The Timing Of Obama's Race Play

I think the timing of Obama playing the race card could prove to be somewhat revealing of a portion of his general election strategy.

This is the first time Obama's coverage has turned so completely negative due to his rejection of Public Financing.

So, what does he do? He attempts to make the discussion all about Race. If his move is meant to silence critics and change the subject to one that favors him in the eyes of the liberal media, then he's doing the very same thing the usual suspects like Sharpton and Jackson have been doing for years.

I also believe that if he does see Race as his trump card, to be played whenever he needs a boost, he's destined to lose in the Fall. Americans don't elect viktums as President, though they aren't adverse to making them such after they get in!

Comments

[Elmo]

Still haven't loaded or watched the vid. A coupla months ago, believed Barack was a lock for the fall (being witness to some impressive political chops). But with each passing day, as surprisingly more bark slides off the timber. Presidential is not what I see. Only disappointment. And where once initially I really wasn't much concerned about an Obama presidency. The fading quality of his campaign now ushers in pointed agitation. With every whiff of his pathetically swung partisan bat. Every empty word. Every banal political gesture. Anyone needing proof of the ugliness of politics, has only to hold gaze for a split second, at the ginormous spineless dolphin/waffle mutation before us.

[LifeTrek]

This is not unexpected and is actually not new.

He used the same technique to defeat the Clintons. Claim your above dirty politics, all the while playing as dirty or dirtier then your opponent. Then play the race card in response to a perceived slight making it thus preventing any future attacks that the media will be more then happy to jump on!

I call it preemptive disarming of your opponent and he used it masterfully to neuter the Clintons! He started Memorial Day when he his campaign attacked McCain for, "political posturing," even as Obama was political posturing.

Check out this category here:
http://rotstar.blogspot.com/search?q=neutered
David

[LOL]

ur posts are becoming more and more incoherent. I can't wait until after he wins.

[SacTownMan]

Don't forget the top 10 moonbat list:

1. McCain = "Bush 3".
2. McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for "100 years".
3. McCain is too old!
4. Bush lied, troops died.
5. If you don't vote for Barry you're a racist!
6. Democrats are behind the troops. (That's why they continue to try and cut Iraq funding!)
7. Barry will "unite" the country. (As long as you're not one of those 18 million racist's that didn't vote for him or a Republican)
8. We are in a recession.
9. Barry's associations for the past twenty years with various extremists have nothing to do with him.
10.Here's my personal favorite - "That was taken out of context""

Dan's post focuses on the classic #5, we haven't seen that one for a while. Barry wouldn't want to let the moonbats top 10 list down now would he. And it is one of my personal favorites!

Although lately the "Annointed One" has been wearing out #1. He sticks in a few lines every time he opens his mouth.

His handlers have trained him well. They've been working overtime since the "Mother Theresa" makeover on the View. Michelle looked so sweeeett and innocent. I kind of like the new "Stepford Wife" version. It's just a matter of time before they start asking her the real probing questions like "Diamonds or Pearls" Michelle?

And don't "Y'all" forget about those evil, racist, typical white, clingy, gun toting Republicans. They'll be a coming to get ya and they'll eat you kids too!

Sharpton and Jackson have nothing on this guy!

Can I get a little fist bump with that bro!

[Spartan112]

All this ranting and you haven't touched on the fact that what he said is true. Just the other day GOP operative Pat Buchanan referred to him as "Exotic" and of course Cal Thomas' racial comments the other night were quite insightful and of course their insistance on highlighting Obama's middle name has nothing to do with race/cultural differences.

[Obama is not fit to lead]

Response to Obama's Over-Play of Race Card:

Lt. Col Allen West, candidate for Congress in Florida’s 22 District issued this release:

“My advice to Senator Obama is to run as a Man and Leader, and the American people will evaluate you as such, not as a victim. This is a Presidential race, based solely on a capacity to lead the United States of America. It is not about skin tone…however, perhaps we should come to expect these immature statements.

It also seems rather humorous that the Presidential candidate who was supposed to be such a “uniter” and transcend race is the one talking about it the most. If Senator Obama was confident in his abilities and character, he would not need to create a crutch for failure. Senator Obama has just tipped his hand, any criticism of him and his policies will be directly attributed to racism. I congratulate Senator Obama for taking race relations in America back some 30 years.” Lt. Col Allen West

(courtesy/comments section at noquarter)

[BobInStamford]

Isn't that West guy the guy who abused prisoners and was kicked out of the army?? Don't you 25%ers have anyone better??

