On a Manifestation of Inexperience


Just as John McCain’s strongest and weakest points are his Washington experience and associations, Barack Obama’s strongest and weakest points are his lack of Washington associations and experience. But exactly how do these generalizations manifest themselves? In the past few months we have already seen one way.

Obama in the past month has left his church of 20 years and fired his Veep Vetter - two rather drastic and abrupt dissociations. Is Obama really that much slimier than the average politician in the company he keeps? Personally, I suspect not. But he's had less time than the average presidential candidate to cull his circle of confidants.

In the course of human affairs, we all make friends with some unsavory types. And in the course of political affairs, some of those friends are ratted out. Some politicians (like McCain) move sharply away from anyone they suspect is dirty; others (like the Clintons) move sharply away from those who can't effectively hide their dirt. Others (like President Harding) never move away and get burned - often badly.

With his meteoric rise from State Senator to odds-on 44th POTUS, Obama has had just a few years to relegate to the past some worrying types - Rev. Wright, Fr. Pfleger, and William Ayers. In addition, he has not been in Washington long enough to learn who is really pukka sahib and who is likely to have sleaze in every pocket. The resignation of Jim Johnson reveals either very bad luck or very poor knowledge of Johnson's character and reputation. Opinion Journal reviews the damage, and suggests further inquiry into the Veep Vetting team.

Obama's campaign is running low on excuses for its friends. But in reality, the between-the-lines message should be, "Hey, we're new at this game. We're getting rid of the slimy types as soon as we identify them." Whether they'll purge out such characters (and, more importantly, such behavior) quickly enough to govern effectively is, I think, a judgment fairly left with the voters.

Neither side in this game of "gotcha" should get too prickly: public officials and those who advise them are absolutely fair game for revelations of past malfeasance, whether in public service, business, or private life. At the same time, a campaign or administration should not be judged harshly for ignorance, as long as it acts promptly when the truth is revealed. McCain's response to the Keating Five scandal - immediate apology and sharp dissociation - is model behavior; the Clinton's cat-and-mouse games and last-minute pardons of friends and contributors are model misbehavior. Here's hoping Obama is more of a statesman than a politician.

Posted by Chops at June 12, 2008 1:17 PM
Comments
Comment #255317


I can help you and yours financially if you are willing to help me and mine financially. It might not be the primary reason people get into politics but, it is the primary reason for staying in politics.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #255318

For my conservative friends I recommend you take a look at Mike Huckabee’s new political action committee website at: www.huckpac.com

I have in the past contributed to the RNC and have now decided that I only wish to spend my money on conservatives for congress who represent my views. I have entrusted Huckpac to identify those who are worthy of my support as I simply don’t have the time and resources to investigate the conservative credentials of candidates all over the U.S.

Our Mission

Huck PAC is founded on the principles that make America great: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our Republican Party embodies these ideas and is best suited to lead America forward.

Huck PAC is committed to helping Republicans regain control of the House and Senate, regain a majority of governorships and elect John McCain as the 44th President of the United States.

Huck PAC will support Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty.

Huck PAC will identify candidates who hold firm to these principles, promote their campaigns and financially support their efforts.

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #255321

HuckPac is founded on fleecing the working consumers and enriching the already wealthy to ever loftier heights of wealth - See Huckabee’s National UNFAIR Sales Tax Plan.

The reason conservatives are losing control of government is their absolute insistence upon protecting the wealthy and bleeding the working non-wealthy through spending cuts that would affect them most and increasing their tax burden.

But, I am always pleased to see Conservatives of Republican variety (not true conservatives) put up another web site so we can keep and eye on them and what they are up to next.

Thanks, Jim M, for the heads up on this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 3:34 PM
Comment #255322

Chops, good article. I agree with your thrust. In an American election campaign there is always a dual track it follows. Issues and Distractions.

Guilt by association with folks having no relevance to the governance of the candidate on the Issues is a distraction, not an Issue. Regrettably, millions of voters confuse the two and vote on the Distractions instead of the Issues. Labels are a form of distraction from the issues. As Jim M just said, he will rely on the label affixed to HuckPac as ‘conservative’ rather than decide his vote on the issues.

