Posted by: Boldwin
- [3013265] Fri, Feb 15, 2008, 22:39
A week of asking Obama supporters for details has still put no flesh on those bones. I intend to collect anything concrete I can find into this thread.
Anytime Obama supporters want to illuminate the subject I'll be waiting.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.]
547
Boldwin
ID: 422472910 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 01:15
SZ
Unfortunately we will all get the inferior ssocial insecurity you deserrve for foisting it upon us.
Wilmer McLean
ID: 82553023 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 02:08
"We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years."
"Hillary Clinton believed NAFTA was a 'boon' to our economy."
"As has been noted by many observers, including Bill Clinton's former secretary of labor, my plan does more than anybody to reduce costs."
Americans "have never paid more for gas at the pump."
"She said, you know, 'I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn't pass.' That was a quote on live TV."
"I know that Hillary on occasion has said — just last year said this (NAFTA) was a boon to the economy."
"Gas prices have never been higher, and Exxon Mobil's profits have never been higher."
"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."
"John wasn’t this raging populist four years ago" when he ran for president.
"Right now, an employer has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning than be prosecuted for hiring an undocumented worker. That has to change."
If African-Americans vote their percentage of the population in 2008, “Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state.”
The above quotes from Barak Obama have been designated FALSE by Politifact.com.
-------------------------------------------------
On the attack side of the truth or not site of Politifacts, here's an Obama stinger:
"He (Obama) chairs the subcommittee on Europe. ... He's held not one substantive hearing to do oversight." - Hillary CLinton
Dormant while Obama campaigns
In one of the more pointed barbs in a Feb. 26, 2008, debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton charged that Sen. Barack Obama has been so busy running for president that he hasn’t done much of anything as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs.
“I also have heard Senator Obama refer continually to Afghanistan, and he references being on the Foreign Relations Committee,” Clinton said. “He chairs the Subcommittee on Europe. It has jurisdiction over NATO. NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan."
Obama responded: “Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.”
Although Obama acknowledges the point, we sought to confirm what the subcommittee has been doing.
Congressional records show, and spokesmen for several subcommittee members confirm, the subcommittee has not held any policy hearings since Obama was appointed chair in early 2007. The subcommittee’s jurisdiction includes “all matters, policies and problems concerning the continent of Europe, including the European member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”
The chair sets the agenda for a subcommittee and Obama could have asked to hold a hearing on NATO and its role in Afghanistan.
But Clinton’s claim, while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee.
Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.
In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan on Jan. 31, 2008, and NATO was a part of the discussion. Obama attended a Democratic debate in California that day. Clinton is not on the committee.
The Clinton campaign put out a statement reiterating Clinton’s comments to reinforce the theme that Obama is more about talk than action.
“Given the opportunity to take the reins of leadership and shape two critical areas of U.S. foreign policy — Afghanistan and our alliances in Europe — Senator Obama has done next to nothing,” the statement said.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
So let’s look at Clinton’s statement:
“He chairs the subcommittee on Europe.” Yep.
“It has jurisdiction over NATO.” Yep.
“NATO is critical to our mission in Afghanistan. He’s held not one substantive hearing to do oversight, to figure out what we can do to actually have a stronger presence with NATO in Afghanistan.” Yep.
Some may argue that the issue of NATO’s role in Afghanistan typically and more appropriately would come before the full Foreign Relations Committee. But Clinton is right when she says Obama’s subcommittee has been largely dormant while Obama has campaigned for president. We rate her comment True.
550
Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 08:37
Bob Dole should be commended for resigning his Senate seat while campaigning for president in 1996, since running for President is a full time endeavor.
I suppose that's why so many former governors have been successful candidates: Carter Reagan Clinton GW Bush
551
Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 10:58
Who's the real Obama? The one from 1996, or the one today ... some of his supporters from 1996 can't decide ... link
And the questionnaires play into storylines pushed by both Republicans and Clinton suggesting Obama has altered his views to appeal to differing audiences.
That suggestion is galling to many members of IVI-IPO, some of whom have relationships with Obama that date back nearly 15 years. The group had endorsed Obama in every race he’d run — including his failed long-shot 2000 primary challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) — until now.
