Wow. Holy crap. Talk about a crazy last 48 hours. Alright, let's see if we have this straight.1. Edwards: Gone. So much for "going all the way." He is now in a very strong position to be kingmaker. I predict he goes for Obama and then Hillary will be in big trouble this Tuesday.
2. Giulianni: Gone. Really sad. Our Mayor had to bow out and, with it, the only chance I would have of voting Republican.
3. Hillary: Shucks, isn't it too bad that JFK's daughter endorsed Obama? As I have said before, the torch is passed...
4. McCain: Part of me is happy for him..the comeback kid..er...well maybe not kid. The other part of me knows that if he wins the presidency, we will have a nation that has decided to remain an immovable object.
5. Paul: Still in...and with plenty of money and pissed off "real" conservatives behind him.
6. Huckabee: Looking for a miracle...or the VP spot with McCain.
7. Romney: Ward Cleaver is going to have some problems on Tuesday.
8: Obama: I think he might surprise some people on Tuesday....people with last name Clinton. I don't think anyone has any idea how many "non-voting" voters he is going to bring to the polls. I predict it is going to be staggering. If he gets the Democratic nod, you are going to see many of the "other hundred million" vote. The people of this country can sense that something wonderful could happen and they could help be a part of it. He's close....I'm nervous....too nervous..
Some interesting quotes from comments from Monday's post that I thought I would bring out front and comment on:
"very few people (Mark included) ever talk about Obama's voting record"
Quite a bit has been made about Obama voting "present" when he was in the state legislature. There are people talking about it. I don't talk about it much because I'm not sure how that will translate on a national stage.
"'Equality in all areas of our country would have been the order of the day.' I'm sorry but mankind will never be remade like that and I get leery of politicians taking steps to enforce their definition of fairness."
Spoken like a true conservative. While I am not advocating a collectivist culture, cultures that favor the individualist have higher rates of loneliness, more divorce, more homicide, and more stress related diseases. Remember, too, Obama is not saying that HE will do anything. It will be OUR responsibility. All he is doing is opening the door...which, for the last eight years, has been eight foot thick of metal with seven thousand locks on it.
"Hillary is enough of a polarizing figure that I think McCain wins that one."
Agreed. Democrats, please don't fucking nominate her.
"I foresee a rejuvenation of “Where’s the beef?” analogies. However, Obama is still trouble because too many people live for that sunny rhetoric and a return to Camelot."
Also agreed. Do you know that they changed Obama's web site about a month ago? It used to have very detailed ideas and plans. Now it seems too light and airy. I want to hear more specifics as well. They really need to put back the old site.
"we still have super Tuesday coming up and neither political party has anyone set in stone yet."
It's going to be really cool, I agree. I do like how exciting the race is on both sides.
Oh, and how totally mega is the debate tomorrow night between Hillary and Barack now? I will be glued to my wide screen...
14 comments:
I think you are right about Hillary. Come Tuesday, I will be caucusing for my senator. We need to move forward not backward.
I’m talking about his voting record in the US Senate.
Lonliness? Stress? Divorce? A government can’t really fix those things. Saying “I’m not happy” is an emotional response to external stimuli and policy (or any decision for that matter) should not be made on that basis. Im not sure how one can say that Obama isn’t going to "do" anything and then say he is going to "open the door". Maybe he will just be "motivational-speaker in chief", or maybe he will make lonliness illegal. If someone is lonely then they should take some responsibilty for their situation and get out there and meet people. Go pick up a hobby that others around town do, go join a church, go volunteer your time somewhere, be more proactive in talking to people, etc.
Again, the intentions sound lovely but the results of government taking action to promote "fairness" haven’t worked out so well. See – former soviet union. Having a system where everyone contributes to everyone’s benefit sounds beautiful but it hasn’t ever worked in the whole of recorded human history.
For a more recent example of the government promoting fairness, look at the sub-prime mortgage mess. Hillary even called for a freeze in interest rates recently. Um, please, no.
