Obama: America Sucks, and Only I Can Save It
The Obamamessiah has spoken:
Hot Air caught the story, and has similar statements from American's favorite pessimist,
"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."
Though in defense of Obama/Darth Tedious, Palpatine didn't have 20 years of influence from a kooky religion being drummed into his head telling him how horrible his country was...
"The Republic is no longer what it once was." - Palpatine/Darth Sidious in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM
Comments
1
Bob-
Obama: America Sucks, and Only I Can Save It
Generally, that's the message of most non-incumbents.
Additionally, would you argue that most people are happy with this country's current direction?
Obama: America Sucks, and Only I Can Save It
Generally, that's the message of most non-incumbents.
Additionally, would you argue that most people are happy with this country's current direction?
Posted by: D.N. Nation at August 07, 2008 01:34 PM (Ze19B)
2
McCain's latest batch of commercials say that Washington sucks and only he can fix it, but this may be too nuanced a difference for some people to pick up on.
Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 07, 2008 01:51 PM (oC8nQ)
3
I'm sorry. I missed the part where most of America is apparently happy with how things are, thereby invalidating Obama's statement.
So if you and the other dead-enders want to run on that, good luck. Enjoy being backers of a regional party come 2009. The rest of us will be cleaning up the mess you and yours made.
So if you and the other dead-enders want to run on that, good luck. Enjoy being backers of a regional party come 2009. The rest of us will be cleaning up the mess you and yours made.
Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 02:06 PM (foLN0)
4
"For a couple who wants to lead this nation, the Obamas don't seem to have much faith in it."
Faith in the country? What does thinking that the country has been led in the wrong direction for the last 8 years (which based on Bush's approval ratings is a pretty good running point) have to do with faith that the country can't be better? Yes, the GOP has led this country into the toilet but that doesn't mean we have to sit around with shit on our faces for the next 4 years.
Faith in the country? What does thinking that the country has been led in the wrong direction for the last 8 years (which based on Bush's approval ratings is a pretty good running point) have to do with faith that the country can't be better? Yes, the GOP has led this country into the toilet but that doesn't mean we have to sit around with shit on our faces for the next 4 years.
Posted by: Tom at August 07, 2008 02:27 PM (Lbkb5)
5
"The Republic is no longer what it once was."
Isn't that the truth. Even the King Bush the First years were better. At least he was smart enough not to drag us into a 6 year war.
Isn't that the truth. Even the King Bush the First years were better. At least he was smart enough not to drag us into a 6 year war.
Posted by: Tom at August 07, 2008 02:29 PM (Lbkb5)
6
Thanks for underscoring the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, gentlemen.
Conservatives think that Americans thrive despite the government. Liberals think the government is America.
Conservatives think that Americans thrive despite the government. Liberals think the government is America.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 02:35 PM (HcgFD)
7
Yes, the GOP certainly has America thriving these days, don't they?
Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 03:09 PM (foLN0)
8
Just wait till Obama takes office - then we'll see droves of conservatives bashing this country and talking of impending doom.
And the howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth about abuses of execute power will be heard from the right wing for the first time in, well.. 8 years. They'll be screaming about domestic wiretapping and the need for Congressional oversight.
Luckily we'll have their hypocrisy about all of these issues well documented, so it should be fun.
And the howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth about abuses of execute power will be heard from the right wing for the first time in, well.. 8 years. They'll be screaming about domestic wiretapping and the need for Congressional oversight.
Luckily we'll have their hypocrisy about all of these issues well documented, so it should be fun.
Posted by: Ted at August 07, 2008 03:13 PM (gJFD/)
9
"At least [GHWB] was smart enough not to drag us into a 6 year war."
Psst. Don't tell anyone, but I doubt GWB would have "dragged" anyone anywhere if a little thing like four airplanes and their innocent passengers being commendeered as human-piloted bombs to kill thousands of other innocent people hadn't happened. I don't know, call me crazy but maybe a little thing like that coupled with Saddam's history or bloody, brutal action and poor judgement with an added dash of twelve years WMD non-cooperation and deception might have had something to do with deciding that entrusting national security to the word of a murderous dictator wasn't the most prudent course of action.
