Democrats & Liberals Archives

Barack Obama, the Terrorism Slayer

We Americans, in our greatest display of enthusiasm, democracy and tolerance that I can remember, elected a black president. Barack Obama is the victor. United States is the victor. The civilized world is the victor. And the terrorists are the losers.

I was rooting for Obama the minute he announced his candidacy. After the announcement almost everyone, white and black, said that he, as a black, did not have a chance. But he did it. During the primary, the word was that a black could not beat an established white woman, especially one as powerful as Hillary Clinton. But he did it. Then during the general presidential campaign people said that though the public was disenchanted with Republicans he would not make it because he is black. But he did it.

Against all odds, against old-fashioned opinion, against perceived racism, Barack Obama won. What a glorious day. We have a black president-elect. We have reason to be proud. As soon as the election was called, African-Americans went wild with joy and danced in the streets. Some still are euphoric. Many of the dancers were white and many other colors. And that's good. It's nice to see the downtrodden filled with hope and looking forward to a bright new future.

At long last, Rev. Martin Luther King's dream is close to becoming a reality.

One of the greatest problems U.S. has had up to now is divisions in our society. Blacks were separated from whites, Hispanics and Asians were not full citizens, and religious extremists bullied the rest of us to accept their ideas. Electing a black president is not enough to change hearts and minds. But it is one step towards healing our divisionary wounds. It's a great day for America!

Electing Barack Obama has much greater ramifications than unifying the country. It tells the world that we are returning to the ideals that make our country great. This is recognized by Europeans, Africans, Asians and South Americans. It is even recognized by Middle Easterners. Read what Hooman Majd, a writer familiar with Iranian affairs, has to say:

The disbelief and even shock that some Iranians might feel as they wake up on Wednesday the fifth of November, just as the news networks here are calling the election for Obama, is partly because the American people, and the American system, have shown that the promise of America, an empty one to them and many others across the globe for the past eight years, is once again alive and well. A remarkable opportunity has opened up, for both the U.S. and Iran, to begin the process of reconciliation, and Iranians are hoping that President Obama views this opportunity as they do.

Al Qaeda depends on division. It flourishes where religious extremism dominates. It is active where there is resentment of America. With one election we have shown the world that we believe in tolerance and that we respect people of all races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. We are now in a position to reduce resentment around the world and decrease the influence of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

The election of Barack Obama, I believe, does more to fight terrorism than any military action we have taken up to now. What a commander-in-chief he will be!

Posted by Paul Siegel at November 5, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #269625


After living in The Middle East, I can tell you our president, black of white, will not make one bit of diffentance to them. They hate us for the fact we do not kill those who are not like us. We do not put God above the Rule of Law. Well I wish Barack well this will not be the end.


Posted by: captdsulu at November 5, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #269628

that covers a lot of territory and is a mighty broad statement. Yes some hate us because we do not follow their god. But some hate us because we talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
We talk freedom for all, but support elected rulers being overthrown.We talk freedom for all but support kings that rule. We talk freedom for all but when people vote in a administration we refuse to acknowledge it or ever talk to it.
don’t you think its time we start walking the walk?
and as a final point — “they” still do not = all
— Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 5, 2008 8:17 PM
Comment #269632


Many who hate us, also hate each other…they hate therefore they hate…some of those who hate us do so because we steal their resources and riches, show contempt for their cultures, etc.

For the first, we’ll never be able to change, but for the second, Mr. Obama may very well help lead us into a more informed, more tolerant and accepting world view. Perhaps he will convince us to use better manners in our business dealings…who knows how much damage has been done by the current administration, but you can believe one thing for sure…Obama cannot do worse.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 5, 2008 9:20 PM
Comment #269634


Are you not going to chastize AP for a post about Obama being black?

To be honest, I never thought that we were a racist country in recent history. Especially not the day before the election. But to be honest the idea of judging anyone on the color of their skin has never made a lick of sense to me. Kind of like saying that a black retriever is somehow better than a blonde one. And the knowledge that our one common ancestor was black doesn’t seem to lend towards looking at anyone differently for a difference in pigmentation in their skin.

