ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Friday, June 06, 2008

Juan Williams on Obama & Race

Juan Williams has this excellent analysis in the Wall Street Journal today. I know, I know... Juan is a right-winger from way back, so his words won't be heeded by the rookie Senator from the corrupt state of Illinois and the corrupt city of Chicago.

But, still good analysis. Here's an excerpt:

It's Time for Another Obama Race Speech
By JUAN WILLIAMS
June 6, 2008; Page A15

Now what? How does Barack Obama, fresh from claiming the Democratic nomination, put Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger behind him, before they ignite yet again and blow up his general election campaign?

How does he pre-empt advertising images, sure to be circulated by his opponents, that link him to outrageous racial rhetoric and fears that he is open to the most radical left-wing ideas – including using the power of the White House to exact racial vengeance?
[...]
Well, [his Philadelphia speech] didn't end the controversy, either – because Mr. Obama never spoke honestly about Rev. Wright's sermons as destructive and racist. Instead he offered soaring talk about the nation, as a matter of faith in God and one another, needing to "move beyond old racial wounds." His only criticism of Rev. Wright was to chide him for a "profound mistake," of speaking "as if no progress had been made" on race.

And his poor judgment in remaining a member of Rev. Wright's church? Mr. Obama skated by with appeals for other people to have serious conversations about race. Instead of turning his fire on racial pandering in his own church, he criticized those who would "make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with [Rev. Wright's] most offensive words."
[...]
He has to do more.

The heart of Mr. Obama's problem is that he risks being defined by Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger. Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change. Beyond that he is a political mystery with a thin legislative record. But when voters look at his past for clues to the core of his character, they find religious leaders calling for God to damn America and concluding that America is the greatest sin against God.
This is exactly the point that the GOP (and the Clintons?) have been raising about Obama's candidacy. Since his record is a blank slate - except for a speech in 2002
and his presidential stump speech (which he originally delivered at the Democrat convention in 2004) - his relationships and the character of the people he chose to surround himself with become of primary importance.

If we cannot judge how he would govern through his record, we can get some insight to his judgment by who he associates with.

That the Dems decided to be swept away by empty rhetoric and an empty legislative record is their downfall.

But wait! Juan provides the following recommendations to Sen. Barry to overcome the Tinity United problem:
To deal with this controversy effectively, Mr. Obama needs to give another speech. This time he has to admit to sins of using race for political expediency – by knowingly buying into divisive, mean messages being delivered from the pulpit. He has to say that, as a biracial young man with no community roots, attaching himself to Rev. Wright and the Trinity congregation was a shortcut to move up the ladder in the Chicago political scene. He has to call race-baiting what it is, whether it comes from a pulpit or calls itself progressive politics. And he has to challenge his supporters, especially his black base, to be honest about real problems at the heart of today's racial divide – including out-of-wedlock births, crime, drugs and a culture that devalues education while glorifying the gangster life.
Ummmm... this isn't going to happen, Juan.

Why? Because statements from his wife provide an even clearer insight into Obama's beliefs - beliefs about how cruel and wicked they think this country truly is.

Juan continues...
Mr. Obama also has to raise the bar for how political criticism is handled in his camp. Step one is to acknowledge that not every critic is a racist. His very liberal record and his limited experience, like his association with Rev. Wright, is a fact, not the work of white racists. Just as he calls for the GOP not to engage in the politics of fear over terrorism, Mr. Obama needs to declare that he will refrain from playing the racial victim, because he understands such tactics will paralyze political debate and damage race relations.
Ummmm... this isn't going to happen either.

Any and all criticism of Obama will be portrayed by the campaign and by the media as either being outright racist or simply having a tinge of racism - even when the campaign and the media (are they distinct groups still?) talks about any criticism as not being racist, the discussion itself will be primarily about the possibility of racism underlying the charge.

I'm so confident that Obama won't do either of these things that if he does, I'll eat my shorts or (even worse) vote for the neophyte.

Your Co-conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Why Can't We Imitate the Rest of the World?

Great YouTube video on the Flat Tax and how it's effecting the rest of the world.



It's a shame that Barry Obama's tax & economic policy can be summarized as "Back to the 70s":

  • Increase taxes
  • Abandon Free Trade
  • Give everyone Free Stuff
  • After making the US the most difficult country in which to do business, make it illegal for companies to relocate overseas

Should be interesting to see how that works out...

I just wish Obama would see the economic growth that these countries are experiencing and pause before he wrecks our way of life.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Housing Crisis Strikes Again

I just wonder how much more damage the housing crisis has to cause to the less fortunate like Ed before the Democrats will finally act.

Ed McMahon May Lose Beverly Hills Home
By JAMES R. HAGERTY and GLENN R. SIMPSON
June 4, 2008; Page A3

Ed McMahon, the longtime sidekick to television star Johnny Carson, faces the possible loss of his Beverly Hills home to a foreclosure action initiated by a unit of Countrywide Financial Corp.

Howard Bragman, a spokesman for Mr. McMahon, said late Tuesday that his client is having "very fruitful discussions" with the lender and hopes to find a resolution. It isn't clear whether that would allow the 85-year-old Mr. McMahon and his wife, Pamela, to remain in the six-bedroom home.

A Countrywide spokeswoman said the lender couldn't comment in such cases "due to privacy issues."

Mr. McMahon, a jovial fixture of American television for decades, is one of the most prominent people caught up in a wave of mortgage defaults that has devastated low-income areas, suburbia and even a few posh gated communities, such as the one where the McMahons live. U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson, a California Democrat, recently lost a home in Sacramento to a foreclosure. Rep. Richardson didn't respond to requests for comment.