Of course, don't let a little thing like objectivity ruin the ten-thousanth repetition of a variant to Bush joke #15.
Psst. Don't tell anyone, but I doubt GWB would have "dragged" anyone anywhere if a little thing like four airplanes and their innocent passengers being commendeered as human-piloted bombs to kill thousands of other innocent people hadn't happened. I don't know, call me crazy but maybe a little thing like that coupled with Saddam's history or bloody, brutal action and poor judgement with an added dash of twelve years WMD non-cooperation and deception might have had something to do with deciding that entrusting national security to the word of a murderous dictator wasn't the most prudent course of action.
Of course, don't let a little thing like objectivity ruin the ten-thousanth repetition of a variant to Bush joke #15.
Posted by: submandave at August 07, 2008 03:20 PM (lLS3Y)
10
So the pollsters find 80% think the country is going in the wrong direction. I'll bet they are split 40-40 as to which direction we should be going.
Posted by: Claude Hopper at August 07, 2008 03:23 PM (Z6fQ+)
11
Dave, the country would be doing well without the Democrats. No global warming BS. No energy crisis. Lower taxes, a solution to Social Security. Less government intrusion and a look to the future with foreign policy. One that does not poke ones head in the sand. And lastly, a vital and strong National Defense.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at August 07, 2008 03:37 PM (J5AYY)
12
Zelsdorf,
Really? Because it's the lack of a reasonable energy plan from the GOP that has us bending over to take it from the Saudis. And more drilling won't solve the problem.
Lower taxes at the cost of ignoring infrastructure and running up the deficit makes lowering taxes pointless. Here's something to remember; there are TWO sides to the Laffer Curve.
And yes, where would we be with the National Defense the GOP has given us, leaving the Army and Marines over-stretched and forced to accept recruits they'd have rejected less than 10 years ago?
Based on your command of the facts, I can only assume you have joined us from an alternate universe where things over the past eight years have turned out differently.
Really? Because it's the lack of a reasonable energy plan from the GOP that has us bending over to take it from the Saudis. And more drilling won't solve the problem.
Lower taxes at the cost of ignoring infrastructure and running up the deficit makes lowering taxes pointless. Here's something to remember; there are TWO sides to the Laffer Curve.
And yes, where would we be with the National Defense the GOP has given us, leaving the Army and Marines over-stretched and forced to accept recruits they'd have rejected less than 10 years ago?
Based on your command of the facts, I can only assume you have joined us from an alternate universe where things over the past eight years have turned out differently.
Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 03:48 PM (foLN0)
13
Hey Dave - you might want to dial that back a little before it bites your hind end clean off.
Clinton was the one that shrunk the military in the first place.
And if drilling won't solve the problem of our using Saudi oil, what the hell will? I don't know about you, but my car doesn't run on unicorn farts. And the electrical grid over here in Connecticut would fold under the weight of a million plug-in hybrids, so that's kinda out.
And I don't put much faith in "right direction/wrong direction" polls, as they never seem to ask these people what direction they think the country ought to be going.
Clinton was the one that shrunk the military in the first place.
And if drilling won't solve the problem of our using Saudi oil, what the hell will? I don't know about you, but my car doesn't run on unicorn farts. And the electrical grid over here in Connecticut would fold under the weight of a million plug-in hybrids, so that's kinda out.
And I don't put much faith in "right direction/wrong direction" polls, as they never seem to ask these people what direction they think the country ought to be going.
Posted by: brian at August 07, 2008 04:08 PM (Pe8i3)
14
If you have a job (90% of America) the only thing that sucks for you is $4 gas and your house, if you own one, is worth less this year than 2 years ago. In both cases the policies of the Democrats are to blame. So if you think things suck then McCain is obviously the better choice ...
Posted by: Jeff at August 07, 2008 04:12 PM (zQ0HK)
15
Lol.
Man, poke a hive full of Obamacons and you can get stung, huh?
At least they are getting some accurate information for a change.
Man, poke a hive full of Obamacons and you can get stung, huh?
At least they are getting some accurate information for a change.