America’s democratic process is truly a marvel considering its staying power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #255324

David said, “As Jim M just said, he will rely on the label affixed to HuckPac as ‘conservative’ rather than decide his vote on the issues.”

David, you may have issues, I have principles and support them with my vote and money.

David, since I can’t vote in every state (perhaps you have found a way to do that) and yet want to contribute to conservatives all over the country what would you suggest I do? I directly support my congressperson, Louie Gohmert, and am considering my senators in Texas. They may or may not receive my financial support as they come up for election.

David, what part of this mission statement would a conservative find objectionable; Huck PAC will support Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty.

My only objection to this mission statement is that it presumes there are no conservative democrats left. I would disagree. Many who were first time winners in 2006 ran on very conservative platforms and beat liberal republicans.

I can understand why liberals would disagree with this stated goal and they have MoveOn.Org to support as they directly oppose all of these conservative principles.

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #255328

Twenty-one years ago today, the greatest president of my lifetime said these famous words addressed to Premier Gorbachov of the Soviet Union; “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall”. The liberal community was horrified and trembled at the courage displayed by our president in their fear of offending the evil empire.

Twenty-one year later the liberals still peddle fear to our fellow citizens. They tell us to fear the freedom to make our own choices, to fear being responsible for ourselves and to rely on government to solve all our problems. They tell us to fear the very corporations who employ them. They tell us to fear some computer model that predicts global man-made warming based on faulty human input. They tell us to fear being militarily strong and to fear promoting freedom to all the worlds’s peoples.

The president understood that the Soviets only respected strength and he had the wisdom and clarity of purpose to make America’s military the strongest in the world. The world was proud and the people under the thumb of communists thugs were eventually freed from that burden.

Today, we have a democrat candidate who has neither wisdom or clarity of purpose other than to capitulate to our enemies by showing his weakness and unwillingness to directly confront those who would embroil the entire world in conflict.

What President Reagan accomplished with words backed by strength, Obama would hope to accomplish with empty words backed by weakness.

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #255331

Jim M, I suggest that you confine your vote and money support to candidates you KNOW are true to conservative principles. As we have witnessed these last 7 years, not all candidates running as conservatives ARE in fact, conservatives when it comes to acts and deeds in public office.

But, that is just my personal counsel. I believe a major part of the problem in American politics is the voters who vote for a candidate based on Party and not on the policy issue and positions of that individual candidate. The Party’s DO NOT filter and select the best candidates to govern. They filter and select the candidates MOST LIKELY TO WIN!

There is an enormous difference. As HuckPac says in its mission statement: “Huck PAC is committed to helping Republicans regain control of the House and Senate, regain a majority of governorships and elect John McCain as the 44th President of the United States.”

Which makes HuckPAC no different than any other organization dedicated to electing Republicans regardless of whether they will govern well, or according to true conservative principles.

Republicans and Conservative principles are often miles apart. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. True conservative principles require federal government to remain outside our personal life decisions. Too many Republicans insist on interfering with our personal lives, Terry Schiavo case as a point in fact.

There is no substitute to getting to know and critically evaluating the candidate’s own positions and words and issues.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #255339

Fair enough David. Give me your list of conservatives running for office that you have personally investigated. If I agree, I will send my donations to them directly if I don’t find them at Huckpac. You obviously have more time and resources than I do.

I agree with you and as I said previously, no longer support the RNC. And again, so you will not misunderstand, I support conservatives, regardless of sex, race, religion or anything else where ever I find them in any party or with no party backing at all.

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #255341

“a campaign or administration should not be judged harshly for ignorance”, sounds like an apology for the current administration. Thanks for the laugh, Chops.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 12, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #255342

Jim M said: “Twenty-one years ago today, the greatest president of my lifetime said these famous words addressed to Premier Gorbachov of the Soviet Union; “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down that wall”. The liberal community was horrified and trembled at the courage displayed by our president in their fear of offending the evil empire.”

