Jefferson had a problem even asking Congress for the appropriation in a constitutionally questionable property deal, in asking Congress for the money to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
No one today questions that it was critical for the United States to purchase that land, and ultimately Jefferson was persuaded enough by that fact to do something I believe he thought was unconstitutional.
So if that was enough to give them pause, I think it's safe to say Harry Reid nuts if he thinks the founders would have approved of these earmarks.
Harry Reid is a prime example of what most politicians are, including Senators Obama and Clinton. Wanna know what they really think? Then observe what they do, not what they say. Talk is cheap, and they contradict themselves as casually as most people fart. But doing something is what their talk attempts to hide.
I said "most politicians" and that's what I meant. There isn't any flavor of politician at any level who doesn't behave in this manner. Indeed, it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on either side of the aisle to point a finger at the other. Obama and Clinton just happen to be two such examples, and they stand out at the moment because: 1) they stand on soapboxes in front of cameras and yammer, each pointing the finger at the other; and, 2) they are of Harry Reid's party.
That used to be the several States. Now, thanks in major part to the progressivist innovation of an Income Tax, it is now the feds, which means that everyone and everything else becomes political mendicants.
Should politicians ~fail~ to fight for their constituents "fair share", for whatever reason, that sets up an economic drain that will eventually ensure either the replacement of that politician, or an economic death spiral for that constituency.
The implications of this polarity reversal of the tachyon flux, er, direction of money flow was one of a small number of topics I'd wished I'd spent more time on in "This Is Not Der überPost…"
I think Reid's quote is accurate. The founding fathers would certainly be cringing at these discussions, because they'd be horrified that things ever got to this point in the first place.
Harry Reid is quite possibly the worst Senate Majority Leader in the history of our country. He inspires people to....fall gently asleep after drinking a glass of warm milk and watching Lawrence Welk. He would be in my top ten things that are wrong with Democrats.
Although, his tenure may be coming to an end. There is a lot of talk in the rumor mill that the Dems might broker a deal with Hillary, after the next few contests, when she finally has to admit she can't catch Obama in delegates. The scuttlebutt is that she would be the new Senate Majority Leader if she stops running for the sake of the party and the election in the fall. As SML, she would be the 2nd most powerful person in Washington and could get most of the things done she wants to do while Obama could be out inspiring people. Will it happen? Who knows...
Mark, is there any reason you don't like Reid besides the fact that you find him boring?
...she would be the 2nd most powerful person in Washington and could get most of the things done she wants to do while Obama could be out inspiring people.
Inspiring people to do what, leave the country?
I'm now at the point, God help me, where I think Hillary would be less of a disaster for this nation than Obama. She's a two-faced lying power-hungry harpy, but I am relatively assured that she doesn't actually buy half of what she says. What scares me about Obama is that he probably buys everything he says.
There was an article not long ago about wealthy liberals getting seriously spooked at the prospect of an Obama presidency, because they realized that halting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't even pay for half of what Obama wants to implement -- they're worried about losing their retirements and their children's college money. Likewise, I'm scared as hell about all the work that my husband and I will be doing and having nothing to show for it.
"...Obama is that he probably buys everything he says"
And the problem with that is....?
"I'm scared as hell..."
"The only thing Obama is inspiring in me is dread."
What I find interesting about some conservatives (plenty here) is that their big gripe about liberals is they are too overly emotional. So why is there so much fear and dread about an Obama presidency from the right? It hasn't even happened yet and may not ever. We really don't know what the future will hold.
"Inspiring people to do what, leave the country?"
No, to actually give a shit again and feel that they have a voice. What would say if Obama inspired people to start their own small business, work harder, clean up their communities and take responsibility for themselves? That is his actual message, btw, not the one that has been put through the filter.
"is there any reason you don't like Reid besides the fact that you find him boring?"
I also think he is weak, ineffectual, has no clear direction and is incompetent. To me he represents everything that is wrong with Democrats today.
that their big gripe about liberals is they are too overly emotional.
Dammit, I don't have time for this.
But no, no, no, no, no, no, and NO, Mark, that is wrong, erroneous, and either mistaken or an out and out lie.
There's nothing wrong with being emotional.
There's a lot wrong with making decisions based on emotion and then inventing "logic" to "explain" the emotional decision-making.
Emotion is fine, emotion is good.