Now I realize that there is plenty of blame to go around because all lenders are not saints, all borrowers are not saints and neither are all real estate agents or appraisers. In the interest of making sure no one was discriminated against in getting a loan, the federal government required lenders to give out questionable loans. To do otherwise was discriminating based on race or economic status (see – Jesse Jackson). We can’t have that can we? Only the rich can come up with a down payment and in a society that insists that we all are equal, expecting that basic attribute from someone asking for a loan all of a sudden became discriminatory in the eyes of politicians in the interest of "fairness".
The loans were then named sub prime for a reason...the borrowers did not have good enough credit ratings to get prime loan rates so they were offered options and some of these options are financial suicide. Yep, the A in ARM stands for Adjustable. What we actually have now is not so much a mortgage crisis but a banking crisis. The free market has already solved the mortgage problem - the loan types that contributed to the problem in the first place have all but disappeared from the market and they have been gone for almost a year now. The catcher on my softball team runs a branch for a very large national lender. Talking about taking care of each other is one thing I have no problem with. Government intervening in free markets to make things fair and equal is what I will question. Yes there are downsides to capitalism – that doesn’t mean we have to overhaul the entire industries and regulate them from the top down.
Even the damn republicans are on the bailout bandwagon. Mitt Romney asserted our need to "stop the housing crisis". Does he mean the government should insulate borrowers and lenders from culpability? Rudy Giuliani wanted government aid for borrowers who were "cheated". Huckabee actually said "it is not the purpose of government to prop people up from every poor decision they make" (Amen). This government bailout, which is going to happen because it is an election year, is not for the people. It’s for the banks and lenders losing money on foreclosures. In a true free market the banks would come up with their own solutions, as it should be.
I love it when Obama tells people to put their video game controllers down and do something. Just don't make the Government the gatekeepers of what is fair and what isn't is all I ask.
Jonah Goldberg is in my head. It is uncanny. Of course, I’ve plagiarized his work and wonderful style for years, but now it’s getting spooky. I’ve corrected many of the dolts on this blog who call Conservatives Nazis; reminding them that Nazi stands for “National Socialist”, ie the left side of the spectrum along w/ it’s sunny cousin, communism. And low and behold, on the NYT’s Best Seller list is his new book, “Liberal Fascism”. (It’s on my desk now, but I’m only through the 1st chapter.) Then with all the talk of Obama of late, and Mark’s insistence that Obama is the new Camelot, the heir apparent to JFK, I was doodling over a retort on that comparison. But again, Mr. Goldberg has beaten me to the punch with a nifty little article in today’s National Review.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODVlODE2YWVkY2MwMTI4OGZmNWUwZTVhMTYxNjQxNDk=
I confess that my knowledge of Kennedy is not as great as perhaps those who idolize him, but perhaps someone here could enlighten me as to their similarities.
On defense? Polar opposites.
On taxes? Polar opposites.
On limited government? Nope.
On personal responsibility? Sorry Charlie.
On spying on the enemy? Not even close. (Heck, Kennedy even found nothing wrong w/ spying on the good guys.)
In fact, the quote so often spoken in reference to Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country”, is diametrically opposed to the politics of today, where candidates do little more than buy votes with promises of government handouts.
So, please, for my educational benefit, other than youthful idealism, what do they share in common?
...and just to really stir the pot. My girl Ann Coulter has officially endorsed Hillary Clinton....provided she's running against John McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
First of all, dave, your girl? You might want to check the Adam's apple.Second, nice video, I will put it up in the blog. A McCain candidacy might spell the end of the conservative douche bag pundit machine. Thank God...
Now to the Kennedy-Obama similarities....
On defense, the right likes to paint Kennedy as being a hawk but if you study his presidency closely, he was no friend to the Pentagon. The chiefs wanted to invade Cuba, he opted for blockade. He refused to provide air cover to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. He wanted to pull out of Vietnam.
Yet, he was hawkish on defense but in a smart and measured way, not the emotionally and mentally ill way or the greedy military industrial complex way. He recognized that any war is won by enforcing your political will...your ideas...on your opponent. You read von Clauswitz when you were in the military, right? Obama is the same way. He has a deeper understanding of the world. A good quote from Obama:
"there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction...we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swing from naïve idealism to bitter realism."
