Thinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo Blogito
I started out commenting on a Lefty blog which strenuously disagrees with me on my stand that Obama is not my President. A commenter took exception to my contention
… Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern.
As proof of Obama’s unifying ability, the commenter, Ice, offered
“Obama divided us” — patently false, since Obama united us into a majority, the first majority to elect a Democrat since ‘76. Also demonstrably false, in that Obama’s rhetoric was uniting, and his plans and specifics were both appealing to the majority and specifically aimed at the majority.
I responded with the following and thought to bring it back here to get my readers’ take on the matter. I have edited my comment to keep it relevant to the discussion at hand. The offer I make Ice is open to any reader who disagrees with me. Any parties interested in adding support to my contention are welcome to do so as well. Discussion to take place in Comments. Please abide by the rules as outlined in the post.
Ice -
As far as Obama uniting or dividing us. I will grant you that he won the election. He even did so by being the first Democrat in 50 years or so to win with over 50% of the vote. Nice to finally have a majority on your side for once, I’m sure. But a 52-48 victory, while a majority is hardly evidence of Unity. It is still true that almost half of the country did NOT vote for him – tens of millions of people.
The reasons they did not, with apologies to your completely unsupported assertions that 5% of those voting against BO (more in some states) did so because of race, are grounded in issues and policies. It is here that Obama divides America. That divide is a scary one because a large portion of it is a divide between the “Producers” and the “Give me what you Produce-ers”.
Obama’s clearly Socialist leanings driving his “Spread the Wealth” ideology are divisive. And unnecessary. This is America (for a little while longer, anyway). Anyone can be whatever they want – isn’t that part of Obama’s draw? Why then shoot for the brass ring of “I’ll take whatever Government can coerce from Ken to give to me” and ignore the far more valuable gold ring of “I’ll work hard and make my own way and enjoy the fruits of my own labor”? Isn’t that what Barack, your hero, did? Why not emulate him, and by extension the Right wing principle of self reliance? Unless you believe the Left wing principle that you are not capable of succeeding on your own and have to be propped up by Government taking from your betters to support you in your inability.
I don’t happen to believe that. So many of BO’s supporters do. They voted “Gimmes” for themselves without considering the meaning of their vote. Or worse, because they actually agreed with the meaning of their vote.
Success is a heady thing. Once you’ve had a taste, it lingers for a while. You begin to play the “What if?” game. “I’ve done well in THIS area. What if I do as well over there? Or over there?” It is Obama that doesn’t want you thinking that way, not me or the Right. We want you taking counsel of your dreams! We want you to think about what could be instead of what is! We want you to be unsatisfied with your current state and strive for something better – as much better as you can imagine. We just think you should do it yourself – and then enjoy the fruits of your efforts knowing that you earned and deserved your success. It wasn’t taken from someone else who earned it and deserved it and given to you who has not.
To put forth effort, successful or not, to draw people to yourself based on that premise, sows division within the country that may take years or generations to wash out. Unlike most you may encounter, I am more than willing to debate you – on the issues, on the facts. I won’t be disrespectful or dismissive to you unless you treat me that way first. You interested? Be careful – the truth is not really on your side, here.
I’ve outlined one issue by which Obama has divided us. You can respond by showing how this is not divisive. But stick to the issue of how taking what is mine by force to give to someone else who has not earned it is not divisive. I’d be even more fascinated to see you turn this into something unifying.
Once we’ve finished this one, you can choose a point on which you believe Obama has brought unity to the country and we can debate that. Fair enough? (Editor’s note: This offer was made to Ice, elseblog. If this post generates intelligent debate without snark, I’ll extend that offer to some here.)
No more assumptions about my motives, no more making unsupportable claims, no more emotional responses with no factual foundations … just a discussion of the issues. If you think you can do that … I LOVE that sort of thing. I have to say it’s because most people end up finding they prefer the end results of Conservative principles more than Liberal ones. That’s not my fault … It’s just the nature of the discussion …
One of the biggest criticisms of Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign was he was long on empty rhetoric and short on specific plans.
That shortcoming seemed to be addressed when Obama included an “Agenda” section on hiis transition website Change.gov. It initially looked to be a great resource for determining Obama’s priorities and emphases would be. Indeed, the furor around his announced “civilian national security force” grew when this very “Agenda” page began to explain what it would mean.
This probably doesn’t mean Obama has suspended plans to drive the country into the ground. More likely it simply means he has gone back to his original behavior of refusing to comment on the specifics of what his intentions are and how he will accomplish them. But we can hope, if only in our hearts, the changes signal a retreat from plans already laid out which thinking people realize are destructive. That would be change we could believe in.