But people think I’m strange and ignorant, so maybe I’m not the guy to talk to about that…

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 9:51 PM
Comment #269635

Erg, sorry, meant Paul not AP. I blame old age.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 9:56 PM
Comment #269639

I hope Obama brings some unity to our government and country but I believe he will actually be a polarizing president.

Posted by: Chris Dysinger at November 5, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #269640


BTW, are you saying we were divided in the 90s when Al Qaeda bombed us repeatedly and planned and trained for 9/11?

Just curious, I want to make sure I understand the premise now, that Obama is going to do something that no other president has done before, unite the US.

Personally, without division I’m afraid that we would be a boring, insignificant, docile and ‘ruled’ country.

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 10:30 PM
Comment #269643

Rhinehold, you can always count on division in here… ;)
Chris, did you see the reaction last night when he was named President Elect??? People standing together, hugging, crying, cheering….TOGETHER…all in a show of solidarity. That was a pretty good indication of what surely will be only the beginning.

Posted by: janedoe at November 5, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #269644


His supporters were united? That’s nice, what about the other 47% of the country?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 10:54 PM
Comment #269653

BTW, Have I said that I love South Park lately?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 6, 2008 12:32 AM
Comment #269654

47% of the country voted for a ticket whose Vice-Presidential candidate did not know Africa is a continent, NOT a country! She could not name the parties to NAFTA…

It’s being reported on FOX news, of all places. The knives are out for Palin.

And we wonder why the world seemed to prefer Obama to McCain? Hmm. That’s a real poser.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2008 12:56 AM
Comment #269665

As I said in Stephen’s thread below, I am willing to give Barry a chance…but not a free pass.

Rhinehold is right…nearly 47% voted for McCain, and Barry only got 1.5% more votes than Bush did against Kerry.

Thus, while Santa gives, he can take away too.

As far as America being a racist country: while it is not THE most racist country in the world, it IS a racist country.

We eliminated one race (The American Indian), enslaved another (Africans), and exploited Southern Europeans, Irish, Hisanics among others.

If you didn’t arrive on the Mayflower, at some point,your ethnicity has been discriminated against,for heaven’s sake.

As I said: Let’s not make Barry into the Messiah. He’s not. He is a flawed human being…as we all are.

Right now, we have a credit crunch and a housing crisis to deal with, or else Barry’s light will dim very very quickly.

Posted by: sicilain eagle at November 6, 2008 5:18 AM
Comment #269667

I would agree that the electorate is getting a little too much crdit here. The McCain ticket didn’t have much to offer and they still dominated a lot of the deep south. Hillary would have done better.

Posted by: Schwamp at November 6, 2008 7:29 AM
Comment #269672

>Are you not going to chastize AP for a post about Obama being black?

Posted by: Rhinehold at November 5, 2008 09:51


My criticisms were aimed at the MSM for shining a continuous light on the blackness…the aim of their programs were all about our electing a black president…all the guests were of race, and all the emphasis was on race…almost all the time since the announcement has been dedicated to his being black and how much it meant to black people.

Well, it meant that much to me, and to janedoe, and to Adrienne, and to phx8, and perhaps to you as well. It should amount to the same importance to nearly all Americans, but you would never know it from what you see, read and hear from the MSM.

Obama is black…I would not want to change that…I donated to him, worked door to door for him, and voted for him…I see and understand the great thing that means…but, we are in a hell of a mess right now…one dishonorable war, one necessary war, an economic meltdown, a divided nation, no cohesion…and the MSM seems to want us to know we elected a black president…it bothered me that they were indicating that his race was the most important element of his election. Bah! Race was the least significant issue to me. He was twice the man, with twice the credentials for the job…that is what I’d like to see discussed in the Media.