The group’s 37-member board of directors, meeting last year soon after Obama distanced himself from the first questionnaire, stalemated in its vote over an endorsement in the Democratic presidential primary. Forty percent supported Obama, 40 percent sided with Clinton and 20 percent voted for other candidates or not to endorse.
“One big issue was: Does he or does he not believe the stuff he told us in 1996?” said Aviva Patt, who has been involved with the IVI-IPO since 1990 and is now the group’s treasurer. She volunteered for Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, but voted to endorse the since-aborted presidential campaign of Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) and professed disappointment over Obama’s retreat from ownership of the questionnaire.
“I always believed those to be his views,” she said, adding some members of the board argued that Obama’s 1996 answers were “what he really believes in, and he’s tailoring it now to make himself more palatable as a nationwide candidate.”
Also at issue is whether there's a pattern with Obama to sluff off any inconvenient details onto errors or mistakes on the part of his staff.
552
Perm Dude
ID: 02562915 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 11:19
And if he changed his views in ten years he's flip-flopping, eh?
Sounds like his views evolved, and neither you nor Ms Patt are willing to allow him to do so for political reasons.
553
Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 12:25
PD -- the question is which is the real Obama. I'm cool with him changing his mind, like he's done a couple of times on the Iraq war. The key is to know exactly where he is now, and why he's changed his mind.
Can we safely assume that what he says today is the real Obama, and not what he said then? Has he disavowed the positions he took then, or has he just vaguely suggested that his staffer filled out the survey ... It's also interesting to me that even some of his biggest supporters who knew him very well aren't sure what to make of him now.
554
Perm Dude
ID: 02562915 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 13:48
I don't see any reason to think that what anyone says today isn't what they believe today. A change in opinion (particularly something from ten years ago) isn't a sign of a currently-confused mind, it is a sign that people change their minds as more facts are known. I rather like the idea of a flexible executive. One of the reasons we're in such deep straights right now is that we have an executive who cannot admit a mistake.
As for this particular Chicago group, the whole thing smacks of hearsay. Ms Pitt, who isn't supporting Obama, states that she thinks he hasn't changed his mind really and that some unnamed (and unquoted) members of the group are slamming Obama themselves. Sloppy journalism, at best.
555
Madman
ID: 230542010 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 17:01
Not to steer this thread off track, but when you say "One of the reasons we're in such deep straights right now is that we have an executive who cannot admit a mistake." do bear in mind that this executive admits it made a major mistake vis a vis Iraq tactics from 2004-2006. Demonstrating flexibility with the major foreign policy *issue* of our time would ordinarily warrant notice. Incidentally, those were tactics that Obama supported; he appears to have withdrawn that support sometime during 2006-2007. (and note: I'm not necessarily endorsing the revised "open source" tactics ... they haven't been sufficiently vetted from what I can see).
But onto your Obama point, I'd be thrilled if he changed his mind about those things (in his 1996 campaign). If he changed his mind, he could tell us why. My concern, however, is that he isn't claiming that he changed his mind, since he's not saying he did; that's something you are inferring.
556
Perm Dude
ID: 72233112 Mon, Mar 31, 2008, 17:11
Well, he's not saying anything, of course. But I think it is pretty clear he did change his mind or at least moderate his stands enough to distance himself from his previous comments.
As for Iraq, most of the quotes I've seen has him criticizing strategy--this wasn't a change in his support for being there. Obama pretty clearly was (and is) in the "I-don't-want-us-there-but-as-long-as-we-are-we-might-as -well-do-it-right" group.
pd
557
Boldwin
ID: 472443119 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 04:58
I'm not gonna concede any of the points made so far about Obama red flags but I'll grant on one level that every politician is gonna have questionable influences/associates and every politician has either flip-flopped or can be made to appear to be a flip-flopper.
What I really don't get is how someone so far to the left has gotten away this far as someone more likely to unite most of the spectrum. How is he more likely than a DLC Dem like Hillary? Well granted on the surface she is far more polarizing but substantively isn't she more likely to compromise and give a little? Where has he offered anything real that those from the Reagan Dems all the way to the rock-ribbed conservatives can appreciate besides [deceptively] inclusive rhetoric? I say deceptively because from his voting record to his philisophical/religious grounding he doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on in the inclusiveness category.