Man, what brainwashing to believe that one man’s words had that kind of effect. Germans had been crying those words for decades and the wall never came down. That wall came down due to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union from within. Every president since the wall was erected called for that wall to come down. Reagan just happened to be President when the wall finally did.

Yet, you regard him exceptional for uttering the same words millions had uttered before him? That is truly brainwashed in my opinion. That is not an adherence to conservative principles, that is absorption of GOP propaganda.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #255345

Jim M, I have not yet had time to review candidates in depth for Congress - I have been too busy just compiling a list of them all with their websites. You might want to check the list out for further research.

It would be presumptuous indeed of me to offer conservative candidates to you after warning you not to rely on the GOP to recommend them. I am not a died in the wool conservative, I only adhere to many conservative fiscal principles.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 12, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #255352

JimM

And again, so you will not misunderstand, I support conservatives, regardless of sex, race, religion or anything else where ever I find them in any party or with no party backing at all.

One of the most preposterous statements I have read on this sight. You are implying that anyone who claims themselves as a conservative can do no wrong and is worthy of your support. You are putting all your marbles in the hands of one organization that may or may not do you right simply because they have a proclaimed agenda that you like. I hope you are preparing yourself for disappointment. Those folks are politicians to. And we all know that politicians and political organizations no matter their claim to political gender or cause are never 100% up front.

I do support some of what moveon.org advocates. But there is much more that I do not support than I do. They like any other political organization tend from time to time to be over the top with their agenda. It would be foolish and lazy to simply accept all their goals as being in my or anyones best interest.

What you are struggling with is finding a politician who fits your perception of what you think a conservative should be. There are many out there who make claims of being a true conservative. But when push comes to shove they end up going with the money just like any other good God fearing politician. Good luck in your search for the perfect politician. Hope you don’t throw too much money away chasing the elusive conservative dream.

Posted by: RickIL at June 12, 2008 6:49 PM
Comment #255353

David, do you have a problem reading and understanding my simple sentences? I said give me your list and I will consider them. Where in the hell did I say I would rely upon your recommendation alone? I am already using my Dick and Jane, see spot run prose. What else can I do to help you comprehend?

As for my comments regarding President Reagan, I clearly said words backed by strength and resolve. All your gibberish about others is just nonsense. What other president of the United States, or leader of any other country, stood at that wall and called for its dismantlement? What others merely dreamed of, Reagan accomplished.

Rarely have I read response comments so off target with such a spin of someone’s words. Were you the clinton speech writer when all the others were on vacation?

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #255355

RickIL, thanks for your cautionary words. You stated, “You are putting all your marbles in the hands of one organization”.

Very well RickIL, to what organization should I share my political donations with that have the same mission statement as Huckpac?

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #255358

Forgot to mention my thanks to David R. Remer for the link he provided to Project Vote Smart. I did just a cursory review of the site and liked what I saw.

Posted by: Jim M at June 12, 2008 7:15 PM
Comment #255360

Yes, VoteSmart.org is a great site.

Also, see OnTheIssues.org which is where these voting records come from.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and deserve).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 12, 2008 7:20 PM
Comment #255362

Jim M,

“What other president of the United States, or leader of any other country, stood at that wall and called for its dismantlement?”

I don’t know, how about Kennedy

“Ich bin ein Berliner”

Oh, and BTW, After the USSR screwed the pooch in Afghanistan, things went down hill rapidly.
I think that the Pope, and Lech Walesa, along with his Solidarity movement in Poland, had just as much if not more to do with the fall of the Berlin wall than Reagan.

Seems to me that Reagan just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Posted by: Rocky at June 12, 2008 7:51 PM
Comment #255375


Oh no, it wasn’t political and economic suicide that killed the beast. It was Ronnie Raygun that killed the beast. Those other seven presidents, dating back to Harry Truman had nothing to do with the beasts demise either.

It is a real shame that medical research hasn’t found a vacine for political propaganda of all persuasions.