[Worst President Ever]

Gee, when have the Republicans ever used race as an issue?

Lets see, maybe it was the "Southern Strategy" thing. RNC Chief Ken Mehlman even apologized for it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

Nice list SactoMan. You got it right for the most point. But a couple corrections.

5.) You're welcome to vote for whoever you want, but people that refuse to vote for Obama because he's black are racist.

6.) Democratic Senator Jim Webb's GI Bill that actually does support the troops recently passed the Senate. Senator McSame voted against it.

[jharp]

Elmo,

"A coupla months ago, believed Barack was a lock for the fall (being witness to some impressive political chops). But with each passing day, as surprisingly more bark slides off the timber."

You have it completely backwards. Obama is gaining momentum. And alot of it.

But you knew this, I'm sure.

[Worst President Ever]

Whoops - McSame didn't actually vote against Webb's bill - he spoke against it repeatedly claiming it would cause troops to leave service to talk advantage of the new benefits - but he actually missed the vote so he could fund raise in California.

But he's now flopped and is supporting an amended version of the bill. But he, us, "misrepresents" the reason he opposed the bill in the first place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/mccain-now-supp.html

The Straight Talk Express is turning into The BS Unlimited

[jharp]

Hey Elmo,

Put this in your pipe and smoke it.

"A new poll from Newsweek gives Barack Obama a 51%-36% lead over John McCain, up from a 46%-46% tie a month ago."

Doesn't appear most Americans see it as you do. As a matter of fact most Americans see it exactly the opposite.

[jharp]

templar,

Found the answer on detainees held in places other than Gitmo.

Hope this makes you feel better.

"The court extended the right not to all foreign nationals captured by the military, but only to foreign nationals held in a place over which the U.S. exercised de facto sovereignty. The U.S. exercises such control over Gitmo by virtue of a lease that gives the United States “complete jurisdiction and control” over that base. (Link to opinion page.) The Supreme Court did not say that a prisoner held on a battlefield has habeas corpus rights."

[seekeronos]

I think a more accurate statement would be this: Obama is in fact, rising in popularity with the vast majority of Americans who are typically "the Great Undecided", (part of the 45-55% of Americans who seldom if ever vote) who are much more easily swayed by the sandbagging the MSM is doing on behalf of Obama.

The few remaining conservatives (and by this, I mostly mean paleo-conservatives, and not the neocons who are three-parts ex-Trotskyites who embrace free markets and military force, and one part Dittoheads who react with a sharp jerk to the far right whilst everyone else lurches left to the MSM's beat) are more than aware of the "evil of two lessers", but without access to the media machine, the best their candidates (Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin) can hope for is to spoil McCain's dwindling chances.

The aforementioned neocons will turn out in some significant numbers for the Illuminati's back up choice, McCain.

Independents and even registered (but generally non-voting, non-donating) GOP'ers are giving Obama a second look, being mislead by Obama's highly polished and vaguely populist message in a messianic wrapping.

I do not believe that Obama is a credible candidate for the Final Antichrist (the Man of Perdition) as is mentioned in the Bible; that Man of Perdition has yet to be revealed along with his false prophet.

However, he does have a certain arrogance to him, to the point that like the Nero and Caligula of old he thinks himself to be a god.

This is kind of a trend among many of the higher ranking Democrats, as Hillary formerly had expectations of her coronation, and Ted Kennedy egomaniac self-identification as a god first came from his ability to walk away from a certain drowned woman in Chappaquidick.

So too, will Obama be further emboldened as his dalliances with racial hate-mongerers and America-haters like Farrakhan and Wright and Pfleger as well as terrorists like Bill Ayers are ignored or even blithely put into a good light by the MSM; Obama's deeply red Marxism will be turned into a lightly pink center-leftism, and all his gaffes will be turned into golden honey by those same unabashed hypocrites within the MSM who dog every GOP'ers slightest missteps as evidence of overwhelming stupidity, and as they inflate actual GOP scandals as crimes against humanity.