558
walk
ID: 181472714 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:22
Good points, Boldwin. Folks like me think this lefty Obama is more likely to unite cos of his messages. He does not campaign in a harsh manner. He does indicate things he feels the republicans have done wrong, but I think he has elevated the discourse to a much higher level, and a classier level, than the previous two elections (and compared to Hillary). McCain is also pretty good at this.
559
Boxman
ID: 337352111 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:26
Folks like me think this lefty Obama is more likely to unite cos of his messages.
And there's the problem. He'll talk one way and legislate another and then people will turn on The Great Leader because he's using the trojan horse of unity to usher in leftist policies. You don't think that'll piss some people off?
560
biliruben
ID: 33258140 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:31
Hey Box - It would be helpful for me if you specifically delineated your fears. What lefty policies do you fear that Obama will "legislate" (leaving aside for the moment that he will no longer be a legislator)?
561
Seattle Zen
ID: 49112418 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:31
You don't think that'll piss some people off?
Those people will be pissed off no matter what he does. See 1992-2000.
562
walk
ID: 181472714 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:54
Hi Boxman. First, I don't think Obama will legislate. Congress legislates. I guess you are afraid of a Dem Congress and a Dem president who will sign off on Dem legislation.
Second, I do think Obama would reverse many of the extreme righty exec powers already in place. This will appear liberal, and so be it, but I think he (and to some degree, Hillary) would move us back to the middle and stop the stupid "not me" signing statements. So, the really undesirable situation I think you face is having Dem Congress and Obama (like we had a Republican Congress + Cheney/Bush).
However, thirdly, I don't think Obama is going to use the same nasty "my way or the highway" approach that Cheney/Bush used. This is the key to his message and to his type of politics. Maybe you don't believe it, and that is okay. I do. I think Obama will be more inclusive of Republicans, talking to them, and doing so with respect. I think Bush was dismissive of Democrats and also, under Cheney's guide, amassed a great deal of executive power than I think Obama will reverse (and rightfully so). Hillary, I dunno, I think she liiiiiikes power.
I think McCain will be more inclusive, too, but I also don't think he has the charisma or inspirtational leadership qualities to pull it off. He has always crossed the aisle, but he is currently campaigning hard as a real conservative, and seemingly indifferent to public sentiment regarding the war. He is also not a skilled communicator, and I fear his bridge-builders with our allies and diplomacy/finesse with our enemies. I think Obama would excel at these challenges which are very high priority thanks to the very arrogant administration currently running the country.
563
walk
ID: 181472714 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 13:56
correction, on McCain: "and I fear he lacks bridge-building capabilities with our allies and..."
564
Baldwin
ID: 8354110 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 14:12
Respect, interesting. I guess being classy and graceful and a gentleman implies respect. I wonder if he is gracious enuff to give a little or just gracious enuff not to rub it in, that he doesn't have to give in?
565
Perm Dude
ID: 435815 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 15:02
I don't see any evidence that Obama will abandon what will get him the presidency, particularly since he is, by far, the candidate with the most detailed plans on the issues.
However, thirdly, I don't think Obama is going to use the same nasty "my way or the highway" approach that Cheney/Bush used. This is the key to his message and to his type of politics. Maybe you don't believe it, and that is okay. I do. I think Obama will be more inclusive of Republicans, talking to them, and doing so with respect. I think Bush was dismissive of Democrats and also, under Cheney's guide, amassed a great deal of executive power than I think Obama will reverse (and rightfully so). Hillary, I dunno, I think she liiiiiikes power.
this is the language and beliefs that resonate loudest with me. i firmly believe in the Obama way of doing things, and if that makes me a kool-aid drinker, so be it.
i also firmly believe that if Obama is elected, and then does not go the respectful, inclusive, and willing to listen to dialogue route he has been preaching, he would be defeated in 4 years in a landslide when he goes for re-election, and he will damage the democratic party is some pretty extreme ways.
567
Jag
ID: 171592622 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 16:11
Whoever becomes President, their party will benefit from cyclicality (a G.W. word) of the economy. The beginning of their first year should be near a economic recession and I believe it will take an upswing soon there after, barring some massive entitlement program. The economy may even greatly improve before January, but I am sure the incoming President will take credit for it.
568
Boldwin
ID: 43351115 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 17:58
Jag
And that explains why the maxim, 'Americans will always chose the correct path after exhausting every other possibilty' is true.
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.
...
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.