Change you can believe in! Now, there’s a nice piece of sucker bait.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #255377

JimM

Very well RickIL, to what organization should I share my political donations with that have the same mission statement as Huckpac?

I very seriously doubt that there truly is an organization that will live up to your rather unrealistic ideals.


While you have made it quite obvious that you despise liberalism to its core, that view is imo a bit outdated and unrealistic in todays age. The advent of a global economy and the global society that goes along with it all but insures that the rather simplistic differences between liberals and conservatives will have to be put aside in favor of more realistic and creative approaches to this worlds problems. We will have to put those labels away in favor of finding new approaches to a multitude of world afflictions. At this time those labels are doing nothing but getting in the way of progress. I am suggesting that if all we had to worry about were the nuances of liberalism or conservatism, well we really wouldn’t have much to worry about.

In the end no one group will ever be 100% correct in its approach to our concerns. We will never again be a country living a comfortable life by concealing ourselves from the rest of the world. We are a very real participant in the new global society and will have to learn to live with it. Live with it because we sure as hell will not be able to conquer it.

However I do understand your disdain of the current republican brand of conservatism. It exists only in a token nature and their resulting policies have failed our country miserably. You are correct in that most of them definitely do not fit your definition of what you believe a conservative should be. As I said good luck finding them. It will be hard to find many who are actually able to live by that creed. Ultimately greed and power tend to fracture those values.

Posted by: RickIL at June 12, 2008 10:36 PM
Comment #255378


The Jim Johnson exposure and others like it that have been in the news lately, point to the fact that there is hardly a prince of politics or their associates that hasn’t gotten a sweetheart deal for property or loans. Of course, that’s been going on since before Ug climbed down out of the tree.

Although it is really to soon to tell, it seems as if a few journalists are rediscovering what the purpose of a free press is supposed to be.

It is a shame that this couldn’t have happened to another VP select committee chairman eight years ago, that guy had his whole head in the cookie jar, not just a hand. We could be living in a totally different paradigm now. No, I guess not, even if he hadn’t been able to put himself on the ticket, he would probably have still ended up as the power behind the throne.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 10:39 PM
Comment #255379

Dan

Did I see a comment of yours get some airtime yesterday on the Cafferty files? I was fixing supper at the time and heard the words the voters will get what they deserve. The posters name was Dan. Just a coincidence?

Posted by: RickIL at June 12, 2008 10:47 PM
Comment #255380


RickIL: While I agree with what you said, I can’t help but notice that one group is having to do a lot more adjusting than the groups that are making the decisions.


I noticed that on the VoteSmart site that both the Republican and Democrat candidates failed the courage test.

Posted by: jlw at June 12, 2008 10:55 PM
Comment #255394

So Jim Johnson got loans from Countrywide. Big deal. Did he not pay them back. Did he not have a credit rating and a cashflow that justified the loans? Its not like Obama’s guy was lobbying for countrywide or ameriquest. Its not like he gave Countrywide executives millions for running the company into the ground.
Are all people who got loans the past several years now tainted? What a load of crap. Grasping at straws sure beats discussing the economy and Iraq as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling that makes the repubs look like 3rd world dictators.
Why not stand on the record of the repub accomplishments the past several years… oh never mind, I dont blame you for this grasping at straws , its all you’ve got.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2008 4:14 AM
Comment #255399

“For my conservative friends I recommend you take a look at Mike Huckabee’s new political action committee “

This is relevent to the issue how?

“Today, we have a democrat candidate who has neither wisdom or clarity of purpose other than to capitulate to our enemies by showing his weakness and unwillingness to directly confront those who would embroil the entire world in conflict.”

And a repub canidate who would keep us embroiled in Iraq for a 100 years while telling us it would make us safer here at home. All because its what the cowering conservatives want to hear.
In addition a current compassionate conservative repub who was foolish enough to get us embroilled in this mess yet unable to confront the actual enemy after 6 years of screwing up. Yet after all this time have we directly confronted the enemy? Remember OBL was the man responsible for the WTC attack not Saddam Hussein, not Iraq, not AQ in Iraq. Jeezus what does it take to get a grip on reality here.