This is, in essence, what JFK was all about. Trust me, Obama is not going to be a dove. That's Dennis Kuecinich's job.
On taxes and limited government, Kennedy never would've allowed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Same with Obama. Kennedy, like Obama, believed that government can work if the right people are in charge. Part of his youthful idealism is that not everyone is corrupt and that serving your country is an honorable thing to do.
On personal responsibility, you really need to read more about Obama. Please read his books.
On spying, Hoover did many things without Jack or Bobby's approval. I also think there is a distinction between the spying they did then and what is happening now. Spying on enemies is fine. Spying on your political enemies (Nixon, Cheney, Rove) is..well...you brought it up..fascism. It's what Hitler used to do. Folks like Cheney use appeal to fear to push their agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with safeguarding our nation.
Oliver Stone aside, there are mountains of evidence that JFK was considered a "traitor" by the right and I think it was these elements that killed him...or allowed him to be killed.
well said markus..
Dave, checked out the Jonah Goldberg link. That guy would get an F in my class. First of all, the column is poorly written from grammatical point of view. Second, his research is seriously flawed and quite shallow. JFK and Obama have some differences, certainly, but they have many similar traits that mark has quite astutely pointed out above.
Well, who has time to “study” each and every politician?
Take Kennedy’s speech to the Economic Club of New York, for instance:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html
Probably not as conservative as some would like, but in today’s language, it sounds far more conservative than Obama. Also notice that Kennedy doesn’t take the initial opinion that profits equate to corruption that begins many (most?) of your opinions on the matter.
On defense…that’s a difficult one and I probably over stepped my assessment of his hawkishness a bit. In fact, for my taste, he was too wishy-washy. …still Obama comes across to me as a dove and I’ve yet to see anything to the contrary. Holding a gun makes no matter if you’re afraid to use it. And right now, Obama is afraid to even hold the gun. Platitudes don’t ‘necessarily’ equate to a deeper understanding. Time is the only way to tell. But in a time of war, can the country wait to see if someone is for real of it’s just campaign rhetoric?
Spying? Without a doubt, underlings do play their own hands w/o knowledge from superiors. But if I presume that you’re a fair minded individual, and if you hold our current president culpable for the transgressions of a lowly army private on the other side of the world, surely you’ll apply that even hand toward a direct report such as the case I made? Surely… Maybe not…
(And as we’ve discussed ad nausea in the past, unless you have specific cases to site, it just ain’t so. I can name verifiable instances of many on the left spying on their opponents but claiming it against Rove/Cheney is supposition.)
I admit to not knowing the ins/outs of Obama’s every position; specifics are hard to garner when his speeches are primarily about “change” and “hope”. Suffice it to say that he is the most liberal of the major candidates. I therefore took a bit of artistic license and attributed the classic liberal notions of personal responsibility to him. Forgive me; I was not aware that he was pro-life; looking to reduce welfare and other general handouts.
As I said, I’m always learning though and perhaps he’ll surprise me. Perhaps.
Vheights: I’m sure that’ll keep him up at nights. However I do believe you…I’m confident that anyone that doesn’t share your political opinions will suffer in your classroom. Mores the pity.
Dave, you are correct in your assessment of Kennedy's speech. I would take it even further and say that if President Kennedy had lived or if Robert Kennedy had lived, Roe V Wade never would've happened. Both men, especially Bobby, had very deep faith and were most certainly pro life.
great excerpt from a great book, State of War by James Risen...
I don't think we should be speaking in terms of hawks or doves as desirable make-ups of the next president. though, i've used the terms myself.
but sometimes, it's a way of suggesting the dove is a pro-peace dreamer, while the hawk is pro-'national security' doer.
how many times has israel spoken of its hawks and its doves..? and just check out the state of its security, thats with the hawkest of hawks in power in the last 7+ years, not to mention our military-intelligence alliance and annual billions in weapons technology.
we need wisdom in a president, because wisdom will AVERT wars (which is the greatest military victory of all, according to Sun Tzu, still studied at West Point) not rush into them, wisdom will convert potential or existing enemies to firm allies and it will secure the homeland, by ensuring a united homeland -- which would be a force no outside power could divide or destroy.
here's the 'State of War' excerpt... with special emphasis on the reagan-kennedy reference and the following sentence.