What AP, Paul, Stephen, et al, post here is for our perusal, dissection and comment, and while I hold great admiration for them and other posters, what they say only effects America in the most subtle ways…what the MSM says goes directly into the mainstream and is digested immediately.

Posted by: Marysdude at November 6, 2008 9:39 AM
Comment #269677


“And we wonder why the world seemed to prefer Obama to McCain? Hmm. That’s a real poser.”

it doesn’t matter who the world prefers, they can’t vote in our elections. all that maters is who the american people prefer, and we saw that on tuesday night. for better or worse he is our new prsident, and we will all go about our lives just as we always have.

Posted by: dbs at November 6, 2008 10:10 AM
Comment #269681

Excerpt from “Stratfor” geopolitical analysis.

“Obama is an extraordinary rhetorician, and as Aristotle pointed out, rhetoric is one of the foundations of political power. Rhetoric has raised him to the presidency, along with the tremendous unpopularity of his predecessor and a financial crisis that took a tied campaign and gave Obama a lead he carefully nurtured to victory. So, as with all politicians, his victory was a matter of rhetoric and, according to Machiavelli, luck. Obama had both, but now the question is whether he has Machiavelli’s virtue in full by possessing the ability to exercise power. This last element is what governing is about, and it is what will determine if his presidency succeeds.”


Posted by: Jim M at November 6, 2008 10:28 AM
Comment #269685

Paul: Barack Obama, the Terrorism Slayer

I would caution everyone who supported Obama and his party (including myself) against this sort of hubris, which (as hubris is wont to do) is liable to come back and bite us in the donkey.

One huge thing Obama/Biden have going in their favor is that they are capable of listening, thinking and acting in ways Bush/Cheney (or McCain/Palin, for that matter) never have and never will.

I can’t help but believe that if an intelligence briefing was to cross their desks titled, for example, “Bin Laden determined to strike in America”, they would think through the implications of that and order appropriate action, rather than, for example, working with the AG to cut terrorism funding for the DOJ.

The difference is that Bush Cheney and McCain/Palin were, are and always will be ideologues who see everything in terms of us vs. them, in pure black and white.

Obama/Biden do not and never have, that I’m aware of.

This is a good thing, in terms of fighting terrorism and in all other aspects of governance. Whether it will ultimately result in Obama/Biden being successful against terrorism or in any other aspect of governance, it is way, way too soon to tell.

But at least we have hope of starting to head in the right direction come January 20, 2009.

Posted by: EJN at November 6, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #269686

To put it politely, I don’t think you had experience with the right kind of people when you were over there.

And for those who do think like you warn they do? They just had their world rocked. After eight years of Bush, the America that was supposed to be inherently hostile to Arabs and Muslims. But now somebody just got elected whose Grandfather was a Muslim, whose middle name is Arab. The whiplash of that change is considerable. You thought you had American’s pegged? Think again.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2008 11:10 AM
Comment #269709

phx8 -

Didja notice that NO Conservatives wanted to comment on the news that Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent, or that she didn’t know what countries were in NAFTA or even what countries comprised North America?

Y’know, I think that’s one difference ‘twixt them and us - to liberals and independents, education and an understanding of the world around us is truly important. To conservatives, it’s “what we tell you is all you really need to know!” That’s how we get intellectually incurious leaders like Bush, McCain, and Palin.

Guess we know why the great majority of academia is liberal….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at November 6, 2008 1:57 PM
Comment #269710

Stephen D.: Obama’s middle name and his ancestry means nothing. In the eyes of Islam, he is an infidel. To gain the kind of support in the Islamic world that can negate terrorism, Obama would have to insist on a new deal for the exploited masses that cling to their guns and religion. Neither the Royalists, the Islamists nor the capitalists would like that one bit.

A good starting point for Obama, in the Middle East, would be to announce that he will not sustain the Bush Administrations veto of the Iraqi constitution.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #269716

It’s appalling. In a way, not knowing the parties involved in NAFTA is worse, since Alaska borders Canada.