Then the repubs are gracious enough to field a presidential candidate that wants to follow in these footsteps. Whose side are you guys on anyway?

To top it off we have a die hard conservative who cant seem to tell the difference between clarity of purpose and wisdom and the actions of his leaders the past several years. He has to go back over 2 decades to invoke the name of Reagan as if any repub/conservative today could even walk in the same shoes as the slightly more successful than Bush president of days gone by. Give me a break Jim M. Conservatism as practiced by the conservatives has been a dismal failure. Sounds good but when applied by conservatives to the real world it failed. Conservatism is the problem not the solution.

“Twenty-one years ago today, the greatest president of my lifetime said these famous words”

You must be rather young Jim M, Eisenhower was much better but then so was Kennedy and Clinton. Carter and Johnson were in the same league as Reagan so between them its debatable.

“Twenty-one year later the liberals still peddle fear to our fellow citizens.”

Your confused its been the repubs and their conservative lap dogs that has been selling fear since the days of Reagan. The contras, The war on drugs and the war on terror ring a bell?

“They tell us to fear the freedom to make our own choices, to fear being responsible for ourselves and to rely on government to solve all our problems.”
Can you find a liberal that actually said this? What you are spewing is conservative propaganda that has no basis in fact Jim M. Its the typical twisted spin that the cons have been pushing for years yet as is typical with the cons it has no basis in fact.

“They tell us to fear the very corporations who employ them.”

No I say dont fear them thats a conservative tatic, I say regulate them for the benefit of the people of this country. When they have no rules they turn out just the same as a young kid that has no rules or role models Jim M. They become spoiled and seld centered with no respect for themselves or their fellow Americans and our nation of laws. The whole fear thing is the tawdry manipulations of the conservative smear machine. It seems to work on the cons better if the war on terror thing is used to judge the actions of the people of this country.

“They tell us to fear some computer model that predicts global man-made warming based on faulty human input.”

Again Jim M dont run away in fear instead we need to work together to fight climate change. To make it an opportunity to improve. The whole fear thing is the cons doings.

“They tell us to fear being militarily strong and to fear promoting freedom to all the worlds’s peoples.”

Again with the fear smear of the cons. We all want a strong defense not a nation invading, nation building offense. Democracy forced on others at the point of our gun is not promoting freedom JIm M there is a difference.

“Rarely have I read response comments so off target with such a spin of someone’s words.”

Yet Jim M you immediatly switch topics to Huckabees web site and then have the audacity to talk about others comments being off topic? Try reading your own comments if you want spin.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 13, 2008 5:04 AM
Comment #255400

Jim M said: “I said give me your list and I will consider them.”

The reading problem is all yours Jim. I said it would be presumptuous of me to give you a list. I would not presume to provide you with a list of candidates for your consideration as a self-defined conservative.

The only conservatives I know much about are many of those that call themselves that currently sitting in Congress and the White House, Libertarians like my Uncle, Rhinehold, Ron Paul, and Bob Barr, and a rather odd lot calling themselves the Constitution Party intent on rewriting the Constitution to suit their religious needs and declare America their brand of Christianity State exclusively.

I just couldn’t presume to present them for approval to another voter, conservative or otherwise. There are some conservatives I have had a lot of respect for on a narrow list of issues, like Jack Kemp on GOP politics, Duncan Hunter on immigration issues and border security, John McCain and campaign finance reform (which he now violates), Jack Warner on foreign policy analysis, Susan Collins on bipartisanship in the Senate and some issues re: Iraq, Collin Powell as Sec’y of State save his role in promoting the Iraq invasion against his better judgment, Chuck Grassley on bipartisanship, Judd Gregg’s rhetoric on fiscal responsibility despite his lockstep GOP voting record in opposition.