As long as the Great Undecided can be lulled to sleep or lulled to the polls by the MSM's and Obama's siren songs, he has this election in the bag, plus or minus a few ACORN battalions out waking the ancient dead to get their votes.

Unless Bush and Olmert unload an October surprise attack on Iran's nuke facilities (and even that is no guarantee of anything)... McCain hasn't got a snowball's chance in a Georgia summer of getting to the White House in the Fall.

Unless McCain can find something that could derail Obama, and as I said, Obama has (with MSM help) has weathered about the worst things that could be brought against any candidate: his Marxist and terrorist ties to say nothing of his three foreign (Arabic, Muslim) names, which would have disqualified any other major party candidate in the public's eyes in any past election.

The MSM has been largely successful in its unspoken mission: to drive public opinion farther to the left, exactly where socialist kingmakers like Soros and his fellow billionaires want it. The Illuminati of the world have had the American right as a thorn in their sides for global control for many generations, but at long last, we will be brought into socialist subject just as the Eurozone has been for the past two - three generations.

It may very well come to pass that with Obama as POTUS and a Democratic congressional supermajority, the last of America's great freedoms will be dismantled, and the Constitution completely re-interpreted in short order before our very eyes, our remaining strength reduced, and the way paved for a (mostly, if still somewhat fractious) one-world government, a one-world economy, and eventually, possibly under Roman auspices, a one-world state super-religion which centered around Luciferian worship that loosely accommodates apostate Christians, Papists, the Muslim Ummah, all the Dharmic faiths, and all shamanist traditions, as well as atheists... a religion which like its Islamic and Papist forefathers, will brook no dissent when it comes to the faithful followers of the Word of the True and Living God and His Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.

"President Barack Hussein Obama".

It might as well be "fait accompli", as far as the MSM and the Illuminati are concerned.

[seekeronos]

"--- The court extended the right not to all foreign nationals captured by the military, but only to foreign nationals held in a place over which the U.S. exercised de facto sovereignty. The U.S. exercises such control over Gitmo by virtue of a lease that gives the United States “complete jurisdiction and control” over that base. (Link to opinion page.) The Supreme Court did not say that a prisoner held on a battlefield has habeas corpus rights. ---"

This actually makes perfect sense.

[Worst President Ever]

"sandbagging the MSM is doing on behalf of Obama"

Nah - it's McCain the press loves and sandbags for. You've apparently forgotten the unending loop of Reverend Wright's sermon the MSM played. Followed by the loop of Father Pflueger. And the constant "misspelling" of his name - Osama rather than Obama.

Then there's the unending list of McCain's flip flops the MSM somehow manages to ignore. Then there's the unending list of lobbyists that work for his campaign.

Even members of the MSM have noted how much in love with McCain they are. Chris Matthews described the MSM as Senator McSame's base. Something McCain has noted himself.

[jharp]

This actually makes perfect sense.

Posted by: seekeronos

Yes, it does. I would hope the wingnuts who were flipping out over the decision would feel a little embarrassed.

Nah, it ain't the wingnut way to find out the truth when you can blame a liberal position for all of our problems.

[BobInStamford]

"his Marxist and terrorist ties to say nothing of his three foreign (Arabic, Muslim) names, which would have disqualified any other major party candidate in the public's eyes in any past election."

It will be a funny day when your kid comes home and tells you that they call him a halfbreed in class. Maybe Jesus can punish the evil doers for that!!!

[jharp]

Kevin Drum.

"BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH....Via TalkLeft, conservative law professor Richard Epstein explains something that should be obvious to everyone but apparently isn't: the Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush was not about giving habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants. It was about giving prisoners habeas corpus rights to settle the question of whether they're enemy combatants in the first place:"

"Enemy prisoners of war are never granted [habeas corpus], either in the United States or abroad. What matters is whether a prisoner is or is not an enemy combatant."

I sure hope this clears things up for all of you "lock up all of the brownskins" promoters.

[seekeronos]

What is inherently dangerous in Pres. Bush's ability (through the SecDef) to declare anyone he deems to be a security threat an "unlawful enemy combatant" is the possibility of otherwise innocent American citizens or even legal (greencard-bearing) residents.

It is a horrendous breach of liberty that should be repudiated by both the left and by the right.