You’re right, only US citizens vote. However, bringing someone like McCain and Palin into office would have signaled the onset of a new Cold War. McCain’s reaction to the situation in Georgia was ridiculous, and yes, it really should matter to Americans whether our administration wants to work with the Russians, or oust them from the G8, the way McCain wanted. The Russians most certainly noticed, and it will affect relations to the good with Obama in office for years to come.

Posted by: phx8 at November 6, 2008 2:19 PM
Comment #269717

Phx8, what I’m waiting for is how they are going to spin the “meeting in the towel” episode. No, I take that back. I honestly believe that the campaign staff and party leaders and pretty embarassed, and really have no defense.
The other stuff is one thing..the over-buying of cloting for the family. The comment about hillbillies was kind of appropriate seeing as how the woman probably wasn’t even aware of the existance of some of those stores. Eeeeehawwww.
The towel incident, however, shows that she has no sense of propriety to add to her lack of plain common sense.

Posted by: janedoe at November 6, 2008 2:20 PM
Comment #269718


The Party Of The Great White Father nearly held on to the presidency with religion, guns and national defense. If all the bad economic news had come now instead of in September and October, everyone could be singing a different tune this week.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2008 2:21 PM
Comment #269720

Campaign ‘08, the Bell Tolls for Thee
by Emmett Tyrrell,_the_bell_tolls_for_thee

“Critics have been writing obituaries for the conservative movement since 1964. I recall their pessimistic reports in 1987 with great clarity. That was when the Reagan Revolution supposedly was finished off by Iran-Contra and a stock market decline. In the years ahead, the principles of Reagan conservatism came to be adopted even by Democrats. The reason is clear: Those principles protect personal liberty, encourage prosperity, and protect American national security.

In the months ahead, the conservative movement will regroup. It will refine its principles for the present needs of the nation: growth, personal liberty, and national security. It will find the next generation of conservative political leaders. If President Obama really makes good on his promise to return to the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, a revitalized conservative movement will be back on top sooner than one might expect. Recall, if you will, that this happened two years after the Clintons brought “change” to Washington in 1992.”

Posted by: Jim M at November 6, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #269722

“It’s nice to see the downtrodden filled with hope and looking foward to a bright new future.”

Yes it is but, reality will be reestablished soon, just like it was 16 years ago when the Man From Hope was elected.

Posted by: jlw at November 6, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #269723

JimM, you might regroup and refine your principles for PART of the nation. That part which reflects only your assessment of need.
The rest of us can think our own thoughts…..thank you!!
jlw, that man from Hope didn’t do too bad with us during his time in the White House.

Posted by: janedoe at November 6, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #269730

jim m:

“Those principles protect personal liberty, encourage prosperity, and protect American national security”

Nope. Protect personal liberty and deny someone the right to marry based on gender, that is not protecting liberty, it is the opposite. Encourage prosperity? Who doesn’t? Protect American National Security? The conservatives do not monopolize priority…

Posted by: treehugger at November 6, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #269733

Jim M-
Pendulum swing politics is an unreliable oversimplification of things. If it were that simple, we wouldn’t have kept the house for so long. Nor would Republicans have kept their hold.

It’s helpful to consider things in terms of sheer dissatisfaction. It could happen quickly, but Barack has to prove himself an utter moron at the job before people truly desert him. I think people who are counting on a sudden reversal are indulging in wishful thinking. If you want another grassfire to sweep across, the grass has to grow back and get dry as well. Americans are simply exhausted with the Republicans.

Now you got two choices: double down trying to bring back the old party, or allow yourselves the blessed freedom to figure out things for yourself. The latter may not leed to a Republican party recognizeable to the one to day, but it may lead to a preservation of some of the core principle that can still apply and work in the 21st Century.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 6, 2008 4:26 PM
Comment #269735

I frequently hear liberals talk about the need for more regulation of our economy. Will Mr. Obama use the regulators we presently have or, along with a liberal congress, create a whole batch of new ones to add to the bloat?