I have a similar list of Democrats I respect on one or some issues and positions, but, again, except for Russ Feingold, I am hard pressed to recommend anyone currently sitting in federal elected office on the majority of their positions. Maybe Joe Biden. I was disappointed to hear Sen. Jack Warner was stepping out of the Senate.

His desire and ability to work on foreign policy in a bipartisan manner was remarkable in his last two terms. I very much enjoyed listening to him on C-span these last several years, how his mind worked, and how he worked with dignity and integrity intact in a civil manner with Democrats.

Mark Twain summed up my feeling most of the time about politicians when he said: “History has tried hard to teach us that we can’t have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of the government couldn’t be wise.”

It’s very funny because of its kernel of truth. But, I still believe good and even great leaders in elected office are possible, if only the voters will demand it, and hold them accountable on reelection day if they aren’t. That is what democratic elections were meant to be, a means of removing politicians from office. From the beginning it was clear politicians would remain in office of their own will if voters did not exercise their power to remove them. The power of the vote is not to keep politicians in office, but to remove them. If no one votes, politicians will reelect themselves. Democracy is needed to remove these would be Kings and self-appointed rulers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 13, 2008 5:44 AM
Comment #255404

Chops,
Why I do see both Senator McCain and Senator Obama as trying to stay Statesmen, I also see that the Talking Heads of the Right and Left are falling short on their duty to search out the Issues. So, any suggestions on how to level the playing field for the Children of the 21st Century?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at June 13, 2008 7:56 AM
Comment #255438

Rocky said, ““What other president of the United States, or leader of any other country, stood at that wall and called for its dismantlement?”

I don’t know, how about Kennedy”

“Ich bin ein Berliner”

Rocky, read the speech given by Kennedy. It was a great speech and he never called for the Soviets to “tear down that wall” or anything similar.

Posted by: Jim M at June 13, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #255439

Thanks RickIL, but I actually believe many Americans’s are advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty as stated in the Huckpac mission statement. I would rather try and be wrong, than not try at all.

In fact, I believe many in the world ascribe to these same conservative objectives. Do you really believe they are unrealistic and just futile dreams?

Posted by: Jim M at June 13, 2008 1:58 PM
Comment #255449

Jim M.

What!!!! Do you just make this stuff up, as you go???

What is true of this city is true of Germany—real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

Short of nuclear war (which the soldiers in Berlin were armed with tactical Nukes) The US could not challenge the Soviet control of East Germany. Reagan did not send soldiers to tear down the wall.

If your pathetic position is that Kennedy did not mouth Reagan’s exact words, then gee, you have a point. Otherwise, this amounts to the dumbest thing I’ve heard today.

Posted by: googlumpugus at June 13, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #255464

For those of you who never read the London Times I thought I would provide some interesting insight into our upcoming election from one writer. Here’s just one short quote,

“As an adviser to Mr Obama noted recently at a transatlantic conference in Washington, the differences for Europe between a first Obama administration and the second Bush Administration will probably be smaller than the differences between the first and the second Bush terms.”

For the full story click on; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4122437.ece

Posted by: Jim M at June 13, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #255479

Jim,

The message was implied. Kennedy’s handlers were worried that saying anything about the wall would be too harsh seeing that the wall was new.
Kennedy added the phrase while walking up to the podium to deliver the speech.
Look it up.

Posted by: Rocky at June 13, 2008 6:45 PM
Comment #255498

JimM

Thanks RickIL, but I actually believe many Americans’s are advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty as stated in the Huckpac mission statement. I would rather try and be wrong, than not try at all.

Yes Jim I am for all of these things to some degree as I am sure most Americans are. Who in their right mind would not be. Where we differ are determining order of priority and how to go about effecting these issues. I think less government could work providing we could manage to find one that is competent, efficient, honest, trustworthy, productive and accountable. Not asking for much huh. :)

I do object to your desire to claim your list of values as solely conservative. In doing so you are implying that liberals are somehow amoral and devoid of decency. Nothing could be further from the truth. The latter supports my theory that hate inducing labels are doing more harm than good. They unnecessarily create hate induced divisiveness. Of course we have our differences but in truth they really are minor. We all pretty much want the same things but as I said before we can not agree on how to approach them and in what order.