For foreign nationals here on visas and illegals, I am perhaps less convinced, for it would behoove any foreign national abroad (including Americans traveling abroad) to behave themselves in a manner that is not likely to get them under police scrutiny in the first place.

However, in the interest of preserving our heritage as a nation which values liberty and due process, it may be inconsistent not to extend the same rights to all persons under US jurisdiction.

As for enemy combatants captured on the field, the Geneva Conventions and Laws of Armed Conflict provide sufficient scope for the treatment and handling of either POWs, mercenaries (who in fact have very little rights under GCs/LoAC) and "francs-tireurs", who are the closest in scope to what Pres. Bush may have had in mind for his idea of "unlawful enemy combatants".

Our liberties have become yet another casualty of this awful and unlawful, unconstitutional war.

[seekeronos]

Edit: I botched up the construction and meaning of my leading sentence in my last post.

It should read:

"What is inherently dangerous in Pres. Bush's ability (through the SecDef) ito declare anyone he deems to be a security threat an "unlawful enemy combatant" is the possibility of declaring otherwise innocent American citizens or even legal (greencard-bearing) residents to be such, and preventing them from receiving the due process they should have by right. "

[Yoda]

"A new poll from Newsweek gives Barack Obama a 51%-36% lead over John McCain"

NewsWeek couldn't find its ass grabbing with both hands though.

[jharp]

"It is a horrendous breach of liberty that should be repudiated by both the left and by the right."

Yes it is. And the left has been repudiating it.

And it already has happened to an American citizen.

Your right wingers, Limbo, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, ... all of em. And yes even Dan Rielh have defended Bush on it.

And I'm sure you are aware there is another serious breach in our right to privacy going on right now. Warrantless wiretapping on American citizens.

And once again the left is abhorred by it and the right defends Bush.

Seems pretty obvious which side is a defender of the Constitution.

[seekeronos]

"--- And once again the left is abhorred by it and the right defends Bush. ---"

Well, I'm fairly right wing by most people's accounts (specifically "old right") and I would not be aggrieved to see Bush, Cheney, and certain others in his administration stand trial for war crimes, as well as a stern censure recorded against the members of Congress who voted to give Bush the authority he needed to invade Iraq.

That aside, Rush, Hannity, and Ann Coulter do not speak "to" me, nor do they speak "for" me on most things.

Neither does much of the MSM for that matter.

[jharp]

So, seek, do you intend to do anything about these serious breaches?

In other words, a vote for Obama? McCain is clearly for warrantless wiretapping and against the right of habeas corpus. Or are you going to throw your vote away on Baldwin?

[templar knight]

jharp, where did you get that interpretation? I can't find it anywhere, and again, does the US hold de facto jurisdiction in places like Bagram Air Base, for instance? Did the Court exclude places like Bagram, or is it an open-ended question?

[jharp]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf#page=33

[jharp]

And this is who provided the link.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/9723.html

[templar knight]

seek, I find this talk about putting Bush, Cheney and others on trial for war crimes to be ridiculous. If Bush is guilty of war crimes, then so is Clinton for his war in the Balkans, and arguebly so would be any future President who acted against any foreign power that did not directly attack the US. These war crime trials are the talk of the far Left fringe, and would tear the country to pieces, which is what the Leftists want. The military would be forced to step in, and civilian government would cease to exist.

[templar knight]

jharp, I tried your link, and it caused my computer to freeze up, so I went to the web site you linked to, tried his link, and it froze up my computer. I read this guy's refutation of an article, but I saw nothing other than his interpretation of the ruling, which means absolutely nothing. Can you find a better link?

[jharp]

templar,

Hmmm. Sorry to freeze your computer. Both links did and do work fine for me.

I don't have anything else. I would think we'd hear more about it than we do.

Anyways, if I find something else I'll post it and would appreciate the same from you.

[Elmo]

Momentum? Jeez Harp ... he's going backwards. And accelerating. But who knows, maybe them magic beans will sprout after all? (One never knows right). Does perchance your local library have any books on sorcery? You've still got four months :-)

[Elmo]

Actually Yoda ...

Newsweek, the WaPO, NYT's, L.A. Times, the AP, CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, setra setra couldn't find der bungg'ey hole if both hands were nailed to it (it's hard to actually see the opening, if your head is already up it).