Failing to take into account facts, logic, history, in favor of what you just want to have happen, and then presume that your desired goal will magically be reached is what we complain about. (Especially since the emotions at that point will lead you further astray as you're not, in fact, magically where you're supposed to be, and Why Not! We Thought The Right Things! We FELT THE RIGHT WAY!)
Not being emotional, being happy, sad, or predicting the probably outcome and how you'll feel if that comes to pass.
I'd ask if you understand the difference now, but believe me, I know the answer.
"When studying social insects like ants and bees, it's often the cooperative aspect of their society that first stands out," says Dr Hughes. "However, when you look more deeply, you can see there is conflict and cheating -- and obviously human society is also a prime example of this. It was thought that ants were an exception, but our genetic analysis has shown that their society is also rife with corruption -- and royal corruption at that!"
If we can't trust ants as models of an egalitarian society, who can we trust!?
So why is there so much fear and dread about an Obama presidency from the right?
Aside from the fact that he's mostly an unknown quantity in terms of actual achievement, it's simple math + economics. If you tally up the cost of all the stuff Obama wants to implement, it's going to cost a mind-boggling amount of money. Much more than the current war is costing us. Where is he going to get all that money except to squeeze it out of you and me?
I'll tell you the other thing that inspires dread in me, and that's Obama's followers. I live in a very liberal city that's infatuated with Obama, and you'd think it was the second coming. Driving down the freeway last week I see a car in front of me with "OBAMA" painted on the rear window with big hearts drawn all around. As I pass the car I'm surprised to see it's a grown man in there, all by himself. I'm thinking, what is this, junior high school? Has he practiced signing "Mrs. Barack Obama" all over his notebook?
Then we have the Obama music videos, awestruck women claiming to be in love with him, the ethereal glow painted around his visage on the covers of magazines. This adoration is like a mass hysteria. The only other place I've seen people act this way about a leader (or a potential leader) is in totalitarian regimes and cults. Think what you want about conservatives and their relationship with the neo-cons, but I guarantee you not one conservative anywhere has festooned his car with adoring hearts around "BUSH" or "CHENEY."
"There's a lot wrong with making decisions based on emotion and then inventing "logic" to "explain" the emotional decision-making."
Really? Would you include the following in that category?
-Translating hate, fear, and ignorance into "logic" that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Islamic World is going to unite under Sharia law and form a caliphate
-Goldberg's "logic" that liberals are like the fascists of old, born out of socialism and totalitarianism when, in fact, those same fascists were then ones who murdered socialists (eg Italy 1920s and 1930s), wrongly framed, and hated communists (eg Reichstag Fire)
-The "logic" that all people who question their government, especially when it comes to 9-11 and our foreign policy, are traitors and should be flogged in the public square (eg Reichstag Fire ditto)
-The "logic" that government is more powerful than corporations (still have a stomach ache from laughter on that one)
-The "logic" that collectivism never works and is mutually exclusive with capitalism. This, despite the fact, that I have shown that companies like Herman Miller (1.7 billion dollars and rising) have been successful in employing the servant leadership model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership
"but I guarantee you not one conservative anywhere has festooned his car with adoring hearts around 'BUSH' or 'CHENEY.'"
Well, you obviously have never traveled to my neck of the woods. My neighbor is a giant W freak with stickers on his car and in his garage with various phrases showing his love. My son's teacher has an 8 1/2 x 11 color glossy of George and Laura on the ranch staring off into the sunset. She talks to me often about how wonderful a man he is...
I do, understand, though, your trepidation in regards to Obamamania. It is weird when people get waaay into someone or something. I hope that this Reverend Wright thing will dampen that a little. Here's a question for you, though...and everyone else...
Which is more frightening to you: the possibility that Obama will fail in what he aspires to do, proving all of you right and sending our country into a boiling pit of sewage OR he succeeds, even on a small level, without squeezing us out of any extra money AND inspiring people to be more responsible and have a greater sense of self worth?
Really? Would you include the following in that category?
Pretty much everything you said: Nope.
Those are your strawmen (in one cause out-and-out misunderstanding), not mine. Nor anyone else's here, I'd daresay.
I won't accept them as valid, and I won't defend them. You postulate them, you prove 'em right first.
Which is more frightening to you: the possibility that Obama will fail in what he aspires to do, proving all of you right and sending our country into a boiling pit of sewage OR he succeeds, even on a small level, without squeezing us out of any extra money AND inspiring people to be more responsible and have a greater sense of self worth?