I must agree that most of the world would gladly ascribe to the values you mention. I would also say that because of our new global society they most likely fully expect to attain that level of comfort at some point. Another reason that new and creative approaches to governance will be a necessity in future dealings.

You would rather try and be wrong than not try at all. I fully understand your approach. It is how I feel about Obama. I would rather give him a try and be wrong than just give up and continue with what we know is not working.

I think your dreams are unrealistic and futile in that you are demanding more than can possibly be delivered in a time faced with such vast and varying problems.

I will ask you; do you really believe you and I are so dissimilar that labeling me as a liberal makes me an enemy or worthy of hatred?

Posted by: RickIL at June 13, 2008 11:02 PM
Comment #255543

Obama’s associations are there……he’s just denying most of them lately. He built a base among the radicalized far left. He’s been preaching the radical far left message. Hence he says things from time to time like “Bitter Christians”, “Bitter clinging to guns”, “Average White” meaning racist. He’s been honoring terrorists, Racist preachers, high spending liberal Washington insiders. The press of course doesn’t want to expose this radical, aggressive, far left political animal that is Obama and his extremist base…instead they fawn over him and present him as “change” and call him an “outsider.

Obamas pastor was a huge political figure and that’s why Obama clung to him no matter how racist and bigoted and outrageous. He helped Obama to build his political empire. Obama launched his career in the care of an American terrorist. Obama has had insiders in his camp that he has been forced to send away so he can pretend he doesn’t deal with them.

So I’m not buying this idea that Obama represents an outsider. He’s deep inside the movement of the far left and he’s got all the connections.

Posted by: Stephen at June 14, 2008 12:08 PM
Comment #255550

“I think your dreams are unrealistic and futile in that you are demanding more than can possibly be delivered in a time faced with such vast and varying problems.

I will ask you; do you really believe you and I are so dissimilar that labeling me as a liberal makes me an enemy or worthy of hatred?”
Posted by: RickIL at June 13, 2008 11:02 PM

Thanks RickIL for your reasoned response. I also believe my dreams may be unrealistic as I look at our national political divide today. But I must remain optimistically hopeful or drown in despair.

Growing up under the threat of nuclear destruction and the ever advancing march of communism, it was unrealistic to believe then that it would end in my lifetime. We prayed in our churches and had leaders committed to the destruction of this evil tyranny.

And, much to my great surprise, it did happen, and in my lifetime. I have always believed that whatever the mind of man can conceive, and believe, can be accomplished. And RickIL, at the risk of offending the unbelievers on this bog, I believe that God loves and cares for all of us and does listen to and answer prayer.

Finally RickIL, I don’t hate you or liberals or in fact, anyone else. While I may vehemently disagree at times, and hope conservative values remain predominate in this land, it’s not based on hate, but rather on my own personal beliefs.

Posted by: Jim M at June 14, 2008 1:04 PM
Comment #255561

Stephen

So I’m not buying this idea that Obama represents an outsider. He’s deep inside the movement of the far left and he’s got all the connections.

What a bunch of brainwashed biased bulls—t. Far left, far right, insider, outsider, downsider who really gives a damn. He is a man with ideals just like McCain. After eight years of Bush and twelve years of a republican congress I would think that people might catch on to the idea that those labels are nothing more than a means of spreading divisive fear and hatred. I could not care less about what linear position he fills on your scale of political definition. All I need to know is that McCain represents the party that failed us. Where that party stands on the far “O”meter really has no bearing on anything in this day and age. I would think that the effectiveness of their policies with regards to the state of our nation would hold more weight than their political directional leanings. He is an outsider in that he has not had enough time to establish as large a list of connections as say a Clinton or McCain. We all know that list of established connections is growing exponentially as we speak. I would imagine that this is not uncommon for the odds on favorite for the most powerful political position in the world.