There are 15 cabinet departments, nine of which control various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.

Here’s my question to you: Can one be sane and at the same time hold that ours is an unregulated laissez-faire economy?

It is incorrect to say that laissez-faire or free markets are unregulated. There is ruthless regulation, but it’s not by government. Take the mortgage industry. In the absence of government interference, it is unlikely that a lender would extend a mortgage to a person with a poor credit history, making no down payment, and providing no verifiable employment history. But under the pressure of the government’s Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying up or guaranteeing such mortgages, a lender will.

The blame for our current financial mess rests with government, with the major player being the Federal Reserve Board keeping interest rates artificially low and the congressional and White House market interference in the name of more home ownership. In the clamor for more regulation over our financial institutions, has anybody bothered to ask whether people in government know what they’re doing?

Posted by: Jim M at November 6, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #269737

Come on Stephen, are you guys going to govern with the belief that “Americans are simply exhausted with the Republicans” because you got 52% of the vote, or are you going to try and do this right and acknowledge that at least 56 million of your fellow Americans voted against your policies?

Your belief that this small separation means that Americans are wanting to move even further left is exactly why “pendulum swing politics” occur.

Work with us. Respect us. Don’t try to think for us or live our lives for us, because nothing positive will come from that.

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #269738

sadly this could have also been done when the right had the ball.
“Work with us. Respect us. Don’t try to think for us or live our lives for us, because nothing positive will come from that.”

Was it?

Posted by: A Savage at November 6, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #269744

It absolutely could have been done when the right “had the ball” under Bush and when the left had the ball under clinton, but it was not.

Is that any reason to not do what is needed now?

Posted by: kctim at November 6, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #269761

Jim M - there are plenty of regulatory agencies in the federal government the problem has been under Bush that they did no regulating because most of the political appointees came from the industry they were regulating and will return to those industries after Bush is gone. Having departments and writing paychecks doesn’t ensure regulation. I also disagree with blaming this current crisis on poor people getting mortgages not the speculators that bundled them, got AIG to back them with no money behind it and when they failed because of unscrupulous lenders and ballooning interest rates AIG couldn’t pay and they failed.

kctim - Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and ran like he had a mandate then Kerry got 59 million votes and Bush said he was going to spend the political capital he earned. Obama got 64 million votes almost 8 million more than McCain and more votes than anyone in US history, compared to Bush he does have a mandate. At least 57 seats in the Senate and at least 255 seats in the House sounds like a mandate. That isn’t to say that I think he is going to run hard left - he doesn’t seem to want to do that but he could by George Bush’s reasoning. I doubt if I would be as gracious as Obama appears to be. I would take the opportunity to have Bush and Cheney tried for war crimes, close Gitmo, repeal the Patriot Act, pass strict anti-torture laws, pass universal single-payer health coverage for everyone, undo Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, enforce environmental regulations, pull out of Iraq, and apologize to the country and the rest of the world for the last 8 years - but that’s just me :)

Posted by: tcsned at November 6, 2008 7:16 PM
Comment #269764

Am I missing something here? Electing BHO fights terrorism? I don’t get it. Would Biden even agree with that? BHO just appointed, as his COS, someone who actually served in the Israeli army. Look up the rest in your favorite Wiki site. All the countries in between Israel and India are going to continue to be a problem, and the big terrorist attacks on us have been every 8 years after the elections. Pakistan is ready to explode since many there regard our policy in Opium Poppy Afghanistan as too pro India, but happy days are here again.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 6, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #269771

obama needs you in his administration. you’re great.

Posted by: albert colonomos at November 6, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #269774

Dam…maybe we need a lynching party. I mean, after all, he was elected two days ago and he still hasn’t done a f***ing thing right yet!!!!
You had no patience, and no tolerance for our concerns and disgust with what we got drug into kicking and screaming 8 years ago, so you might as well just dig in and brace yourselves.
Oh, and if by any means, you should find some iota of positive resulting from Obama’s election…….tell someone who wants to hear it. We’ll be encouraging in every way we can to make some good things happen. Nobody gave a rip what we wanted the last few years…..
Remember how this works…if there is only ONE party, that isn’t a Democracy.. I know that Bush aspired to this being his own kingdom, but we just weren’t ready to go back there.

