to expand, not sit on their butts, so they will invest back into their business, which means more jobs. In his world, that investment would instead go to the government, in the form of taxes, for all but the smallest of small businesses. That's bad economics.
This campaign, such as it is with this giant financial "gift", is only the prologue, though. What about after the campaign? Where is the sign of the excellence while in office? He lacks a record of doing much other than campaigning and speaking and writing books about -- himself. But this campaign is not about him, it is about "us."
Barack Obama is going to make things change. Because change is always good. Just ask 1977-1980 what they thought of Jimmy Carter's work as president. That was quite a change. Twenty-one percent loan rates and Billy Carter. Change, change, and more change. And less change in your pockets.
Economy of Scale in Change in the Country: Politics, political parties, media influence, 'popularity' opinion
Interregnum: a beautifully Latin term for "leadership vacancy" (see definition).
The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.
How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.
-----
Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:
Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.
This first segment was written in the context of the market meltdown ...
That's good stuff. And exactly what journalism is NOT any longer, except with rarity, in local dailies or TV, or in national dailies ("national" meaning stuff like USA Today and Wall Street Journal, but of course that includes LA Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Washtingon Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and the likes).Shumaker, the real-life model for the comic-strip character Shu, was a walking indoctrination into a culture of journalism that once held sway in America: Confident, straight-talking, blue-collar, irreverent, abrasive — but also undeniably talented and privately idealistic.
The above is ironic to me, but in a good way: I figure there are moderate-to-liberal and/or Democrat journalists just as discouraged by the left-leaning, ass-kiss reporting that exists in the print and TV media now (they are also likely as put off by the stubborn success of right-wing, conservative talk radio). I've also felt that another reason journalism is in the crapper, at dailies, etc., is because there is a tempest that leans heavily to to left -- in newspapers and TV (especially TV!). If people begin to avoid major newspapers and newspaper sites, and the same with major TV and their sites, it is little wonder why: it is skewed in generally one direction, and dishonestly. That is, it is skewed to the left, and does not admit it.
How HIGHLY I would hold people if they could, for a change, be self-realized enough to simply identify their own views. There's no doubt who Limbaugh speaks for: strong right conservatives, but not far, far right evangelicals. If you bothered to listen, you would be this. There is plenty of questions about whose world Katie Couric comes from, Campbell Brown, Keith Olbermann and many, many others.
-----
The Future of The Republican Party « Jon Taplin’s Blog
Chris Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservative thought William Buckley, just announced he was going to vote for Obama, partly because the right wing kooks scared the bejesus out of him.My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”
Parker earlier (Sept 26) wrote the following:
Palin Problem - Kathleen Parker on National Review Online
Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.
As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.
Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)
And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).
Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.
Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.
It was fun while it lasted.
Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do.
McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.
OUCH! Clearly, while Palin was suited to the evangelical set, McCain perhaps didn't think it through thoroughly enough regarding the more, umm, grounded members of the party.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Boston Herald: NY Times kisses liberal butt and seems to enjoy the smell
OK, that's not EXACTLY what the Boston Herald guy says. My headline is a bit more attention-grabbing.
My favorite line: "These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people."
Leftist media sire hypocrisy - BostonHerald.com
I don't know how Pat Buchanan -- a regular commentator on the network -- can stomach being in the room. I guess with age comes great intestinal fortitude, for some. Of course, you'll note that he is typically facing off against the unproclaimed liberals, such as Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Seriously -- I keep hearing about how Olbermann refuses to commit to a political view, but every time I watch him, it is nothing but liberal angles, biases and favoritism.
My favorite line: "These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people."
Leftist media sire hypocrisy - BostonHerald.com
When the story first broke that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had cheated on his cancer-stricken wife and sired a baby with a bimbo on his campaign payroll, The New York Times [NYT] refused to run it.Mind you, there is not an overwhelming bias to the left in the media: Consider how MSNBC was quick to pull Keith Olbermann off of his night job as anchor for major political news (see entry above). So they are hardly overwhelmingly biased at MSNBC. They are only highly biased at MSNBC, not overwhelmingly biased.
But when the news hit that not the president, not the vice president but the daughter of the vice-presidential nominee is pregnant, the Times ran five -- count ’em, five -- stories about it. In one day.When the daughter of a vice-presidential candidate turns out to be 17, unmarried and pregnant, of course that’s news. But it doesn’t come close to legitimizing the all-out media assault (there is no other word for it) the press has unleashed on the Palins.
So-called “reporters” on CNN and MSNBC have speculated on Gov. Palin’s fitness as a mother. Sally Quinn from The Washington Post says that Palin should “rethink her priorities” and turn down the VP job. US Weekly -- owned by the same people who put fawning faux-Jesus photos of Barack Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone -- calls the Palin story “Sex, Lies and Scandal.”
The Atlantic, once a respected, thoughtful voice of the American left, has actually promoted the lunatic -- and utterly disproven -- theory that Gov. Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig at all. Trig is really Bristol’s son, and the governor of Alaska took time out of her schedule fighting against hack GOP congressmen and oil company insiders to fake a pregnancy on her daughter’s behalf.According to Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign, mainstream media organizations are demanding to see medical reports on Gov. Palin’s amniotic fluid and a DNA test on little Trig.