Wins over the leader of the vast right wing conspiracy...well not Rush, not Ann, but one of the leaders, prolly the one she once hated and feared the most.
571
Tree
ID: 40355116 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 19:04
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.
how can you be an advocate of multi-culturalism, yet scoff at the melting pot concept at the same time?
the problem with people like this is they don't understand that being a melting pot does not mean to homogenize and make everyone the same, but rather to embrace our differences and celebrate them.
as for the English = national language gimmick, why the hell do we want to make our national language one that came over here from a bunch of people from a foreign country?
572
Boldwin
ID: 43351115 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 20:19
Yes, the melting pot means you shed your hyphen and simply become an american. If not, no melting has taken place to speak of.
573
Boldwin
ID: 43351115 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 20:22
What would you suggest, Iroquois? Wait, they came over here from a foreign continent too.
574
Boxman
ID: 571114225 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 20:52
Yes, the melting pot means you shed your hyphen and simply become an american. If not, no melting has taken place to speak of.
That's a good comment. The next time I make soup, I'll refer to the ingredients as Celery-Chowder, Clam-Chowder, and Potato-Chowder. It sounds just as stupid as African-American, Italian-American and Mexican-American.
Biliruben & Walk: Where exactly do you see Obama compromising? It's certainly not on healthcare and not on taxes; two key issues for conservatives. He was on the Wall Street Journal Report with Maria Bartiromo this past weekend and he talked about raising the capital gains rate back towards 28%.
You either socialize medicine or you do not. You either raise taxes or you do not. Where is the compromise? Yet Obama claims there's a place for everyone. Somehow I feel that the place for a lot of people is going to be in the crawlspace with a bucket of fish heads for dinner.
If he wants to run as a crazy s#it house liberal, fine by me, just don't try and pull the wool over our eyes that he's going to be some kind of uniter.
575
Tree
ID: 32351118 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 21:02
no, the melting part means you KEEP the identity of your people, and adding the American part.
you want to homogenize. i want to celebrate our differences, and relish them.
enjoy your hot dog on a white bread bun and wash it down with some miller lite.
i'll take the doro wat, injera, and wash it back with a glass of tej.
any day.
576
Perm Dude
ID: 435815 Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 21:43
It isn't a melting pot. Never was. More like a tossed salad.
Except for you radishes, pissed that everyone else isn't a radish too and they they, in fact, enjoy being a not-radish.
Obama, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs has on his website barackobama.com the following:
Strengthen NATO: Obama will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.
Obama says he will, but chairman Obama hasn't - not one committiee meeting.
578
Boldwin
ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 08:20
You say that like it's a bad thing.
579
Boldwin
ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 08:21
Maybe he'll just forget to show up at the WH.
580
Boldwin
ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 08:35
"Well we had the transition team ready and everything but he never showed up so I'm just keepin' the seat warm until he does." - Bush, 2011
581
Perm Dude
ID: 5935536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 08:56
#578: Right. Maybe having empty meetings for the sake of having meetings is a good thing for some people, I suppose.
I've heard people take Obama to task for not holding meetings after he took over the chairmanship, but I haven't heard the bad effects that are supposedly occuring because no official meetings are being held.
I dunno. I suppose I'd like to see at least some pro-forma agenda being advanced in public meetings. But I don't really see any harm here.
582
Boldwin
ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 09:04
This, too, prompted Obama to share with his readers a life lesson on how to handle white people: "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved – such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time." [Obama's autobiography - B]
First of all, I note that this technique seems to be the basis of Obama's entire presidential campaign - AC quoting Obama's autobiography
...which hopefully someone besides her has read.
583
Boldwin
ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 09:06
PD
While you've got the axe out, the state dept is that way --->
584
Perm Dude
ID: 5935536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 10:02
Heh. I'd keep the State Department (the problem isn't the idea of a State Department, it has been that this Administration has been pretty bad at it). There are all sorts of stuff I'd be cutting out, though.
As for being nice to white people in order to disarm their biases, I don't see anything wrong with that. It is a technique I use in the midst of Republicans--because many of them read nothing but Ann Coulter and hear nothing but Limbaugh and Hannity, they expect any Democrat they meet to be a spouting, smelly, raging idiot. Just being a normal person (and making no sudden motions, and the avoidance of wearing bright & shiny objects) goes a long way toward opening the doors.