Again, a totally invalid question.
Your first part is a strawman with a thin veneer of what you think we think. The second part is totally at odds with what Obama has said, stood for, voted for, and goes right back to worship, not logic.
I don't have a problem with someone who adorns his property with supporting stickers for a candidate or has nice glossy pictures of the Commander in Chief. What I find frightening is a grown man acting like a teenage girl over a political candidate.
As for your "which is more frightening" question, I agree with Unix-Jedi. It's a nonsensical question.
But I will tell you this. If any of the current candidates manages, as president, not to screw the country royally -- thus proving me wrong, because I think they're all lousy candidates -- I would be thrilled. There's no ego here, I just want the best possible outcome.
Sarah, that's cool. I think things are going to be a lot better than you think. That's just an opinion.
I also think that grown men acting like teenage girls is the direct result of having a potential president who is intelligent, reflective, and reasonable. It's been quite some time since we have that and it is that fact that gets people excited.
I think the most telling story about Obama's speech yesterday is the manner in which he tackled this issue and the judgment he used to face it. I have to admit that I get giddy when I think of the possibilities of a President Obama handling international and domestic issues in the same way he handled this one.
It was a good speech. Very emotionally telling. Very illustrative.
But, Mark:
the most telling story about Obama's speech yesterday is the manner in which he tackled this issue and the judgment he used to face it.
Since you've read Obama's autobiography, can you verify what Steve Sailor says about the speech compared to Obama's history?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-throws-his-own-living-grannie.html
Specifically, that he threw the woman who essentially raised him under the bus for almost being mugged and not somehow "transcending" that incident?
It might be even simpler than that, Unix. It's OK for his preacher to be racist because his gramma was racist, too, and it's OK for him to accept it in one because he accepted it in the other. Simple solutions for simple minds, no?
Unix, Charles Krauthammer can tell you a bit about Obama's speech as compared to his history. He does so here.
The first money quote is:
" Obama ... frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
"But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction."
Yup, it is. He goes on:
" But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.
"Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend? "
Because he isn't what he portrays himself to be, and he hopes the sheeple won't notice.
Because he isn't what he portrays himself to be, and he hopes the sheeple won't notice.
DJ -- One could say he had the audacity to hope no one would notice. :-P
I never thought Obama had the chops to be Commander in Chief, but before all this Reverend Wright stuff I also didn't think he was two-faced. In that respect, he's now indistinguishable from Hillary. It will be utterly amazing if anyone not besotted with White Liberal Guilt still supports this ding-dong at the end of the day.
"It was a good speech. Very emotionally telling. Very illustrative."
Cool, nice to hear some positivity.
"can you verify what Steve Sailor says about the speech compared to Obama's history?"
Setting aside the fear mongering of Sailor(although I did chuckle at the pre-requisite mention of Communism), he is accurate in quoting the book. His interpretations of the quotes are pretty biased, though.
After that, I think he makes an illusory correlation. In his speech last Tuesday, Obama was citing a more general lifetime of racists tendencies of his grandmother, citing other examples not mentioned in the book. The book points to a specific example.
He was not slandering his grandmother. His was making a point that every family and group of friends have people that are racist. He was saying that Reverend Wright is, in fact, racist just like his grandmother. Should he then disown both of them? Or should he try to help them?
"he threw the woman who essentially raised him under the bus for almost being mugged and not somehow "transcending" that incident?"
Well, I think this assessment of the situation is somewhat biased, as is Sailor's, don't you? Since none of us were there, can we really tell what happened?
The good thing about the speech last Tuesday is that it really tore open a wound for all to see and to debate. People like Wright, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson make it easier for some people to explain away their racism. The angry and hateful statements these men make as well as their reluctance to move past a perpetual "victimhood" culture make it easier for their opponents to flourish, thus conveniently ignoring a very real problem. They need to be put out to pasture....
"also didn't think he was two-faced. In that respect, he's now indistinguishable from Hillary."
I don't agree. I don't see Sen Obama pulling the same shit as Hillary. You might find this hard to believe...I do myself sometimes...but Barack Obama is an honest man. Sure, he might vocalize the conflicting emotions inside of me but two faced? No way.