I don’t agree with everything this young man says. But his passion and his general observations make some eloquent statements. Men and women such as this are the future of the Right. Why do I say so? Just one quote …
“It’s one thing to reach across the aisle to the other side. It’s quite another to have so much gravity that the other side of the aisle comes to us!”
The election was decided just two days ago. It didn’t take long for one of Obama’s most controversial and largely unheralded new programs to hit the news wires. It’s not his tax plans or his plans to “spread the wealth”, it’s not a cabinet or staff appointment, it’s not even a demure revelation that the US is a big place filled with many different views and that he was going to take some time to make sure the things he does are good for all Americans.
Nope.
The first major balloon floated by the nascent Obama administration after the announcement controversial Clinton appointee Rahm Emanuel would be Obama’s Chief of Staff (didn’t take long to drop the idea of “Change”) is a salvo in the sure to be hard fought battle to establish Obama’s “Civilian National Security Force.”
Back in July, in Colorado, Obama called for the creation of such a group. His statement, largely unreported at the time and even since, was reported in a post here that quickly became and remains the most popular post at BCM attracting hundreds of visitors per week looking for information.
In a July 2 speech outlining plans to expand opportunities for people to serve in areas such as AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, Obama makes the following statement with no explanation or amplification.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
When I read that, I furiously started looking for it on the web. Interestingly, I found only 3 references to it. The Chicago Tribune reported it.Joseph Farah at World Net Daily reported it. It’s reported that Congressional Quarterly reported it as well but I can’t find the article. Google searches reveal only blogs are covering it and none of the usual suspects have it. There are references to some discussion on Sean Hannity’s forums.
With the US Army alone at over 500,000 serving members and the US Military budget at over $400 billion for 2007, there were a lot of questions regarding such a gargantuan, sweeping program. Most important, how is it to be funded?
This morning, World Net Daily reports some light is being shed on the question. It is reporting Barney Frank is proposing cutting the budget for the military by 25%, by $150,000,000,000, and diverting the money to pay for his civilian national security force.
This will be an issue to watch closely. Not only is it the first example of things Obama will do as “the President but not my President”, it is the first example of Obama’s intentions for the future of this country. I have said, in offline discussions, that I believe a Barack Obama Presidency has the capacity literally to destroy this country. That sentiment has been pooh-poohed by Obama supporters who assure me Obama is a proud American who loves this country and would never do anything to harm it. In the face of such statements, for an administration yet to have served a day in actual power to float, as one of their very first ideas cutting our military budget by a fourth while we are still at war isn’t exactly confidence inspiring.
I applaud the President-elect’s efforts to cut spending. I’m all about that! But generally, when talking about spending cuts, the first things to eliminate are wasteful, redundant, unnecessary spending. Why start slashing Defense? Obama and company couldn’t find $150 billion dollars in the unconstitutional entitlement programs this country funds?
It appears Obama is taking this mandate thing a lot more seriously than he is taking his pledge to be my President, too! Keep watch over here for more on this as it develops …
Tuesday night, Barack Obama spoke to a waiting country and a wondering world. Found in his words are a myriad reasons to reject what he stands for. The election is over and Obama is President. Some say the healing must now begin and we must unite behind Barack. Obama himself appealed “…to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn — I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.”
I say, Obama will be the President; but he will never be my President. Obama wants what he is unwilling to give. To get the job, Obama divided us. Now on the job, he yearns for unity’s strength. But leopards don’t change their spots. As he ran, so will he govern. I will not be a party to that.
When Obama “wonders if the dream of our founders is alive”, I remember what those Founders wrote. They were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Obama believes some men are more equal than others. When advocating for nonexisent rights or for granting more rights to some than to me, he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama says he wants to “… renew this nation’s promise … to restore prosperity … to reclaim the American Dream …”; when he speaks of “remaking this nation” I must ask, when was the promise broken and by whom; who stole our prosperity; who moved the American Dream out of reach of everyday Americans and who pulled down our nation that it needs to be remade? For a century, it has been the ideological allies of Barack Obama who have done so. When raising our taxes, curtailing our liberty, weakening the defense of our country and bankrupting our businesses and Economy - Obama will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama says his Presidency was launched in “the living rooms of Concord” and financed “by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give … to this cause” I marvel at his deception. When he enters the Oval Office it will complete a journey begun in the living room of William Ayers’ and which traveled a path financed by thousands of people Obama will not identify, many of whom are not even Americans. He will enter the office of the President, but not my President.