585
Tree
ID: 3533298 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 10:20
Obama's autobiography
...which hopefully someone besides her has read.
would that be the one that won a Grammy 2 years ago for most spoken word album, has sold over 1 million copies, and was recognized by Joe Klein as "may be the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."
yea, i think other people have read it. in fact, i doubt Coulter has.
now, regarding the quote from Obama, "It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied, they were relieved – such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."
what exactly is wrong with that? never mind the fact it's Coulter who injects the phrase "white people" into the context.
not sure about you, but i tend to react more positively to smiling courteous people than i do to angry people.
and usually when i want something from some customer service person, it's the sweetness that gets me what i want, not the vinegar.
586
Madman
ID: 14139157 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 08:43
Obama and King ... Obama has seized on the early King to remind Americans about what we can achieve when we allow our imaginations to soar high as we dream big. Wright has taken after the later King, who uttered prophetic truths that are easily caricatured when snatched from their religious and racial context. What united King in his early and later periods is the incurable love that fueled his hopefulness and rage. As King's example proves, as we dream, we must remember the poor and vulnerable who live a nightmare. And as we strike out in prophetic anger against injustice, love must cushion even our hardest blows.
This is also why I viewed Obma's Wright Speech as so disappointing. Rather than doing his Selma stump speech, reflecting the early King, Obama discarded King almost entirely in that speech. Further, he defended the theology of grievance, and argued that he was fundamentally attached to economic policies driven by religious beliefs. This would be as opposed to economics driven by philosophy, "scientific" study, or ideology (which wouldn't be much better than religion). Indeed, he even argued that racism was rooted in the failure of economic policy (while ignoring the Imus' of the world).
Dyson simply accepts the Selma-speech Obama and ignores the Wright-speech Obama. I see no reason to do that.
It is fascinating how Obama's image can be so chameleon-like, with his supporters imputing to him their own policies and ideals. It will make a very interesting first-term Presidency.
587
Perm Dude
ID: 4734646 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 08:46
That's because his campaign isn't so much about believing in Obama, as about believing in ourselves.
588
Boxman
ID: 571114225 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 22:31
PJB: Uprooting the New Racism
By Patrick J. Buchanan
In his Philadelphia address on race, Sen. Obama identified as a root cause of white resentment affirmative action — the punishing of white working- and middle-class folks for sins they did not commit:
“Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race,” said Barack. “As far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything. … So when they … hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed … resentment builds over time.”
On this issue, Barack seemed to have nailed it.
But then he revealed the distorting lens through which he and his fellow liberals see the world. To them, black rage is grounded in real grievances, while white resentments are exaggerated and exploited.
White resentments, said Barack, “have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. … Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”
What Barack is saying here is that the resentment of black America is justified, but the resentment of white America is a myth manufactured and manipulated by the conservative commentariat. Barack is attempting to de-legitimize the other side of the argument.
Yet, who is he to claim the moral high ground?
Where does this child of privilege who went to two Ivy League schools, then spent 20 years in a church where racist rants were routine, come off preaching to anyone? What are Barack’s moral credentials to instruct white folks on what they must do, when he failed to do what any decent father should have done: Take his wife and daughters out of a church where hate had a home in the pulpit?
Barack needs to reread the Lord’s admonition in the Sermon on the Mount: “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
Longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once wrote that all great movements eventually become a business, then degenerate into a racket.
That is certainly true of the civil rights movement. Begun with just demands for an end to state-mandated discrimination based on race, it ends with unjust demands for state-mandated preferences, based on race.
Under affirmative action, white men are passed over for jobs and promotions in business and government, and denied admission to colleges and universities to which their grades and merits entitle them, because of their gender and race.
Paradoxically, America’s greatest warrior for equal justice under law and an end to reverse racism is, like Barack, a man of mixed ancestry. He is Ward Connerly. And his life’s mission is to drive through reverse discrimination the same stake America drove through segregation.
And when one considers that the GOP establishment has often fled Connerly’s cause and campaigns, his record of achievement is remarkable.
Connerly was chief engineer of CCRI, the 1996 California Civil Rights Initiative, Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action based on ethnicity, race or gender in all public institutions of America’s most populous state. Two years later, Connerly racked up a second victory in Washington.