I have no white liberal guilt at all and, at the end of the day, I still think he is the best person to be president right now. Again, it was the way he handled all of this that was much more important than what he actually said.
Now if you guys want to see a really good speech, check out what Senator Obama said the next day, in regards to foreign policy.
Well, Mark, considering that in 20 years he's apparently not been able to successfully help Wright with his hatred and bigotry, and his grandmother is - still - a "typical white person".
This leads me to conclude that Obama's leadership ability might be just a mite overstated and overestimated by you, since he's demonstrably not, in fact, actually helping either of those people.
Unix, I suspect you'll find this to be fascinating. Here is the lead-in:
"Law requires an exceedingly precise use of language. People who are attracted to the profession often already have this tendency, and then they are schooled further in the honing of the ability.
"Bill Clinton was reviled for his lawyerly use of language in the service of weaseling, of parsing his words so carefully—especially when in the service of self-defense—that although they seemed to say one thing they really said another. Listeners learned not to take his words at face value, but to scrutinize them the way a lawyer would the language of a contract about to be signed.
"Now comes Barack Obama, another lawyer, not an unusual profession for politicians. Not all lawyer-politicians are up there with Bill in the word-parsing competition, but Obama is revealing himself—far more than Hillary—to be Bill’s true heir in that department." (emphasis added)
Her analysis is well worth your time, and it's spot-on.
Neoneocon is very instructive. I don't read her enough.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/03/quote-of-day_16.html (38 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Jefferson had a problem even asking Congress for the appropriation in a constitutionally questionable property deal, in asking Congress for the money to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
No one today questions that it was critical for the United States to purchase that land, and ultimately Jefferson was persuaded enough by that fact to do something I believe he thought was unconstitutional.
So if that was enough to give them pause, I think it's safe to say Harry Reid nuts if he thinks the founders would have approved of these earmarks.
Harry Reid is a prime example of what most politicians are, including Senators Obama and Clinton. Wanna know what they really think? Then observe what they do, not what they say. Talk is cheap, and they contradict themselves as casually as most people fart. But doing something is what their talk attempts to hide.
Don't just paint one side of the aisle, DJ. There are a lot of Republicans who voted against the bill, too.
I said "most politicians" and that's what I meant. There isn't any flavor of politician at any level who doesn't behave in this manner. Indeed, it is the height of hypocrisy for anyone on either side of the aisle to point a finger at the other. Obama and Clinton just happen to be two such examples, and they stand out at the moment because: 1) they stand on soapboxes in front of cameras and yammer, each pointing the finger at the other; and, 2) they are of Harry Reid's party.
"He who has the gold makes the rules."
That used to be the several States. Now, thanks in major part to the progressivist innovation of an Income Tax, it is now the feds, which means that everyone and everything else becomes political mendicants.
Should politicians ~fail~ to fight for their constituents "fair share", for whatever reason, that sets up an economic drain that will eventually ensure either the replacement of that politician, or an economic death spiral for that constituency.
The implications of this polarity reversal of the tachyon flux, er, direction of money flow was one of a small number of topics I'd wished I'd spent more time on in "This Is Not Der überPost…"
I think Reid's quote is accurate. The founding fathers would certainly be cringing at these discussions, because they'd be horrified that things ever got to this point in the first place.
Harry Reid is quite possibly the worst Senate Majority Leader in the history of our country. He inspires people to....fall gently asleep after drinking a glass of warm milk and watching Lawrence Welk. He would be in my top ten things that are wrong with Democrats.
Although, his tenure may be coming to an end. There is a lot of talk in the rumor mill that the Dems might broker a deal with Hillary, after the next few contests, when she finally has to admit she can't catch Obama in delegates. The scuttlebutt is that she would be the new Senate Majority Leader if she stops running for the sake of the party and the election in the fall. As SML, she would be the 2nd most powerful person in Washington and could get most of the things done she wants to do while Obama could be out inspiring people. Will it happen? Who knows...
Mark, is there any reason you don't like Reid besides the fact that you find him boring?
...she would be the 2nd most powerful person in Washington and could get most of the things done she wants to do while Obama could be out inspiring people.
Inspiring people to do what, leave the country?
I'm now at the point, God help me, where I think Hillary would be less of a disaster for this nation than Obama. She's a two-faced lying power-hungry harpy, but I am relatively assured that she doesn't actually buy half of what she says. What scares me about Obama is that he probably buys everything he says.