Posted by: Darth Tedious at August 07, 2008 04:25 PM (Z/5Pq)
16
I can't believe that people are giving Obama flak for daring to suggest that we should work to improve America. Conservatives are like parents who think that loving their kid means never criticizing him or her, even when they do poorly in school or get in trouble. When the truth is if you really want to show your kid how much you love them, your will criticize their behavior and demand more from them. A truly loving parent is one who gets a report card full of B +'s and says "you can do better."
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. And if you are indifferent to America, you'll say "that's good enough." But if you really love America, you will hold her to a higher standard. In fact, you will hold her to the HIGHEST of standards. And that is precisely what Obama is doing here.
I don't want a president who is indifferent to America. I want someone who loves America so much that they only demand to utmost of excellence from her in every regard. And the best way you can show your love to your country is much the same you show love to your kid: through criticism and nudges towards improvement.
The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. And if you are indifferent to America, you'll say "that's good enough." But if you really love America, you will hold her to a higher standard. In fact, you will hold her to the HIGHEST of standards. And that is precisely what Obama is doing here.
I don't want a president who is indifferent to America. I want someone who loves America so much that they only demand to utmost of excellence from her in every regard. And the best way you can show your love to your country is much the same you show love to your kid: through criticism and nudges towards improvement.
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 04:34 PM (iodlf)
17
'Pollsters say Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction . . .'
Well, lets see: We have a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and could very likely elect a Democrat president this fall.
Yep. Sounds like we are headed in the wrong direction.
Well, lets see: We have a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and could very likely elect a Democrat president this fall.
Yep. Sounds like we are headed in the wrong direction.
Posted by: wheatley at August 07, 2008 05:10 PM (g/MKW)
18
Justfinethanks:
You're actually a lot closer to the McCain camp than you think.
I don't think anyone here is criticizing Sen. Obama for wanting to hold America to a high standard. Anyone who loves America and has high hopes for America's future would do that -- and that goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Where the two sides differ is in what standards to hold America to -- is universal health care more important than tight border security? -- and how to go about it. Reasonable people can (and should!) differ about such things.
If you're looking for a Presidential candidate who is not "indifferent to America", but rather "loves America so much", then take another look at Sen. McCain. He loved America enough to bleed and suffer for it. I can't think of a single thing that Sen. Obama has done for his country that Sen. McCain hasn't done more of.
Yes, Sen. Obama sure talks purty; that, I think, is what this blog post is making fun of -- his pleasant-sounding platitudes, which, admittedly, we hear plenty of from both sides.
But what has Sen. Obama DONE to show his love for America? Basically, he's told us to take it on faith. McCain doesn't do that; he doesn't need to. His love for America is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about him.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
You're actually a lot closer to the McCain camp than you think.
I don't think anyone here is criticizing Sen. Obama for wanting to hold America to a high standard. Anyone who loves America and has high hopes for America's future would do that -- and that goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.
Where the two sides differ is in what standards to hold America to -- is universal health care more important than tight border security? -- and how to go about it. Reasonable people can (and should!) differ about such things.
If you're looking for a Presidential candidate who is not "indifferent to America", but rather "loves America so much", then take another look at Sen. McCain. He loved America enough to bleed and suffer for it. I can't think of a single thing that Sen. Obama has done for his country that Sen. McCain hasn't done more of.
Yes, Sen. Obama sure talks purty; that, I think, is what this blog post is making fun of -- his pleasant-sounding platitudes, which, admittedly, we hear plenty of from both sides.
But what has Sen. Obama DONE to show his love for America? Basically, he's told us to take it on faith. McCain doesn't do that; he doesn't need to. His love for America is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about him.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at August 07, 2008 05:13 PM (ETuqd)
19
What part of hopey changey aren't you getting, Bob? And why haven't you touched your kool-aid?
Posted by: Bel Aire at August 07, 2008 05:41 PM (ocHBO)
20
I did read about McCain's years in the Hanoi Hilton, and it is doubtlessly inspiring. And I wasn't implying that McCain doesn't love his country. I was more poking fun at our esteemed blogger for stupidly claiming that criticizing America somehow shows a lack of faith in it.
Plus as you pointed out, every one on both sides of the aisle criticizes America. I don't think there has been as congressman in history who has ever said "You know what? America's finally perfect. Let's never pass another piece of legislation ever again."