I would suggest a new descriptive more in keeping with current times for our politicians. Perhaps corporatist should be the word that most fits todays politician. It could range from just plain corporatist to moderate corporatist to ultra corporatist. After all they all pander to the same influences. The influences just happen to support those who are most able to help them in their agenda at the time.

Posted by: RickIL at June 14, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #255583

Rick,
Both parties “have failed us”. The present democratic congress refuses to work on balancing the budget, fixing the coming Medicare disaster, Fixing Medicade, fixing social security, stopping ear marks, etc. Thank god they passed a bill to force us to put light bulbs with mercury in our homes and to burn the worlds corn in our cars. It’s failure with a big F for both parties and right now it’s a big F for the democratic party congress.

All I need to know about Obama is that he is a progressive liberal. He proudly declares himself as such and has long aligned himself with some of the most radical participants in the “progressive” movement such as the hate monger “Wright”. And then Obama has turned around and denied he ever knew about Wright’s beliefs. What nonsense. More believable when he flip flopped and said he did know….but has new information? It’s not adding up.

So Obama gets a discount on his house in which some crook is somehow wrapped up, has this anti white Wright connection, this terrorist connection, etc etc and you say it’s all Republican BS? No, it’s who Obama is. These are the people who have supported him and whom he has supported. All to create his political base and career. So lets be adults and admit that.

I see not much help in running two people from a senate that is PRESENTLY FAILING US. Where is the balanced budget bill that McCain or Obama put before congress? Where is the bill they put before congress to fix medicare? Where is the bill they put before congress to fix social security? I don’t care what they promise NOW, they are both in congress now. Where is the bill at?

They are BOTH insiders and they are both failing us. What I wonder is how do we get real change that is not radicalized? How do those of us who do not inhabit the “progressive left” or the “neocon right” get real representation.

To my way of thinking, McCain is closer to the middle by FAR than Obama. But I also see McCain as an insider and part of a failed congress, just like Obama IS.

Posted by: Stephen at June 14, 2008 6:09 PM
Comment #255634

To my way of thinking, McCain is closer to the middle by FAR than Obama. But I also see McCain as an insider and part of a failed congress, just like Obama IS.

Exactly. I believe polls of the last year would especially support the fact that your analogy of the state of our government would be in keeping with that of most Americans.

I guess our differences lie in how one defines a candidates stance on issues. I personally do not view Obama as an insider yet, or a person who has limited vision blinded by a particular brand of politics. I do believe he recognizes that in the end we are all people and that our outstanding concerns are pretty much universal. We are a democracy in this country and the last I knew our policies were supposed to work on a what is best for the majority type of rule. It is rare that any one group of people is ever going to get exactly what they want. It is impossible in such a large and diverse society with such a vast array of evolving problematic issues to please everyone. If one is far left or far right then it seems to me that compromise may not be acceptable for them, because they are the extreme of both ends of the spectrum. Imo Bush and especially Cheney have exhibited a classic picture of what happens when extremism is able to rule. They along with a lockstep legislature were on a role in an effort to insure that the GOP would rule this country for decades. That endeavor seemed to be their number one priority for most of twelve years. Unfortunately for them smugness, poor policy, corruption and a lack of accountability caught up with them. Now the party is paying the price for allowing such extremism to take hold. The dems had the same type of problems previous to the repubs. It took them them many years to regain any credibility. Whether or not that credibility can be retained depends solely on their actions once the effects of republican obstructionism are no longer a factor.

Reaching out to all parties in an effort to find some compromise and effect productive policy is what is sorely missed in politics today. There has been no reaching out or compromise for the last eight years. GW has dictated to the world that he is in charge, it is his way or the highway, and has quite clearly demonstrated that he is not very good at leading. The unfettered support of republican policy makers puts their judgment in question and obviously would place them in the same boat as Bush. Such tactics have proven harmful and devastating to our country.

Taking all of the latter into consideration why would anyone not want to give a man who wishes to overcome such managerial issues a chance? That is as opposed to a man who would insure more of the same.

Posted by: RickIL at June 15, 2008 9:22 AM
Post a comment