There was an article not long ago about wealthy liberals getting seriously spooked at the prospect of an Obama presidency, because they realized that halting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't even pay for half of what Obama wants to implement -- they're worried about losing their retirements and their children's college money. Likewise, I'm scared as hell about all the work that my husband and I will be doing and having nothing to show for it.
The only thing Obama is inspiring in me is dread.
"...Obama is that he probably buys everything he says"
And the problem with that is....?
"I'm scared as hell..."
"The only thing Obama is inspiring in me is dread."
What I find interesting about some conservatives (plenty here) is that their big gripe about liberals is they are too overly emotional. So why is there so much fear and dread about an Obama presidency from the right? It hasn't even happened yet and may not ever. We really don't know what the future will hold.
"Inspiring people to do what, leave the country?"
No, to actually give a shit again and feel that they have a voice. What would say if Obama inspired people to start their own small business, work harder, clean up their communities and take responsibility for themselves? That is his actual message, btw, not the one that has been put through the filter.
"is there any reason you don't like Reid besides the fact that you find him boring?"
I also think he is weak, ineffectual, has no clear direction and is incompetent. To me he represents everything that is wrong with Democrats today.
that their big gripe about liberals is they are too overly emotional.
Dammit, I don't have time for this.
But no, no, no, no, no, no, and NO, Mark, that is wrong, erroneous, and either mistaken or an out and out lie.
There's nothing wrong with being emotional.
There's a lot wrong with making decisions based on emotion and then inventing "logic" to "explain" the emotional decision-making.
Emotion is fine, emotion is good.
Failing to take into account facts, logic, history, in favor of what you just want to have happen, and then presume that your desired goal will magically be reached is what we complain about. (Especially since the emotions at that point will lead you further astray as you're not, in fact, magically where you're supposed to be, and Why Not! We Thought The Right Things! We FELT THE RIGHT WAY!)
Not being emotional, being happy, sad, or predicting the probably outcome and how you'll feel if that comes to pass.
I'd ask if you understand the difference now, but believe me, I know the answer.
I'd ask if you understand the difference now, but believe me, I know the answer.
Because you asked yourself the right question?
This is only slightly on topic: "Royal Corruption Is Rife In The Ant World"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311103904.htm
If we can't trust ants as models of an egalitarian society, who can we trust!?
But I thought Edward O. Wilson was on to something when he said of Socialism, "Wonderful theory. Wrong species."
Maybe it should be changed to something like "Wonderful theory. Wrong reality."
Because you asked yourself the right question?
Exactly.
"Because you asked yourself the right question?"
Well, he's not entirely dim.
Mark,
So why is there so much fear and dread about an Obama presidency from the right?
Aside from the fact that he's mostly an unknown quantity in terms of actual achievement, it's simple math + economics. If you tally up the cost of all the stuff Obama wants to implement, it's going to cost a mind-boggling amount of money. Much more than the current war is costing us. Where is he going to get all that money except to squeeze it out of you and me?
I'll tell you the other thing that inspires dread in me, and that's Obama's followers. I live in a very liberal city that's infatuated with Obama, and you'd think it was the second coming. Driving down the freeway last week I see a car in front of me with "OBAMA" painted on the rear window with big hearts drawn all around. As I pass the car I'm surprised to see it's a grown man in there, all by himself. I'm thinking, what is this, junior high school? Has he practiced signing "Mrs. Barack Obama" all over his notebook?
Then we have the Obama music videos, awestruck women claiming to be in love with him, the ethereal glow painted around his visage on the covers of magazines. This adoration is like a mass hysteria. The only other place I've seen people act this way about a leader (or a potential leader) is in totalitarian regimes and cults. Think what you want about conservatives and their relationship with the neo-cons, but I guarantee you not one conservative anywhere has festooned his car with adoring hearts around "BUSH" or "CHENEY."
"There's a lot wrong with making decisions based on emotion and then inventing "logic" to "explain" the emotional decision-making."
Really? Would you include the following in that category?