Plus as you pointed out, every one on both sides of the aisle criticizes America. I don't think there has been as congressman in history who has ever said "You know what? America's finally perfect. Let's never pass another piece of legislation ever again."
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 05:51 PM (iodlf)
21
"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - Padme Amidala
Posted by: ignatov at August 07, 2008 06:14 PM (uDJ23)
22
Justfinethanks, you don't actually have any kids, do you???
Posted by: Mary in LA at August 07, 2008 06:41 PM (NGf/6)
23
I have a daughter. I'm not one of those childless people who feels like they have license to criticize parents. In fact, I like to think I have earned my license.
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 07:08 PM (iodlf)
24
Justfine, if it's okay to criticize America, why is it not okay to criticize Obama?
Just wondering.
Just wondering.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 07:28 PM (irkBP)
25
It's fine to criticize Obama. Just as it's fine for me to criticize dimwitted criticisms of Obama. Nowhere did I say that our esteemed blogger shouldn't be allowed to make judgments against anyone. I simply implied he is wrong in his opinion.
Why do you assume that I want someone silenced on the basis that I disagree with them? Where in any of my posts did I ever suggest withholding anyone's freedom of speech? Or that criticism is wrong? I would never suggest that it's "wrong" to criticize anything or anyone. That's the very definition of promoting censorship.
Believe me, I am very, very pro criticism across the board. But I reserve the right exercise my own criticisms as well.
Why do you assume that I want someone silenced on the basis that I disagree with them? Where in any of my posts did I ever suggest withholding anyone's freedom of speech? Or that criticism is wrong? I would never suggest that it's "wrong" to criticize anything or anyone. That's the very definition of promoting censorship.
Believe me, I am very, very pro criticism across the board. But I reserve the right exercise my own criticisms as well.
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 07:52 PM (iodlf)
26
Justfine, you're more open-minded than your preferred candidate is himself. I mean, we're not allowed to mention his middle name, he wants to make his wife off-limits after she makes campaign appearances for him (I am all for laying off wives that don't make public statements; but when you stand up in public, you can't suddenly demand to be immune from having your statements criticized), and many other things are supposedly "racist" to ask the junior Senator from Illinois about.
Of course, McCain isn't a heck of a lot better, after all, his name is on McCain-Feingold, one of the worst infringements on the First Amendment so far, but at least he can take his lumps like a man.
However, as I said, you're more reasonable on this particular issue than Senator Barack Hussein Obama, and for that you are to be commended.
I eagerly await your criticism of Senator Obama's sensitivity to criticism.
Of course, McCain isn't a heck of a lot better, after all, his name is on McCain-Feingold, one of the worst infringements on the First Amendment so far, but at least he can take his lumps like a man.
However, as I said, you're more reasonable on this particular issue than Senator Barack Hussein Obama, and for that you are to be commended.
I eagerly await your criticism of Senator Obama's sensitivity to criticism.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 08:18 PM (irkBP)
27
For the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of America. Just think, Brocko has deigned to swoop in and save your sucky Amerikkka. I get a thrill up my leg just thinking about it.
Posted by: Les Nessman at August 07, 2008 08:38 PM (8yfHZ)
28
Conservatives are like parents who think that loving their kid means never criticizing him or her, even when they do poorly in school or get in trouble. When the truth is if you really want to show your kid how much you love them, your will criticize their behavior and demand more from
them. A truly loving parent is one who gets a report card full of B +'s and says "you can do better."
However, you also don't throw the kid out of the house for errors your brothers and sisters committed under similar circumstances.
Any constructive criticism of Mr. Bush from the political Left, was drowned out by prefaces like "Impeach" ... "Hitler" ... "War Criminal" ... "Chimp", coming from that same political Left.
For y'all, peace has not been your primary concern during these past eight years.
We see right through y'all ... because if you were truly interested in peace, you'd have put Mr. Bush's errors into the perspective of history ... and realized that this Administration is no different than previous leaders who we now revere as heroes when it comes to making errors in a time of war.
You would have offered CONSTRUCTIVE, well-thought-out criticism, instead of bouncing from the Powell Doctrine to precipitous withdrawal
with 'nary a stop in-between.
And prior to that, you'd have pressured Mr. Clinton into dealing decisively with bin Laden and Saddam.