:-)

[seekeronos]

"--- So, seek, do you intend to do anything about these serious breaches?

In other words, a vote for Obama? McCain is clearly for warrantless wiretapping and against the right of habeas corpus. Or are you going to throw your vote away on Baldwin? ---"

In my opinion, Obama and McCain are two soddy sides of the same left-wing coin.

I'm voting for Dr. Baldwin regardless of however "futile" that vote is seen as, for unlike the two Bobbsey Twin candidates that the duopoly parties that have a stranglehold on politics in this Republic, Dr. Baldwin offers a believable and accountable word that he will not throw this nation into unlawful and unconstitutional wars, he will pressure Congress to reduce taxes and unconscionable levels of federal spending, and restore civil liberties to what they should be under our Constitution.

[seekeronos]

"--- seek, I find this talk about putting Bush, Cheney and others on trial for war crimes to be ridiculous... and arguebly so would be any future President who acted against any foreign power that did not directly attack the US. ---"

TK, convening war crimes trials for BushCo... it _is_ a ridiculous notion, and extremely unlikely. As with Obama/McCain, Clinton/Bush were two sides of the same coin. I do not advocate for trying them, but at the same time if they do come about, neither will I advocate against them, for as I said, I would not suffer any grief over it should God deliver judgment upon them.

If indeed Bush was brought up on war crimes charges, then would I also insist that Clinton be put to trial as well, for his imperial adventures in Somalia and Bosnia. As well as I would for any other president who sent us to war without a declaration of war or as a pre-emptive attack on another nation.

For that matter, we simply should not intervene in Europe's problems, nor intervene in Africa, and for that matter, leaving Israel to do more of its work in keeping the Middle East in line. Now that it is a nuclear power, it is more than capable of dissuading its neighbours from any undue foolishness.

While the fight against terrorism is an admirable thing, we must consider what is the source of the Muslim Ummah's power to compel men to fight against America: it is not so much the innate message of Islam itself -- but mostly Osama's evil actions were motivated by our continued presence in the Persian Gulf (as a deterrent to any ideas Saddam might have gotten regarding Kuwait and Saudi Arabian oil supplies).

In other words, men were less compelled by such notions of restoring the Caliphate as they were for ridding their holy lands from the presence of the "Christian Infidels".

Consider that the only times where Islamic terrorism has been directed explicitly at US interests has been when we occupied Islamic lands: Lebanon in 1982, the USS Cole in the 1990s and WTC in 1993 for our involvement and occupation of Saudi Arabia under Clinton, and the WTC and Pentagon in 9/11/2001 for our continued deployments there.

Of course, the price of our deployment in S. Arabia is our access to cheap oil, and our dependence upon it is as much a threat to our national security as Islamic terrorism ever was.

Islam is expansionist and quite aggressive, but was very much weakened by the artificial divisions of the retrenching and then soon-to-be defunct Ottoman Empire imposed over the Middle East by the British and French at the during the 19th century, and cemented by treaty at the end of WW1. It has been stymied by the various artificial nations and subnational tribalism that prevents a unified Iraq from even emerging successfully from the chaos imposed upon it after Saddam's demise. In Saddam, we had one great big evil dictator that could be more or less cuckolded into submission by the international world order.

Now we have hundreds of sheikhs and petty chieftains and cell groups of various (and changing) allegiances to try and pin down, as well as certain agents-provocateurs like Mookie al-Sadr to keep nailed down.

Had we pursued a course of non-interventionism and directed our trillions of dollars spent on this war (and the maintenance of Iraq after the actual cessation of hostilities against the Ba'athist government of Iraq) into the development of both our off-shore oil, oil shale, and alternative energy sources as well as sourcing sugars and technologies for ethanol production from Brazil instead of jeopardizing our corn feedstock and even our entire food chain.

[syn]

"And I'm sure you are aware there is another serious breach in our right to privacy going on right now. Warrantless wiretapping on American citizens."

Jharp, paranoid much? I mean really dude smoking dope doesn't hold any kind of authority you think it does.

[seekeronos]

Adjunct Question:

If the "war on terrorism" still remains as a threat to American sovereignty and security, how does the nation better deal with it?

Defund the war.

And by that, I am not talking about defunding our troops or leaving them high and dry; by necessity we must withdraw in a safe and orderly fashion first.