Prologue: The Secret History
President George W. Bush angrily hung up the telephone, emphatically ending a tense conversation with his father, the former president of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush.
It was 2003, and the argument between the forty-first and forty-third presidents of the United States was the culmination of a prolonged, if very secret, period of friction between the father and son. While the exact details of the conversation are known only to the two men, several highly placed sources say that the argument was related to the misgivings Bush's father felt at the time about the way in which George W. Bush was running his administration. George Herbert Walker Bush was disturbed that his son was allowing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a cadre of neoconservative ideologues to exert broad influence over foreign policy, particularly concerning Iraq, and that he seemed to be tuning out the advice of moderates, including Secretary of State Colin Powell. In other words, George Bush's own father privately shared some of the same concerns that were being voiced at the time by his son's public critics.
Later, the president called his father back and apologized for hanging up on him, and no permanent rift developed, according to sources familiar with the incident.
Yet the father-son argument underscores the degree to which the presidency of George W. Bush has marked a radical departure from the centrist traditions of U.S. foreign policy, embodied by his father. Since World War Two, foreign policy and national security have been areas in which American presidents of both parties have tended toward cautious pragmatism. On issues of war and peace, both liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have in the past recognized that the stakes were too high to risk sudden and impetuous actions based on politics or ideology. Even presidents with strong visions of America's place in the world -- Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy -- moved slowly and deliberately before taking actions that might place American soldiers in harm's way. The United States was supposed to be slow to anger.
George Herbert Walker Bush grew up within that tradition and embraced it as president. When he went to war against Iraq in 1991, he did so only after Saddam Hussein invaded neighboring Kuwait, and only after gaining the broad support of an international coalition. After liberating Kuwait -- the sole stated objective of that war -- the elder Bush halted American troops rather than march toward Baghdad to topple Saddam.
George W. Bush was elected by voters who expected a repeat of the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. He reinforced that belief when he said, at a campaign debate in October 2000, that he planned to pursue a "humble" foreign policy: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
But after 9/11, George W. Bush parted ways with the traditions of his father, and that decision has had consequences that are still playing themselves out. Above all, it has led to a disturbing breakdown of the checks and balances within the executive branch of the United States government. Among the consequences: a new domestic spying program, a narco-state in Afghanistan, and chaos in Iraq.
i would just like to apologise for being rude about mike huckabee (not really that rude, but somewhat disparaging, with my 'hucky' reference)
i just watched him being interviewed by 'Wolf' on CNN's Late Edition, and the man (the Bee) was self-respecting, calm, cool and made a lot of sense (re the issues he was asked about in some tough questioning and answered really well.)
So, Hucky if you're out there reading Marky's blog, i still thank God (thank you God) Rudy's outta the race, but you're not crazy and you're not bad.
a. One person’s wisdom is another person’s folly.
b. “Averting” a war is not always the right thing; except for pacifists.
c. I am still amazed by those who state we rushed into war. The Afghanistan campaign began only after a very measured investigation and with an international cast just shy of the Korean War and Gulf War. The decision to go into Iraq came after 12 years of useless sanctions and included an equally impressive international cast. …practically the definition of patience.
d. I have different opinions that my father too…shocking, no?
e. So, by your remarks, I am to take it that you were on board w/ the 1st Gulf War? (…I find it easier to picture you all in a haze of flannel, throwing red paint on our soldiers w/ a “No blood for oil” sign strapped to your back than tying a yellow ribbon…)
lucky for you :) the spontaneous and ultra-sparring reply i just wrote vanished into ether space when i hit send..
i'm going to buy your dad a drink one of these days, and have a long chat with him...
Post a Comment