When Obama says “… the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime …” and references our military and families worried about tomorrow, I recoil in horror from the cavalier exploitation of those about whom he is ignorant. My son is in the military he will command and I have four more children at home to care for. When he sends my son into harm’s way but threatens not to support him while there; when he takes money for which I labor and which I need to support my family to give to families he decides need it more he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama calls for “a new spirit of patriotism”, I struggle to find something wrong with the old one. When Obama gives away our sovereignty and national interests to our enemies and those who would weaken us he will be the President, but not my President.
When Obama calls for us to “look after not only ourselves, but each other” and to believe “that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers” I marvel at his hypocrisy. Under the old spirit of “service and responsibility” he would replace, Americans were the most generous and industrious people on earth. When Obama decides who it is I must sacrifice for and brings suffering to Main Street via higher taxes for the Wall Street Bailout he will be the President, but not my President.
Obama’s words are empty. His promise is hollow. His dreams are nightmares. To be my President, he must deny everything he confesses to believe in. He must repudiate his stated policies. He must realize the paradise he seeks is found in the principles and promises of others. As the President, he may invoke the imagery of Lincoln, King and Kennedy but his appeal to their memory defiles their legacy.
He says he will be my President. But he will not because he cannot. To expect me to believe otherwise insults me. And that, too, is something my President would not do.
While I’m unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.
Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of “Hope!” and “Change!” It’s difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it’s magic on the country for years. Turns out the Pols weren’t as Conservative as advertised.
The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was “What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?” instead of “What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?”
The nominations of Bob Dole, W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994’s Republican Revolution the GOP’s advice was his most important job wasn’t to represent his district or promote his constituents’ values; it was to get re-elected.
This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP. Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled. Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?
Such losses make the Democrats’ job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and moneyto defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.
GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I’m not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.
It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week’s election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now …
McCarthy points out that, while denying any real connection to ACORN, at the same time, Obama is running interference for them with the Justice Department.
ACORN’s White Horse -by Andrew McCarthy
Contributing Editor
National Review
This is rich.
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign is complaining to the Justice Department about the attention being focused on the determined effort by ACORN, Obama’s wholly owned vote-fraud division, to steal the 2008 election. Adding ignorance to gall, the campaign demands that what it calls a “Special Prosecutor” must investigate not ACORN but — you guessed it — the McCain campaign and the Bush administration.
The art form to which chutzpah has been raised in this instance is a letter from the Obama campaign’s top lawyer, Robert Bauer of the Perkins Coie law firm in Washington. Of course these days, due to the intricate web of traps for the unwary known as “campaign finance regulations” — for which Sen. McCain has no one but himself to blame — all candidates for high office need legal teams. Obama, though, is a special case.
When not scorching the earth to destroy ordinary citizens who have the temerity to ask the messiah blunt questions, or threatening political opponents with prosecution for campaigning against him, or promising war crimes investigations against the opposition party if Americans are daft enough to put his toadies in charge of the Justice Department, Obama comrades can be found editing the amendments to the last modification of their most recently restated campaign-finance reporting errors.
One day the candidate is taking money hand over fist from fictitious supporters like “Good Will” and “Doodad Pro.” The next day, he is illegally raising funds from foreigners (perhaps more than a staggering $63 million), including from Palestinians — who figure a candidate who pours tens of thousands of dollars into the coffers of a terror-supporting former PLO spokesman like Rashid Khalidi is a safe bet to make a prophet out of Jesse Jackson. On still other days, Obama finds himself having to explain his campaign’s misrepresentation of the $800,000 payday it gave his old pals at ACORN.
ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, is essentially a Marxist shakedown outfit. One of its main rackets is election fraud — but it can also be very helpful if you happen to be a Leftist activist who finds himself needing, say, to foment a riot, vandalize public property, shut down legislative hearings or opposition conferences, harass the families of elected officials, extort leave-us-alone pay-offs from banks, promote illegal immigration, or the like.
Like ACORN, Obama is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky radical mode, and he goes way back — two decades back — with the organization. He represented ACORN as a lawyer, taught “organizing” to ACORN’s up and coming rabble-rousers, colluded with ACORN in Chicago “get out the vote” projects, funded ACORN when he sat on the boards of left-wing charities, and exploited ACORN’s enthusiastic support when he won his senate seat in 2004 — a victory the “non-partisan” ACORN can’t help itself but claim credit for.