-Translating hate, fear, and ignorance into "logic" that somehow, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Islamic World is going to unite under Sharia law and form a caliphate
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/11/appeal-to-fear.html
-Goldberg's "logic" that liberals are like the fascists of old, born out of socialism and totalitarianism when, in fact, those same fascists were then ones who murdered socialists (eg Italy 1920s and 1930s), wrongly framed, and hated communists (eg Reichstag Fire)
-The "logic" that all people who question their government, especially when it comes to 9-11 and our foreign policy, are traitors and should be flogged in the public square (eg Reichstag Fire ditto)
-The "logic" that government is more powerful than corporations (still have a stomach ache from laughter on that one)
-The "logic" that collectivism never works and is mutually exclusive with capitalism. This, despite the fact, that I have shown that companies like Herman Miller (1.7 billion dollars and rising) have been successful in employing the servant leadership model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership
"but I guarantee you not one conservative anywhere has festooned his car with adoring hearts around 'BUSH' or 'CHENEY.'"
Well, you obviously have never traveled to my neck of the woods. My neighbor is a giant W freak with stickers on his car and in his garage with various phrases showing his love. My son's teacher has an 8 1/2 x 11 color glossy of George and Laura on the ranch staring off into the sunset. She talks to me often about how wonderful a man he is...
I do, understand, though, your trepidation in regards to Obamamania. It is weird when people get waaay into someone or something. I hope that this Reverend Wright thing will dampen that a little. Here's a question for you, though...and everyone else...
Which is more frightening to you: the possibility that Obama will fail in what he aspires to do, proving all of you right and sending our country into a boiling pit of sewage OR he succeeds, even on a small level, without squeezing us out of any extra money AND inspiring people to be more responsible and have a greater sense of self worth?
Really? Would you include the following in that category?
Pretty much everything you said: Nope.
Those are your strawmen (in one cause out-and-out misunderstanding), not mine. Nor anyone else's here, I'd daresay.
I won't accept them as valid, and I won't defend them. You postulate them, you prove 'em right first.
Which is more frightening to you: the possibility that Obama will fail in what he aspires to do, proving all of you right and sending our country into a boiling pit of sewage OR he succeeds, even on a small level, without squeezing us out of any extra money AND inspiring people to be more responsible and have a greater sense of self worth?
Again, a totally invalid question.
Your first part is a strawman with a thin veneer of what you think we think. The second part is totally at odds with what Obama has said, stood for, voted for, and goes right back to worship, not logic.
It's a false dichotomy.
Mark,
I don't have a problem with someone who adorns his property with supporting stickers for a candidate or has nice glossy pictures of the Commander in Chief. What I find frightening is a grown man acting like a teenage girl over a political candidate.
As for your "which is more frightening" question, I agree with Unix-Jedi. It's a nonsensical question.
But I will tell you this. If any of the current candidates manages, as president, not to screw the country royally -- thus proving me wrong, because I think they're all lousy candidates -- I would be thrilled. There's no ego here, I just want the best possible outcome.
Sarah, that's cool. I think things are going to be a lot better than you think. That's just an opinion.
I also think that grown men acting like teenage girls is the direct result of having a potential president who is intelligent, reflective, and reasonable. It's been quite some time since we have that and it is that fact that gets people excited.
I think the most telling story about Obama's speech yesterday is the manner in which he tackled this issue and the judgment he used to face it. I have to admit that I get giddy when I think of the possibilities of a President Obama handling international and domestic issues in the same way he handled this one.
I find the idea of a grown man getting "giddy" over a politician disturbing.
I find it very... Democratic.
It was a good speech. Very emotionally telling. Very illustrative.
But, Mark:
the most telling story about Obama's speech yesterday is the manner in which he tackled this issue and the judgment he used to face it.
Since you've read Obama's autobiography, can you verify what Steve Sailor says about the speech compared to Obama's history?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-throws-his-own-living-grannie.html
Specifically, that he threw the woman who essentially raised him under the bus for almost being mugged and not somehow "transcending" that incident?
It might be even simpler than that, Unix. It's OK for his preacher to be racist because his gramma was racist, too, and it's OK for him to accept it in one because he accepted it in the other. Simple solutions for simple minds, no?
I think I might need a little while to respond to this one.
Unix, Charles Krauthammer can tell you a bit about Obama's speech as compared to his history. He does so here.
The first money quote is:
" Obama ... frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
"But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction."
Yup, it is. He goes on:
" But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign.
"Then answer this, senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend? "
Because he isn't what he portrays himself to be, and he hopes the sheeple won't notice.
Because he isn't what he portrays himself to be, and he hopes the sheeple won't notice.