The problem is, such a beneficial corrective influence would have worked against what you consider more important objectives:
>Revenge for having your perceived birthright-to-rule as the Best and Brightest usurped by "a Bible-thumping hick".
>Denigration of the conservative worldview, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, fact and reason be damned.
>Both of the above feeding into your ultimate objective: the establishment and maintenance of your ideal world, where "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO!" is the watchword ... unless you are a responsible person who has wealth that can be confiscated to subsidize irresponsible behavior, which would then be celebrated as "free-thinking" and even "enlightened".
As a result, your criticism was neither principled, nor constructive ... for you just couldn't let it be known that this President was right on ANY OF IT, let alone right in leading us to finish this war that was started as early as 1991, if not before, by our enemies.
You were more interested in beating the Bushes, than you were in protecting life and liberty in this nation.
Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind
them. A truly loving parent is one who gets a report card full of B +'s and says "you can do better."
However, you also don't throw the kid out of the house for errors your brothers and sisters committed under similar circumstances.
Any constructive criticism of Mr. Bush from the political Left, was drowned out by prefaces like "Impeach" ... "Hitler" ... "War Criminal" ... "Chimp", coming from that same political Left.
For y'all, peace has not been your primary concern during these past eight years.
We see right through y'all ... because if you were truly interested in peace, you'd have put Mr. Bush's errors into the perspective of history ... and realized that this Administration is no different than previous leaders who we now revere as heroes when it comes to making errors in a time of war.
You would have offered CONSTRUCTIVE, well-thought-out criticism, instead of bouncing from the Powell Doctrine to precipitous withdrawal
with 'nary a stop in-between.
And prior to that, you'd have pressured Mr. Clinton into dealing decisively with bin Laden and Saddam.
The problem is, such a beneficial corrective influence would have worked against what you consider more important objectives:
>Revenge for having your perceived birthright-to-rule as the Best and Brightest usurped by "a Bible-thumping hick".
>Denigration of the conservative worldview, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, fact and reason be damned.
>Both of the above feeding into your ultimate objective: the establishment and maintenance of your ideal world, where "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO!" is the watchword ... unless you are a responsible person who has wealth that can be confiscated to subsidize irresponsible behavior, which would then be celebrated as "free-thinking" and even "enlightened".
As a result, your criticism was neither principled, nor constructive ... for you just couldn't let it be known that this President was right on ANY OF IT, let alone right in leading us to finish this war that was started as early as 1991, if not before, by our enemies.
You were more interested in beating the Bushes, than you were in protecting life and liberty in this nation.
Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind
Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 08:39 PM (sU1X5)
29
As for the New Prince of the Nattering Nabobs ...
I'm witnessing a phenom, who's sweeping all across the land ...
A man so charismatic, I wonder where's the Kool-Aid(R) stand ...
So many swooning at the sight of someone they think is so new ...
But when I listen to him, I'm thinkin' this is deja vu ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
He will resurrect like Lazarus, the 70's welfare state ...
Complete with lots of jobless, and double-digit interest rates ...
From so-called greedy businessmen, he'll take tax money in big gobs ...
And starve to death the geese that lay those golden eggs of jobs ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
He'll go and take control of your and my health care ...
Including what you eat, exercise, and maybe what you wear ...
Now this might cut the cost, of my Band-Aids(R), I'll agree that's true ...
But I wonder, when I'm older, will they just let me die from the flu ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
When it comes to global warming, he'll try and cut us down to size ...
But let the Third World warm it up, and not even bat an eye ...
Will he tell us to air up our tires, and turn down all the thermostats ...
While squashing innovation under the butts of the bureaucrats ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
When he's not bombin' them he'll leave our allies in the lurch ...
While the worst thugs and fanatics look on from a lofty perch ...
Goin' for more than hostages, their party will have just begun ...
For they'll crash Big Zero's party, with somethin' like a 911 ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With Big Zero we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
I'm witnessing a phenom, who's sweeping all across the land ...
A man so charismatic, I wonder where's the Kool-Aid(R) stand ...
So many swooning at the sight of someone they think is so new ...
But when I listen to him, I'm thinkin' this is deja vu ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
He will resurrect like Lazarus, the 70's welfare state ...