Posted by: janedoe at November 6, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #269781

I truly hope they do learn to play together — but with the past 2 years when the left had semi control of congress and all the right did was obstruction,they are the ones that will have to make concessions.or get left out completely.
As a aside — I am at the point here that I think that all the really big ass banks and financial institutions need to be split up for the good of the world. When a company is so big the government has to bail it out for the nations sake —Its just to damn big.
Now granted —I am just a dumb ass farm boy —but those are my thoughts
—- Savage

Posted by: A Savage at November 6, 2008 8:48 PM
Comment #269783

ohreally - not that COS isn’t an important role but I doubt if anyone in Al Qaeda cares who Obama’s COS is. If he had made Emmanuel his Sec of Defense that would be another thing.

I suspect the appointment of Emmanuel had more to do with the ability to handle Congress than his foreign policy leanings. Nor do I think it is about ideology it’s about political ability.

Posted by: tcsned at November 6, 2008 8:56 PM
Comment #269793

There are undeniably two strains of sentiment in America, and have been since the founding of the Republic. One is deeply suspicious of the masses, desiring rule by the elite (the educated were pretty rare back then, as there were, what a half-dozen colleges in the newborn U.S.?, so the elite included the well-born as much as the well-read); one is deeply suspicious of rule by the philosopher-king, knowing full well that the distance between the philosopher-king and the political-king (autarch) is short indeed.

The irony is how we shift our personal allegiance with circumstances. Those who truly believed in the rule of the wise (educated, whatever) were the originators of the Electoral College, the bete noire of the 2000 election. Many of the apoplectics of 2000, when confronted by an educated candidate and a highly educated candidate eight years ago this week flocked to the highly educated candidate, proclaiming a desire to be governed by the brightest.

I can’t help but feel that loudly praising the Ivy League educated (I’m a Yale grad, myself) is infantilizing, and based upon my personal knowledge of fellow classmates, wholly unwarranted in too many cases.

There are, of course, many twists and turns in this issue: How can stupid voters judge the merits of those smarter than themselves? What justification is there for the stupid to vote when they can elect the stupid? Isn’t a necessary element of democracy the need to celebrate even stupid choices, just because they are democratically obtained (the “vox populi vox dei” argument)? Or are democratic results only to be cheered when they are wise? Should a nondemocratic process replace democracy if it promises to more reliably select wise rulers? (Whoops—time warp back to Philadelphia in 1787 there!)

Posted by: Christopher Bieda at November 6, 2008 10:35 PM
Comment #269803


“Didja notice that NO Conservatives wanted to comment on the news that Palin didn’t know Africa was a continent, or that she didn’t know what countries were in NAFTA or even what countries comprised North America?”

It’s not worth discussing because it’s simply not true. The reason these things are being said about Palin, by members of McCain’s campaign is to destroy any future chance of Palin running as a conservative.

Jim M hit the nail on the head:

“In the months ahead, the conservative movement will regroup. It will refine its principles for the present needs of the nation: growth, personal liberty, and national security. It will find the next generation of conservative political leaders.”

Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are the next leaders of the conservative movement. I brought up a point last week of a movement within the Republican Party to win elections without conservatives. This idea still has root among moderate republicans and is the reason why there is a move to make conservatives of no-effect.


“It’s helpful to consider things in terms of sheer dissatisfaction. It could happen quickly, but Barack has to prove himself an utter moron at the job before people truly desert him. I think people who are counting on a sudden reversal are indulging in wishful thinking.”