In 2006, Connerly went to Michigan to overturn an affirmative action policy that kept Jennifer Gratz out of the University of Michigan, though she had superior grades and performance records than many minority students admitted. The Michigan proposition also carried and has been upheld by the courts.
One U.S. senator, however, taped an ad denouncing Connerly’s Proposition 2 in Michigan and endorsed affirmative action for minorities and women. That senator was Barack Obama.
Comes now the big test. Connerly is gathering signatures to place on the ballots in Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri — the latter two crucial swing states — propositions to outlaw all racial, gender and ethnic preferences. Voting would be the same day as the presidential election.
“Race preferences are on the way out,” declares Connerly.
Now that our national conversation is underway, Barack should be asked to explain why discrimination against whites is good public policy, while discrimination against blacks explains the rants of the Rev. Wright.
America is headed for a day, a few decades off, when there will be no racial majority, only a collection of minorities. When that day arrives, if some races and ethnic groups may be preferred because of where their ancestors came from, while others can be held back because their ancestors came from Europe, America will become the Balkans writ large.
Folks need to be able to separate the true friends of racial justice from the phonies who believe with the pigs on Orwell’s Animal Farm — that “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
589
Perm Dude
ID: 13329513 Sun, Apr 06, 2008, 09:41
That is funny--Pat Buchanan calling out Obama for speaking on race relations from a position of authority.
More to his point, however: Buchanan, like many on the Right, still confuses affirmative action with quotas. Until they understand the difference, they will continue to miss the point. And opportunity.
At least he isn't calling blacks ungrateful for slavery this time.
591
Pancho Villa
ID: 495272016 Sun, Apr 06, 2008, 11:09
Ironically, Buchanan lines up more with Obama than McCain(or Bush) in his April 1st column.
Can any sane man believe the United States should go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Stalin's birthplace, Georgia?
Two provinces of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, have seceded, with the backing of Russia. And there are 10 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east of that country, and Moscow and Kiev are at odds over which is sovereign on the Crimean Peninsula.
To bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO would put America in the middle of these quarrels. We could be dragged into a confrontation with Russia over Abkhazia, or South Ossetia, or who owns Sebastopol. To bring these ex-republics of the Soviet Union into NATO would be an affront to Moscow not unlike 19th century Britain bringing the Confederate state of South Carolina under the protection of the British Empire.
How would Lincoln's Union have reacted to that?
With a weary army and no NATO ally willing to fight beside us, how could we defend Georgia if Tbilisi, once in NATO, defied Moscow and invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- and Russia bombed the Georgian army and capital? Would we declare war? Would we send the 82nd Airborne into the Pankisi Gorge?
Fortunately, Germany is prepared to veto any Bush attempt to put Ukraine or Georgia on a fast track into NATO. But President Bush is no longer the problem. John McCain is.
As Anatol Lieven writes in the Financial Times, McCain supports a restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine. He wants to throw Russia out of the G-8 -- and talks flippantly of bombing Iran.
Says McCain, "I would institute a policy called 'rogue state rollback.' I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments."
Wonderful. A Second Crusade for Global Democracy. But with the Joint Chiefs warning of a war-weary Army and Marine Corps, who will fight all the new wars the neocons and their new champion have in store for us?
592
biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 00:24
Condi getting schooled by that know-nothing on foreign policy, off-the-cuff, on the link between tyranny and terror, and the need to more clearly articulate this to the American people. 3 years ago.
593
astade
ID: 1533770 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 01:03
biliruben,
Thank you for sharing that video. I had never heard that exchange before.
On a side note, Condi does sound like the more 'eloquent' speaker. She is superior at getting to the point. I wonder if she will be called out for her eloquence when she is the nominee for VP?
594
biliruben
ID: 4911361723 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 01:16
No prob, Astade.
It sounds to me like she is superior in avoiding the point.
I assume your eloquence comment is a joke, but I don't get it.
595
Perm Dude
ID: 4032378 Wed, Apr 09, 2008, 01:53
A good question by Obama, responded to by (first) an attempt to recast the question as an academic one and (then) a quick recap of the reasons why they went into Iraq by insisting that terrorism and tyranny are "linked."
She either completely missed the question or chose to answer the question she wanted asked, which was "Could you recap for us the Administration's reasons for going into Iraq?"