Complete with lots of jobless, and double-digit interest rates ...
From so-called greedy businessmen, he'll take tax money in big gobs ...
And starve to death the geese that lay those golden eggs of jobs ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
He'll go and take control of your and my health care ...
Including what you eat, exercise, and maybe what you wear ...
Now this might cut the cost, of my Band-Aids(R), I'll agree that's true ...
But I wonder, when I'm older, will they just let me die from the flu ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
When it comes to global warming, he'll try and cut us down to size ...
But let the Third World warm it up, and not even bat an eye ...
Will he tell us to air up our tires, and turn down all the thermostats ...
While squashing innovation under the butts of the bureaucrats ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
When he's not bombin' them he'll leave our allies in the lurch ...
While the worst thugs and fanatics look on from a lofty perch ...
Goin' for more than hostages, their party will have just begun ...
For they'll crash Big Zero's party, with somethin' like a 911 ...
Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With Big Zero we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 08:50 PM (sU1X5)
Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 08:51 PM (irkBP)
31
I'll be happily corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that anyone should be censored from emphasizing his middle name. People simply argued that it's stupid to do so because it's trying to emphasize a connection between the former tyrant and Obama that simply doesn't exist. There's a major distinction between "you shouldn't keep emphasizing his middle name because it's an obvious scare tactic and it's not relavant to anything that's affecting America right now" and "you should be FORCED to stop emphasizing his middle name." I welcome you to go your nearest police station and scream "B. HUSSEIN OBAMA" at the top of your lungs. I'm sure you'll be pleased to find that you won't be arrested.
Look, Democrats did the same thing when they emphasized Quayle's middle name of "Danforth" because it made him sound like an out of touch, country club, private school blueblood. And it is just as childish now as it was then. And saying "it's really, really retarded to emphasize Quayle's middle name" isn't "sensitivity to criticism," it's a valid point.
In regards to his wife, I just don't see how this is relavant. The "lay off my wife" comment was just a jokey bit of macho posturing, he didn't introduce the "Lay Off My Wife" bill into the senate. And frankly, people should lay off wives. People said horrible and unnecessary things about Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton, and it's just not relavant.
Again, let me be clear here that I'm not suggesting people should be forced to lay off wives. I would simply argue that it's not productive, so we would be much better off debating the positions of the candidates.
Saying "This isn't of any real importance, so we should move on to more important issues" isn't dodging criticism. It's, more often than not, a real desire to talk about the issues.
I personally don't think he is sensitive to real, valid criticisms. If you want to dissect his energy plan, his iraq policy, his tax plan, his position on states rights, gun control, abortion, education, budgeting, health care, or any of the countless other real, actual issues that affect us, I'm sure he would welcome the debate.
Hell, even Rich's parody song is closer to real, actual debate than talking about middle names or wives. I disagree with most of the assertations, mind you, but at least it's a step forward.
Look, Democrats did the same thing when they emphasized Quayle's middle name of "Danforth" because it made him sound like an out of touch, country club, private school blueblood. And it is just as childish now as it was then. And saying "it's really, really retarded to emphasize Quayle's middle name" isn't "sensitivity to criticism," it's a valid point.
In regards to his wife, I just don't see how this is relavant. The "lay off my wife" comment was just a jokey bit of macho posturing, he didn't introduce the "Lay Off My Wife" bill into the senate. And frankly, people should lay off wives. People said horrible and unnecessary things about Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton, and it's just not relavant.
Again, let me be clear here that I'm not suggesting people should be forced to lay off wives. I would simply argue that it's not productive, so we would be much better off debating the positions of the candidates.
Saying "This isn't of any real importance, so we should move on to more important issues" isn't dodging criticism. It's, more often than not, a real desire to talk about the issues.
I personally don't think he is sensitive to real, valid criticisms. If you want to dissect his energy plan, his iraq policy, his tax plan, his position on states rights, gun control, abortion, education, budgeting, health care, or any of the countless other real, actual issues that affect us, I'm sure he would welcome the debate.
Hell, even Rich's parody song is closer to real, actual debate than talking about middle names or wives. I disagree with most of the assertations, mind you, but at least it's a step forward.