The wishful thinking is to think BHO has the ability to reach across the isle. Pelosie, Reid, and the leftist groups they are beholding to will never let this happen. Liberals can’t help themselves; they just naturally offend the majority’s rights. Even though liberals are such a small percentage of the population, they manage to gain the controlling positions and they think their wisdom so much greater than everyone else. As a result, they offend people. This is the reason all the media experts are publically questioning or demanding that BHO must reach across the isle. They helped to elect him and the want to cover themselves when it hits the fan.

The key for BHO is to shut down the right by silencing them. Thus, the “Fairness Doctrine” is enacted. All the rules must be changed and if that means violating the Constitution, then BHO will do it.

I would consider this election, “The perfect storm”. Only about 20% of America is liberal, so it required a good number of moderates and conservatives to vote for BHO. To prove my point, California is a blue state and I believe the last time they voted for a republican president was when Reagan won. And yet, as liberal as the state is, they voted by 52% to pass a ban on gay marriage. So there are people who hold to conservative ideals even though they commonly vote democrat. The point I’m making is power can pass from one party to another in the matter of one election. If BHO is too aggressive, in two years, the worm can turn. As it did at the end of Clinton’s first two years. And I don’t think he will be able to restrain himself or the rest of his party.

Posted by: Oldguy at November 7, 2008 12:03 AM
Comment #269810

Oldguy, denying something merely because you refuse to accept it does not alter it’s truth.
Nobody wanted to hear when we talked about how ignorant Palin is. The only thing that has changed since then, is that our early opinions have been confirmed by multiple sources. This one comes from your revered FOX…..’t_name_members_of_nafta__palin’s_lack_of_knowledgeability_comes_to_light/

Posted by: janedoe at November 7, 2008 1:34 AM
Comment #269818

You guys won and I know you guys will run the country how you want just as the previous administrations did. I was hoping things could be different this time, but I guess deep down I knew nothing was going to change.
So take a difference of a few million votes as a mandate, everybody on the right knew it would be like that anyway.

Great way to promote all that working together and unity Obama preached about on the campaign trail.

“they are the ones that will have to make concessions.or get left out completely”

Of course they are, its always the “other side” who is at fault, as we seen in the 90s and with Bush.
But hey, as I said to Tom, you guys won so go whatever route you want. Believe me, nobody on the right will be surprised.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 9:16 AM
Comment #269822

When you cut the first part of post out -the content of the post changes doesn’t it?
I truly hope they do learn to play together — but with the past 2 years when the left had semi control of congress and all the right did was obstruction,they are the ones that will have to make concessions.or get left out completely.

Posted by: A Savage at November 7, 2008 9:33 AM
Comment #269830

kctim - I hope things will be different as well - I am tired of the demonetization of the opposition. It is unhelpful and often petty. I recognize that not all good ideas come from my side of the aisle and that stubbornly refusing to listen to a good idea because there is a D or an R next to the person’s name is stupid. I was just pointing out that the previous administration thought that a mandate was something a lot less than what Obama got on Tuesday. I don’t think Obama will take the Bush definition of bipartisan meaning the other side does what we say. Everything he has said leads me to believe that he won’t govern that way and I hope he doesn’t. There will be issues that will wind up being partisan as there should be if a consensus cannot be reached or if compromise doesn’t lead to better legislation, I would be ok with that.

Posted by: tcsned at November 7, 2008 10:33 AM
Comment #269846

tscned wrote: “I also disagree with blaming this current crisis on poor people getting mortgages not the speculators that bundled them, got AIG to back them with no money behind it and when they failed because of unscrupulous lenders and ballooning interest rates AIG couldn’t pay and they failed.

Let’s think this through Tscned. Without loans to those who couldn’t possibly pay them back unless the housing bubble continued to expand there would have been many fewer unqualified mortgages to bundle.

In my 20’s (1960’s) I managed a consumer loan office and then as now there are three prerequisites for a good loan of any kind. Character, capacity (ability and intent to repay) and Collateral. I am not questioning the Character of the people in the defaulted and defaulting loans, but without the ability to repay and proper collateralization, regardless of how they were bundled…they represent the basic building block that collapsed causing the crisis.