Rather, defund the Saudis and their Arabian cohorts who are at the home of the Moon Demon's cult of Islam, and defund the terrorists who derive a large income from various Saudi government "Islamic charities", whose monies later find their way to groups like Hamas and the remains of the PLO and Al-Qaeda.

If indeed Al-Qaeda's greatest grievance was the presence of "infidel crusaders" in their sand box, then let us oblige them only this one time, and leave them to their scorpion-infested slice of hell, and no longer fund their fat masters with our addiction to their sweet, oily nectar.

A pastor I know once told me that "...it is not possible to please God by doing wrong to bring about good". This is also Biblical as well, as reflected in Romans 3:8 and elsewhere, being consistent with Christ's character.

Therefore, to defeat Islamic terrorism abroad without visiting undo evil upon them, and an undue and overly burdensome expense to our children and grandchildren for a war yet to be paid in full, we will do better to *defund* the enemy's ability to wage war, by refusing to pay for their product (oil) and gradually, transitioning to our own localized fuel sources.

Coal be gasified and liquefied through proven processes; there is enough coal to last us for 50-100 years at our current usage. Oil Shale became viable to refine in situ at around $80/Bbl if I am not mistaken. And we can source methane hydrates from the ocean floor which can give us another 100-odd years of fuel while we ponder how to grow and go greener with our energy requirements, and take a more measured amount of time in letting market forces instead of hooting Al-Gorites help us transition from a grossly inefficient urb-suburb sprawl city design into designs that make car travel as we know it less of a necessity.

By disentangling ourselves from the crushing weight of our "strategic agreements" to secure our access to Saudi Oil, by withdrawing from that particular sphere of influence, we can also reduce our footprint in the Islamic world.

Let China and Russia bleed themselves dry by dealing with these quarrelsome and oft-offended people who worship a black iron meteorite with its associated idol/cult of a moon demon; even now, the Saudi oil fields are peaking, and the Arabs know that it is only a matter of time - a decade or two on the outside, a few years at the inside - before the dinosaur gravy train runs down to a expensive, sea water tainted trickle.

Let American ingenuity and science take us into an era of energy self-sufficiency (for energy is a national security issue, an one that we should not entrust to another nation or coalition of nations).

[syn]

"If indeed Al-Qaeda's greatest grievance was the presence of "infidel crusaders" in their sand box, then let us oblige them only this one time, and leave them to their scorpion-infested slice of hell, and no longer fund their fat masters with our addiction to their sweet, oily nectar."

Hmm, oil wasn't around when we had to fight Islamic Jihad on the shores of Tripoli so how will our not buying mid-eastern oil going to change a war which has been fought as far back since 1683 when Islam came knocking on the gates of Vienna?

Further the point, America doesn't get most of it's oil from the mid-east so how will you get the rest of the world to stop buying mid-eastern oil?

The fallacy of the oil argument is that for Islamic Jihad it's not about the oil, it's about the Allah.

Even if America never purchased an iota of mid-eastern oil, this would not end the quest for the Caliphate.

[templar knight]

You are absolutely right, syn. The reinstitution of the Caliphate has everything to do with power and Islamic supremacy. The US just happens to be the power most able to stop their plans. Consider that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, long before the US had any presence in the Muslim lands, which were, by the way, formerly Christian.

[IslamoLlama]

Just to refresh us on the original Obama quote (that I had to daisy chain link through three different sites to actually find):

"-- “It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” --"

Shorter Obama: The right wing is going to smear me.

Shorter Dan Riehl: HE CALLED ME A RACIST!

Shorter Wingnut Commentators: Blah blah I'm not a racist blah blah Barack is unpopular blah blah *wets pants over brown people* blah blah Democrats are worse.

I think I've just saved us all another 50-60 posts. You can all return to your caves now.

It's just interesting that wingnuts want to prove Obama's point. Talk about economics and fiscal policy? About setting reasonable tax rates that don't reward billionaire investors while punishing families scraping the $200k Alt Min Tax ceiling? About funding of government programs? About accountability and transparency in the DoJ, the EPA, and the DHS? Fuck no. Let's talk about how Obama is a secret Muslim reverse racist who wants to turn America into the New Caliphate and make Osama Bin Laden his VP.