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 09:32 PM (iodlf)
32
I'll be happily corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that anyone should be censored from emphasizing his middle name.
You need to read more, Justfine.
But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.
You need to read more, Justfine.
But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 09:55 PM (irkBP)
33
Oops, the second set of blockquotes didn't work... that last paragraph above is a quote from the article I linked to.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 09:56 PM (irkBP)
34
submandave ...
Nail. Head.
(HT: C-C-G>
--------------------
I'm sure he would welcome the debate.
I question that, Justfinethanks ... the Big 0 won't emulate Ms. Clinton and pay a visit to Bill O'Reilly, who is not a rock-ribbed conservative.
Now, I do agree the whole middle-name thing is petty ... especially when there is such a target-rich environment for his critics, regarding his positions on the issues of the day.
But the whole above-us-all attitude ... and his apparent concurrence with the American Idol style of marketing ... are still significant issues.
Americans aren't too receptive to leaders who present themselves with condescension and an inflated opinion of their significance ... haven't been receptive of that, at least as early as 4 July 1776.
Nail. Head.
(HT: C-C-G>
--------------------
I'm sure he would welcome the debate.
I question that, Justfinethanks ... the Big 0 won't emulate Ms. Clinton and pay a visit to Bill O'Reilly, who is not a rock-ribbed conservative.
Now, I do agree the whole middle-name thing is petty ... especially when there is such a target-rich environment for his critics, regarding his positions on the issues of the day.
But the whole above-us-all attitude ... and his apparent concurrence with the American Idol style of marketing ... are still significant issues.
Americans aren't too receptive to leaders who present themselves with condescension and an inflated opinion of their significance ... haven't been receptive of that, at least as early as 4 July 1776.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 10:09 PM (sU1X5)
35
CCG: That's not censorship. That's an assertation that emphasizing his middle name is a "henious attack," "racist," and "cowardly." Your reponse shouldn't be "Stop telling me what I can and can not say." It should be an argument as to why it's not any of those three things.
Unless I'm missing something. Does she actually argue in favor of the censorship of his middle name, or does she merely argue that emphasizing it is "henious," "racist," and "cowardly"? Because there is a big difference between the two.
Unless I'm missing something. Does she actually argue in favor of the censorship of his middle name, or does she merely argue that emphasizing it is "henious," "racist," and "cowardly"? Because there is a big difference between the two.
Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 10:19 PM (iodlf)
36
You need to read more, Justfine.
But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 7, 2008 09:55 PM
Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term "censored," C-C-G. However, JfT spelled it out pretty clearly if you look.
So maybe you could show exactly where in that quote Taylor Marsh said "you should be FORCED to stop emphasizing his middle name."
But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 7, 2008 09:55 PM
Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term "censored," C-C-G. However, JfT spelled it out pretty clearly if you look.
So maybe you could show exactly where in that quote Taylor Marsh said "you should be FORCED to stop emphasizing his middle name."
Posted by: skylark at August 08, 2008 12:43 AM (BKwMs)
37
JfT - Your response was better.
Posted by: skylark at August 08, 2008 01:13 AM (BKwMs)
38
Justfine, your knowledge of your preferred candidate's statements is appalling.
Back in May, on ABC's Good Morning America, a national TV show, Obama told people to "lay off my wife."
This was, of course, after she had made campaign appearances for him and faced criticism for her statements.
The logical conclusion is easy to see. Obama doesn't like criticism of what his wife says when she is campaigning for him.
I will now accept a full apology.
Back in May, on ABC's Good Morning America, a national TV show, Obama told people to "lay off my wife."
This was, of course, after she had made campaign appearances for him and faced criticism for her statements.
The logical conclusion is easy to see. Obama doesn't like criticism of what his wife says when she is campaigning for him.
I will now accept a full apology.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 08, 2008 07:23 AM (irkBP)
39
submandave - I know this is hard for you right-wingers to get into your head, but Sadaam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was crap made up by our glorious leader Bush the Second. And Sadaam had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That was an American citizen who worked for George the Second. And if you really think that GWB believed that Sadaam was involved in either of those things then you must really think he is the stupidest man on the planet. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the US and have EVERYTHING to do with making George the Second's friends very, very wealthy.
Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2008 08:55 AM (Lbkb5)
40
When was America what it used to be?
Posted by: daleyrocks at August 08, 2008 09:49 AM (i/fLn)
41
Can someone provide a cite for the claim that the quote “The Republic is no longer what it once was” came from Star Wars?
Yesterday, I did a Google search and came up with one hit, the Intapundit item.
Today, there are seven, but all derived from that one hit.
I wrote to Glenn, urging him to check it out, but no response.
It may be true, I’m not Star wars expert, but I’m surprised that it doesn’t show up in a Google search.
Yesterday, I did a Google search and came up with one hit, the Intapundit item.
Today, there are seven, but all derived from that one hit.
I wrote to Glenn, urging him to check it out, but no response.
It may be true, I’m not Star wars expert, but I’m surprised that it doesn’t show up in a Google search.
Posted by: Phil at August 08, 2008 11:06 AM (39DNf)
42
Simple enough. Find the Phantom Menace script, and do a search for "The Republic is."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 11:32 AM (xNV2a)
43
submandave - I know this is hard for you right-wingers to get into your head, but Sadaam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was crap made up by our glorious leader Bush the Second.
He didn't have to, Tom ... I know how hard it is for y'all to believe the simple is true, but it is Just. That. Simple.
Saddam had everything Afghanistan did, including a hatred for America and an abject lack of respect for life and liberty, both demonstrated repeatedly over his entire rule.
Yet you'd ask us to continue to trust thugs like that, after 911?
And Sadaam had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That was an American citizen who worked for George the Second.
I don't think that anyone here is definitely saying that the anthrax attacks were Saddam's doing ... OTOH, are you implying a link between the President and the alleged perpetrator? Care to provide some proof?
And if you really think that GWB believed that Sadaam was involved in either of those things then you must really think he is the stupidest man on the planet. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the US and have EVERYTHING to do with making George the Second's friends very, very wealthy.
Wrong ... for we have seen how the greedy were acting at that time.
They were hip-deep in Crude-for-Food.
If the President was as greedy as you say, he would have avoided a messy war, waded right in ... and enriched his friends while possibly scoring a Nobel like Gore and Carter for his efforts in the name of "peace".
Methinks instead, that your criticism of this Administration is not based in a sincere concern for life and liberty ... but just like almost every other Leftist I've debated, it is based in an obsession with denigrating all aspects of the conservative worldview ... with the objective of fomenting radical change to produce a society where you can freely scream "NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO!", while muzzling others who do as little as suggesting alternatives to objectively-irresponsible behavior ... and confiscating what wealth they have, to use in celebrating and subsidizing such behavior.
He didn't have to, Tom ... I know how hard it is for y'all to believe the simple is true, but it is Just. That. Simple.
Saddam had everything Afghanistan did, including a hatred for America and an abject lack of respect for life and liberty, both demonstrated repeatedly over his entire rule.
Yet you'd ask us to continue to trust thugs like that, after 911?
And Sadaam had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That was an American citizen who worked for George the Second.
I don't think that anyone here is definitely saying that the anthrax attacks were Saddam's doing ... OTOH, are you implying a link between the President and the alleged perpetrator? Care to provide some proof?
And if you really think that GWB believed that Sadaam was involved in either of those things then you must really think he is the stupidest man on the planet. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the US and have EVERYTHING to do with making George the Second's friends very, very wealthy.
Wrong ... for we have seen how the greedy were acting at that time.
They were hip-deep in Crude-for-Food.
If the President was as greedy as you say, he would have avoided a messy war, waded right in ... and enriched his friends while possibly scoring a Nobel like Gore and Carter for his efforts in the name of "peace".
Methinks instead, that your criticism of this Administration is not based in a sincere concern for life and liberty ... but just like almost every other Leftist I've debated, it is based in an obsession with denigrating all aspects of the conservative worldview ... with the objective of fomenting radical change to produce a society where you can freely scream "NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO!", while muzzling others who do as little as suggesting alternatives to objectively-irresponsible behavior ... and confiscating what wealth they have, to use in celebrating and subsidizing such behavior.
Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 08, 2008 11:37 AM (FL9H9)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0199 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0125 seconds, 51 records returned.
Page size 39 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.