Read the rest of this great article here …
Robert Romano at Americans for Limited Government has an excellent piece on the effectiveness of Obama’s proposed tax plans. You’ve been bombarded with TV ads telling you Obama will cut taxes - even more than McCain. It’s only necessary (and fair) to raise taxes on the top 5% of earners to generate enough Government revenue to effectively “spread the wealth around.” The question, ‘The $5 Trillion Question’, is, will it work? Let’s see Bob’s take on the issue …
THE $5 TRILLION QUESTION -by Robert Romano,
Editor ALG News Bureau
Americans for Limited Government
A lot of attention has been placed in recent days to Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes on the top 5 percent of wage earners. The Illinois Senator assures the American people that he, as President, will not raise taxes on everybody else—just those at the tippy-top of the income spectrum.
Let’s simply consider the claim that, somehow, only the top 5 percent are going to have their taxes raised. As my favorite arithmetic teacher would say, “Let’s do the math.”
The federal budget for Fiscal Year 2008 wound up being $2.98 trillion, with a deficit of $454 billion. For the sake of argument, let’s add to that the $850 billion bailout package that Congress enacted on October 3rd. After all, it was conveniently passed just three days after the annual deficit was calculated.
Again, hypothetically, let’s also assume that the Treasury makes no money back on the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Then the total budget for the year would jump to $3.93 trillion, with a deficit of $1.3 trillion.
Let’s also assume that, for the sake of argument, the budget does not shrink next year. After all, the federal government did just acquire about $5 trillion in risk from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It stands to reason that in these troubling times, some of those debts are going to go sour, and there will be more bailouts next year. So, let’s assume the same amount just to keep things simple.
Now, methodology aside, Senator Obama is proposing approximately $1 trillion in new federal spending. You know, all those new welfare entitlement programs. Whammo. The budget then jumps to $4.93 trillion—nearly a whopping $5 trillion!
So here’s the $5 trillion question: Where does the Senator think he’s going to get the money to pay for all of that new spending?
Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN’s coverage of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.
It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell’s endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.
By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell’s endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.
Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller’s endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.
There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.
Colin Powell’s rationale isn’t even close to as specific. It’s filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama’s association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.
In short, Powell’s objections to McCain aren’t policy based. They aren’t ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy’s than to the one you are generally associated with.
Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.
If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I’m willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
3 out of 4 business leaders believe Obama would be a disaster. Some went so far as to predict he would bankrupt the country in just 3 years. From my perspective, these are stunning results and it is not possible to overemphasize them.
Have you not been watching the news, or reading any newspapers? With what the wealthy CEO’s have done to the American economy. I know that anything they want, I’m against. First they steal my money, then they want me to pay them again with my tax money? Oh, and go on a $400,000 vacation after they get it. I’m thinking I’ll vote for the other guy. I don’t care if he is black. The rich are rich enough. It’s time I got something other than a trickle.
The comments at this brief piece say it all. The prevailing wisdom seems to be if CEOs are for it, then it’s good for the little guy to be against it. After all, CEOs are all just money grubbing bastards who don’t care about anyone but themselves.
I must admit, even I was a bit surprised at the vehemence of the disparaging and the bitterness and cynicism expressed by these folks. Because it makes no sense. Should the people be concerned about the fact that many CEOs, including Big Government type Democrats like the execs at Freddie and Fannie, make millions while they don’t? Sure. Especially if the CEO isn’t the company’s founder and never risked a penny of his own money in the enterprise. But in the end, it’s sort of childish whining to pursue the “Corporate Execs are for it so I’ll be against it” test for determining one’s opinion apart from the occasional foray into humor.
Rationally, CEOs make such sums because they have the ability to wring sufficient profit out of the sweat and exploitation of their abused employees and successfully dupe enough consumers into buying their shoddy product. Except that would be disastrous for their personal fortune building, wouldn’t it?
Or, to continue to make big money over a long time, CEOs must do something different. Perhaps they hire and retain good people with good benefit packages and wages. Perhaps they manufacture good products or provide good services at affordable prices so consumers buy and keep buying. Perhaps some don’t behave like this. Perhaps these are those we see on TV with their businesses failing and under indictment. Perhaps the vastly larger pool of CEOs not in that situation are also not engaged in that behavior. Except that would be disastrous for the opinions of the whining class.
Objective reflection indicates the second scenario is more likely. Which means whiners need to pay attention. Those providing a steady paycheck for them for years are, indeed, concerned about them; specifically with their ability to continue doing so should Obama be elected. In their vengeful glee over evil CEOs will “getting what’s coming to them”, they forget if the company goes broke, more than the CEO will be out of a job and an income.
The point is CEOs are good at other things which we ignore at our peril. One of those is analyzing Market trends to stay ahead of or away from bad ones. Hate them all you like for being successful. But don’t be blind to the wisdom they also possess. Can they be wrong? Absolutely! But if they are saying these kinds of things, smart people will listen …