And they called Clinton's VP the Goracle. How do the dirty liberals keep calling all the conservative plays before they're made? It simply boggles the mind.

[seekeronos]

"--- It's just interesting that wingnuts want to prove Obama's point. Talk about economics and fiscal policy? About setting reasonable tax rates that don't reward billionaire investors while punishing families scraping the $200k Alt Min Tax ceiling? About funding of government programs? About accountability and transparency in the DoJ, the EPA, and the DHS? Xxxx no. Let's talk about how Obama is a secret Muslim reverse racist who wants to turn America into the New Caliphate and make Osama Bin Laden his VP. ---"

How about scrapping or paring down useless and/or overreached departments like the DHS, the BATF, and the Dept. of Education?

How about withdrawing from the UN and limit our alliances with others to matters of trade and as needed, regional defense (such as NORAD) ?

How about privatizing social security in part or in whole, so as to make this ponzi-like relic from the New Deal actually solvent and workable into the future?

How about promoting solutions that preserve liberty and the free market and freedom of choice over grand statist interventionism?

But alas, this is not even on the table for most liberals and socialists, now, is it?

[Worst President Ever]

Actually, for other than right-wing ideologues, those aren't on the table at all. But nice of you to try to skip over a real discussion of those issues to simply conclude that somehow all Good Americans think exactly like you when the exact opposite is the truth.

[JustOneMan]

"reverse racist" Ohhhhhh so politically correct! ya moron....

JOM

[seekeronos]

As for TK and syn's observations...

Islam has always been a problem and a thorn in the side of civilizations both east and west of Israel. The ramblings of a mad demon possessed "prophet" and his pet moon demon set all of Araby and much of the western world ablaze with the fires of pillage, rape, and destruction.

Long ago, the Bible (Genesis 21) prophesied of Islam, the spiritual descendant of Ishmael, the unwanted son of Abraham through the bondwoman Hagar who was cast out, that he was a hunter, and that his hand would ever be at strife among men; and his progeny would become were a war-like race of tribes.

I firmly believe that Europe will in this next generation react (and possibly with a greatly disproportionate reaction) against its Muslim problems, and that Russia and China will certainly not give any quarter should their Muslim populations get ornery.

As for America and our dealings with the would-be Caliphate, we entirely withdraw from that region, save only for providing some assistance to Israel...

... we should adopt a rather simple policy of threatening certain annihilation to the major Islamic holy cities, with a view toward destroying particular objects of moon-demon worship such as the Kaaba in Mecca (S. Arabia) and the shrine of Ali in Qom (Iran) and possibly even the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, if Al-Qaeda or another such group attacks us.

And also promise (not merely threaten) a massive nuclear response against S. Arabia, Iran, and Syria, should Islamic terrorists detonate any radiological or nuclear munitions against US targets.

I strongly believe that S. Arabia could have done far more to reign in and even capture its rogue son, Osama bin Laden, had the appropriate economic and/or military pressures (i.e. immediate withdrawal from the M.E. in 2001 and leaving S. Arabia to Saddam's tender mercies) been applied.

Beyond those things, policing the world against the menace of Islam should not be a burden which American taxpayers are forced to bear. Indeed, we will do well to trade with trustworthy members of the global community in the interests of common defense, but as is the case with fire ants or any other pestilent insects, one does better to kill the bugs in one's own house and keep them out, rather than trying to tramp all over the neighbourhood or town looking for antnests or wasp's nests to knock over.

Let us bring the valiant defenders of American freedom back home, and let them train and keep the terrorists out of America, and capture, try, and punish the ones who do wrong here on our soil.

Let us end this $12Bn/month exercise in slavery to our Arab masters, and free our selves from dependence upon their product.

And the end of the oil age is almost at hand for Araby as well; one can only expect that the madness amongst the Mohammedans will contribute to a great many of them slaughtering each one their brothers as their cash cow finally dies the death and nations finally learn by necessity to derive energy from other sources.

[seekeronos]

"--- But nice of you to try to skip over a real discussion of those issues to simply conclude that somehow all Good Americans think exactly like you when the exact opposite is the truth. ---"

(WPE)

Well, FWIW, I never claimed that my opinion was the majority view. But I do claim that it is the most sensible view compared to the nanny-statism y'all liberals love.