DJ -- One could say he had the audacity to hope no one would notice. :-P
I never thought Obama had the chops to be Commander in Chief, but before all this Reverend Wright stuff I also didn't think he was two-faced. In that respect, he's now indistinguishable from Hillary. It will be utterly amazing if anyone not besotted with White Liberal Guilt still supports this ding-dong at the end of the day.
Careful, Sarah. There's hot tea on my keyboard again.
His record in the Illinois legislature is repeated votes of "Present". This is leadership?
Well, DJ, looks like we might've stumped Mark.
Nah. It takes logic to do that. He's immune.
Hey folks, sorry. Been really busy lately...
"It was a good speech. Very emotionally telling. Very illustrative."
Cool, nice to hear some positivity.
"can you verify what Steve Sailor says about the speech compared to Obama's history?"
Setting aside the fear mongering of Sailor(although I did chuckle at the pre-requisite mention of Communism), he is accurate in quoting the book. His interpretations of the quotes are pretty biased, though.
After that, I think he makes an illusory correlation. In his speech last Tuesday, Obama was citing a more general lifetime of racists tendencies of his grandmother, citing other examples not mentioned in the book. The book points to a specific example.
He was not slandering his grandmother. His was making a point that every family and group of friends have people that are racist. He was saying that Reverend Wright is, in fact, racist just like his grandmother. Should he then disown both of them? Or should he try to help them?
"he threw the woman who essentially raised him under the bus for almost being mugged and not somehow "transcending" that incident?"
Well, I think this assessment of the situation is somewhat biased, as is Sailor's, don't you? Since none of us were there, can we really tell what happened?
The good thing about the speech last Tuesday is that it really tore open a wound for all to see and to debate. People like Wright, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson make it easier for some people to explain away their racism. The angry and hateful statements these men make as well as their reluctance to move past a perpetual "victimhood" culture make it easier for their opponents to flourish, thus conveniently ignoring a very real problem. They need to be put out to pasture....
"also didn't think he was two-faced. In that respect, he's now indistinguishable from Hillary."
I don't agree. I don't see Sen Obama pulling the same shit as Hillary. You might find this hard to believe...I do myself sometimes...but Barack Obama is an honest man. Sure, he might vocalize the conflicting emotions inside of me but two faced? No way.
I have no white liberal guilt at all and, at the end of the day, I still think he is the best person to be president right now. Again, it was the way he handled all of this that was much more important than what he actually said.
Now if you guys want to see a really good speech, check out what Senator Obama said the next day, in regards to foreign policy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf-s6nYWnR8
I swear he is stealing from my blog :)
Or should he try to help them?
Well, Mark, considering that in 20 years he's apparently not been able to successfully help Wright with his hatred and bigotry, and his grandmother is - still - a "typical white person".
This leads me to conclude that Obama's leadership ability might be just a mite overstated and overestimated by you, since he's demonstrably not, in fact, actually helping either of those people.
Intentions are good, but results are far better.
Look at the means which a man employs, consider his motives, observe his pleasures. A man simply cannot conceal himself!
-- Confucius
I blogged about Sen. Tom Coburn's March 13 earmarks speech on the Senate floor in a post today. I think you'll find it interesting.
I don't suppose Mark's going to comment on Obama's demonstrated abilities versus the claimed abilities. (I've been waiting.)
I had hopes that he'd actually engage on these - but I think he's probably going to let it slip, and become newspeak.
And we've always been at war with Eastasia.
Unix, I suspect you'll find this to be fascinating. Here is the lead-in:
"Law requires an exceedingly precise use of language. People who are attracted to the profession often already have this tendency, and then they are schooled further in the honing of the ability.
"Bill Clinton was reviled for his lawyerly use of language in the service of weaseling, of parsing his words so carefully—especially when in the service of self-defense—that although they seemed to say one thing they really said another. Listeners learned not to take his words at face value, but to scrutinize them the way a lawyer would the language of a contract about to be signed.
"Now comes Barack Obama, another lawyer, not an unusual profession for politicians. Not all lawyer-politicians are up there with Bill in the word-parsing competition, but Obama is revealing himself—far more than Hillary—to be Bill’s true heir in that department." (emphasis added)
Her analysis is well worth your time, and it's spot-on.
DJ:
Yup.
Neoneocon is very instructive. I don't read her enough.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>