These aren’t the actions of bad journalists. These are the actions of bad people. From the set of MSNBC to the pages of The Boston Globe-Democrat, there are people willing to do anything to elect Barack Obama, up to and including the trashing of a 17-year-old girl.
But remember: Barack Obama is, as one San Francisco columnist put it, the “light bringer” who will heal our partisan divide.
I don't know how Pat Buchanan -- a regular commentator on the network -- can stomach being in the room. I guess with age comes great intestinal fortitude, for some. Of course, you'll note that he is typically facing off against the unproclaimed liberals, such as Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Seriously -- I keep hearing about how Olbermann refuses to commit to a political view, but every time I watch him, it is nothing but liberal angles, biases and favoritism.
Barack Obama is not half-white and is not a monkey, but McCain is not at all black and is a dancing monkey
Having a hard time with that title? That's the point, sorta.
Can you imagine if the political correctness monitors of Esquire magazine's editorial board let slip, ever, that the Obama campaign was "monkeying around", "dancing like a monkey", or some other primate-related thing? What kind of chants of racism there would be? What morose steps toward apology there would be? Oh, they would never! But McCain can be a monkey, because he's a white man! Duh!
Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President - Election 2008 - Esquire
Can you imagine if the political correctness monitors of Esquire magazine's editorial board let slip, ever, that the Obama campaign was "monkeying around", "dancing like a monkey", or some other primate-related thing? What kind of chants of racism there would be? What morose steps toward apology there would be? Oh, they would never! But McCain can be a monkey, because he's a white man! Duh!
Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President - Election 2008 - Esquire
[McCain] gave a brave speech in Virginia, and he seemed genuinely interested in prying his party from the clutches of corporate avarice and theocratic lunacy. If he had held to the substance of that speech, instead of merely to its form, he might have been as transformational a figure on his side of the aisle as Obama has been on his. However, McCain has spent the past few years dancing like a monkey on a string, making brave noises in public that he later abandoned in private.Here Esquire magazine's editors are, calling the McCain campaign dancing monkeys. Somehow, so long as you are not black, being called a monkey is OK. And, I should note, Esquire magazine is run by liberals.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Obama: America's destiny? More like America's folly, considering this
Blogging the election
Barack Obama might as well have called John McCain a “Nigga Hating Cracker”… : P.U.M.A
What's so ironic, to stray, is that the Dems are using racist tactics -- yes, they are! -- along with the press, to make America feel "bad" if we don't elect Obama. So, I say, if he gets elected, we're simply all idiots, not just half of us. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. CNN is mostly idiots, and MSNBC - why doesn't it just rebardge itself, fire Joe Scarborough, and call itself "LibTV"? Can't blame the electorate for believing what the liars tell them, I guess.
I hope they know what they are creating by using race in this election like it had been used in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. What is Obama loses? What will happen then? Who would be to blame then?
Shame on America for turning a professional candidate into a false prophet.
Thanks for this, "Woman_in_Virginia" at the PUMA08 site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8
Barack Obama might as well have called John McCain a “Nigga Hating Cracker”… : P.U.M.A
Ever since Spike Lee’s Malcolm X was released, two words entered the popular lexicon of racial intolerance, those words are “hoodwinked” and “bamboozled” .This comes from a blog that is by a black guy. Not that that amazes me, but frankly, race is being used against white people in general, simply because the Democrats have a black guy running for president. So the tenor of this, I would have actually freaked if it were a white dude.
In isolation they might be innocent, however when a black man says a white man is “hoodwinking” and “bamboozling” black people, he might as well be saying that the person he is referring to is a “nigga hating cracker” . Taking it to its logical conclusion, same can be said about the supporters of that person (gosh darn it, I guess that makes me an Uncle Tom).
Either way, for reasons best known to Obama, this [hit link, read, watch video] is the second time in this campaign he has used exactly this phraseology while giving a speech geared to a predominantly black audience. The first time he did was in South Carolina when he was referring to Bill Clinton. Afterwards, Bill went from being the first black President to a racist demagogue as far as the black community was concerned. Now in Philadelphia, he has chosen to do the same against John McCain.
From his utterances it seems till there is a race war, Obama would not be satisfied. Why he would channel Malcolm X at the height of his militancy against a GOP that already has to contend with (false) accusations of racism is beyond me, but as stated earlier, Obama is willing to destroy the country to win an election.
What's so ironic, to stray, is that the Dems are using racist tactics -- yes, they are! -- along with the press, to make America feel "bad" if we don't elect Obama. So, I say, if he gets elected, we're simply all idiots, not just half of us. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. CNN is mostly idiots, and MSNBC - why doesn't it just rebardge itself, fire Joe Scarborough, and call itself "LibTV"? Can't blame the electorate for believing what the liars tell them, I guess.
I hope they know what they are creating by using race in this election like it had been used in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. What is Obama loses? What will happen then? Who would be to blame then?
Shame on America for turning a professional candidate into a false prophet.
Thanks for this, "Woman_in_Virginia" at the PUMA08 site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8
Powered by ScribeFire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)