[IslamoLlama]

"--
How about scrapping or paring down useless and/or overreached departments like the DHS, the BATF, and the Dept. of Education?

How about withdrawing from the UN and limit our alliances with others to matters of trade and as needed, regional defense (such as NORAD) ?

How about privatizing social security in part or in whole, so as to make this ponzi-like relic from the New Deal actually solvent and workable into the future?

How about promoting solutions that preserve liberty and the free market and freedom of choice over grand statist interventionism?
--"

You're absolutely right, Seek. John McCain isn't going out of his way to talk about any of these. And the MSM hasn't been very eager to promote any of these agendas. Why? In part, because they're wildly unpopular. George Bush tried to privatize social security after his 2004 election victory and got some of the biggest approval ratings drops in his administration for his trouble. Declines in funding and quality of public education are very often reasons to kick a city councilman or a Superintendent or a state congresscritter to the curb. The UN has a higher approval rating than the US Congress - I think you'll see us dissolve the latter before we leave the former. And those out on the forefront of protecting freedom and liberty with the US - the ACLU, People for the American Way, et al - are the same evil Soros-funded hyper-liberals that the conservative movement regularly bashes. Tune into FOX News and you'll hear O'Reily rants on a daily basis against these organizations. No one else will talk about them.

McCain will be running away from the shadow of conservative ideology for the next five months. Don't expect him to address any of these issues. He's on the losing side of all of them.

[jharp]

"and restore civil liberties to what they should be under our Constitution."

Then Obama is your man.

"And by that, I am not talking about defunding our troops or leaving them high and dry; by necessity we must withdraw in a safe and orderly fashion first."

Then Obama is your man.

"Spending?"

Certainly cannot count on the GOP to change things. They just blew through $4 trillion.

Obama again.

"How about privatizing social security in part or in whole."

There is nothing keeping you from a private retirement account now. And as a matter of fact quite a few folks are doing it. Social security is to keep the poor folks to not have to eat dog food and has worked remarkably well.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Hilarious. Obama merely predicted the GOP fall campaign against him - the same tactic the GOP ALWAYS uses: avoid discussion of the issues, and focus on division. In this case the divisive tool would be Obama's race. Now, when you morons use race as the way you have done so since "the Southern Strategy" was developed, Obama can say, "I told you so." He out-played you again. The problem is that the GOP elite thinks that the rest of the country is as stupid as it thinks its base is.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Islam has always been a problem and a thorn in the side of civilizations both east and west of Israel. The ramblings of a mad demon possessed "prophet" and his pet moon demon set all of Araby and much of the western world ablaze with the fires of pillage, rape, and destruction. --"

... ... ...

Wow. I... uh...

Wow.

That's some serious crazy in your morning coffee there, Seek. You might want to cut back on your cups-a-day.

[jharp]

Fortune Magazine. Interview with McCain and Obama.

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?

Obama: If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.

[seekeronos]

"--- What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy? .... ---"

Shorter article:

Obama [alternative energy, no drilling, bad for the economy, needs bigger government involvement]

McCain [War on terror! Smack some more Arabs and Persians around! Booga booga!]

... same old, same old stuff.

Energy is arguably the crux of our security problem. Bigger government should not be necessary, other than to mandate development of ANWR and off-shore oil before the ChiComs drill it and suck it all out from under our noses.

Then develop our oil shale and methane hydrates as well as reducing sugar tariffs to breed more ethanol. Build more nuke plants. Develop solar concentrator plants and convection towers.

Harvest lightning if possible.

Avoid entanglements in foreign wars.

We can have it without sacrificing our liberty at the altar of the Nanny State Socialist government, if we truly want it.

"--- There is nothing keeping you from a private retirement account now. ---"
(jharp)

Indeed, I am doing exactly that. I have utterly no confidence in the SSA's ability to provide me with anything close to a sustainable income when I retire, and unless something changes, my children will certainly have no inheritance with the American SSA system.

So yes, I have been building up my portfolio accordingly.

"--- Obama is your man. ---"

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is my man for 2008, as was Dr. Ron Paul until he was mathematically eliminated. While this is some intersection between liberal and Pale-Conservative ideas, I suspect they are few and far between. I cannot abide by any politician who knowingly wants to increase the scope and size of the federal government when non-expansive options are workable and available.