Posted by: Jim M at November 7, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #269861

kctim, if there is any part of you that can be neutral for just a few minutes, then go back…just on this column and read the posts submitted by the anti-Obamas. There have been a few big enough to step away from the hate mantra and seek a little more neutrality. The rest are as nasty and hate filled as they were before the election. Others have become absolute paranoid rantings with no basis or justification.
If you’re having a problem with the Palin comments, well, that’s just your problem, because it’s now on every news station in the country, and probably abroad as well. You’re just ticked because we called that one and you couldn’t talk us down.
And yes, we bitched about Bush relentlesly, but if you’ll look around, it seems we were right about that one.

Posted by: janedoe at November 7, 2008 12:44 PM
Comment #269878

The content doesn’t change because the right blames the left for making them obstruct all the time.
Both sides are blaming the other side and nothing gets done.

I have seen nothing that points to them working together. But, I will hope as you do.

I have said that I hope both sides will respect each other and work together. I don’t know how much more neutral I can get right now.
My response was for your “you might as well just dig in and brace yourselves” comment. That is not the unity message Obama preached about on the campaign trail.

I have no problem with your all’s Palin comments. I know they are nothing but BS partisan talking points and I try to take them in stride. How can I take the towel thing serious when it comes from those who didn’t care about s*x in the Oval Office? How can I take concerns about her Africa thing serious, when they come from people who don’t care if the guy they voted for thinks there are 56 states in their own country?
Believe me, I am not “ticked” over your hypocrisy.

“And yes, we bitched about Bush relentlesly, but if you’ll look around, it seems we were right about that one”

Really? Then shouldn’t you give Pelosi all your information? She is so partisan I am sure she would love to see your evidence. Especially since she said she doesn’t have any yet.

Posted by: kctim at November 7, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #269888

I see no reason to preemptively start complaining about Obama’s inadequacies as a president now. That was for the campaign, which is now over, and he’ll undoubtedly be handing all kinds of ammunition to his detractors about his actual performance soon enough.

By the same token, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to imagine that Obama is going to be some kind of “terrorism-slayer,” especially in comparison to George Bush. If that happens, marvelous. But it’s kind of buying a lottery ticket and hoping for a million dollars. You can want to believe it will happen, but there are excellent reasons to anticipate that it won’t.

The fact that Obama won an election doesn’t simply grant him status as some kind of military or political hero when there’s nothing in his record to suggest that he’s made of the stuff that would require. It’s possible we could be surprised—but it would be just that. A surprise. Something that contradicts the indications already out there.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at November 7, 2008 2:56 PM
Comment #269919

tcsned, the COS varies from one POTUS to the next, but this one was clearly chosen because he knows more about the presidency than the electee does. FYI, his Wiki page appears to have been altered considerably. If I told you how, I might be accused of slurring and innuendoing.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 7, 2008 9:31 PM
Comment #269977

“FYI, his Wiki page appears to have been altered considerably. If I told you how, I might be accused of slurring and innuendoing”

one minute it took me to learn that it had not been updated since 10:50, 23 Dec 2003.

now if you have any info on him — they are always glad to have people contribute facts with good sources to back them up.

Posted by: A Savage at November 8, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #269983

A Savage, your information is incorrect. It has been altered. I not only know this from perusal of the page numerous times in the last year, but also from the listing in the search engine I use, which contains things that have been deleted from the page. That’s why Wikipedia is a joke. Look up ballet, Rahm E, and Wikipedia to verify that you don’t know what you are talking about. The part about his service to Israel has also been altered recently.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 8, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #269987

A Savage, nevermind, I should have guessed from the A. I was almost going to ask you what name you were using here before, but there have been so many.

Posted by: ohrealy at November 8, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #270004

Are you accusing me of having been banned here and sneaking in under a different name?

Posted by: A Savage at November 9, 2008 1:15 AM
Post a comment