ReconTrust, a unit of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, on Feb. 28 filed a notice of default on a $4.8 million Countrywide loan backed by Mr. McMahon's home. The notice was filed with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office but hasn't previously come to light. According to the filing, Mr. McMahon was then about $644,000 in arrears on the loan. It isn't clear whether Countrywide still owns the loan or is acting on behalf of investors who acquired it. Public records also show that Mr. McMahon had a separate home-equity line of credit from Countrywide of up to $300,000 secured by the same house.

Mr. McMahon's home has been on the market for about two years, his real-estate agent Alex Davis said. Mr. Davis said the price had been reduced, but he couldn't immediately provide details. The Christie's Great Estates Web site, which includes homes listed by Mr. Davis, lists the asking price at $5.75 million and says it has a canyon view and a master-bedroom suite with his and her bathrooms.
[...]

The Congressional Democrats are a bunch of heartless, cruel people. When will they pass a bill to help Mr. McMahon? I mean, the guy has had a tough time since Johnny passed - it's terrible that the financial markets are closing in on him and his $5.75 million home. The humanity!

I demand Federal action!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

The Obamessiah Is Triumphant!

Actual exchange on MSNBC last night...

[i'm paraphrasing]: "We really need to take a step back and consider how historic this is. I don't think we've actually had a chance, because of the churn of this campaign, to appreciate just what this means for America and how historic this truly is."

rrrright.... there hasn't been any discussion about how historic an Obama (or Clinton) nomination would be? Are you a liar or just an ass? How about Googling "Historic+Obama+Candidacy"? 930,000 results and 8,621 news stories containing those words.

I'm sure there were more idiotic statements on the Obama channel, but I couldn't take much and had to turn the TV off, grab a bottle of cheap scotch, and start strategerizing another rovian conspiracy to knock this nincompoop off his game.



I guess my only remaining question is this:

Has this neophyte peaked yet, BRIAN?!?!?!?

By the way, remember this post in the Summer of 2007 when you said that the press will turn on him? Sorry, don't think they're going to get off this train until at least 2016...



Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Obamessiah Can Never Be Wrong

This video must be shocking to those in the reality-based community.*



Quite a smackdown for someone who's running on their claim to have unassailable judgment as it pertains to military strategery and tactics - even for someone who's entire experience with violence is isolated to a few years as a community organizer, whatever the hell that is.

By the way, how are those south side Chicago neighborhoods doing after the Obamessiah "organized" them? I mean, is there anything that this man can actually point to as an accomplishment?

Other than being a faithful member of a racist church for 20 years?

* - by reality-based community, I mean the moonbat fringe who have taken over a once great party and turned it into their own personal, God-Damn America party.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

I For One Welcome My New Obamassiah

Great analysis of the pre-ordained ascension of the Obamassiah by Bill Bennett:

My Old Party [William J. Bennett]
[...]
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

The Democratic Party has been seduced by the Changiness of Hope (Hope of Changiness?) that Barry promises.

His Jedi Mind Trick has worked wonders.

And the super-delegates, who were created to stop the communist...errr.... socialist...errr... far-left ...errr... anti-American ...no... progressive elements of the base from nominating a disastrous candidate, are going to rubber-stamp his nomination tonight.

And now the press can stop focusing on how much they hate Hillary!TM and start twisting the words of John McCain - because it's about Change!!!!! (Of course, Change is also what Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, etc were for, but that's a minor point.)

Yippee!!!

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

McClellan - Worst Press Secretary Ever?

Is this thing on? Wow... Will we make it through this year?

Great OpEd in the WSJ about McClellan which echoes many of the sentiments of this blog over the years. Here's an intro:

Did Scott McClellan Miss the Surge?
June 3, 2008; Page A19

In the media week that has been Scott McClellan, my former colleague has had his motives questioned, his character impugned, and his own book dismissed as something he could not possibly have written himself.

Yet in the midst of the storm, the press has largely skipped over what is at once Scott's central claim, and his silliest argument: that the president's big mistake was to embrace the "permanent campaign" and that this led to a strategy that meant "never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."

The decisions on Iraq that followed Scott's departure tell a much different story. Whether you agree with the surge or not, that decision was one of the defining acts of his presidency. And what Scott apparently still has not recognized is that his own heave-ho was the prelude to exactly the kind of reconsideration he says was impossible in the Bush White House.

Exhibit A is the sacking of Don Rumsfeld immediately after the 2006 elections that gave the Democrats control of Congress. The "after" is critical, because the president was blasted for his timing by many in his own party. Arlen Specter complained that he would still be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if the president had made the move before the elections. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that the president's timing probably cost Republicans control of the Senate and 10 to 15 seats in the House.

These men had a point. But the timing also said something about George W. Bush: A president who makes a decision knowing that it could cost his party control of Congress can be accused of many things, but subsuming all his decisions to the "permanent campaign" cannot seriously be one of them.

The president's decision to replace his Defense secretary was followed by an even more thorough rethink of his war policy. Anyone who has spent time in government knows that changing a major policy midstream is like trying to make a U-turn with an aircraft carrier. And anyone who was in the White House in late 2006 knows that the dramatic shift in Iraq that we now almost take for granted was the result of one man: George W. Bush.

Scott and the other critics accuse the president of stubbornness. In my experience, when the pundits accuse you of being stubborn, often all it means is that you don't accept the conventional wisdom of the Beltway establishment – and that you are unwilling to run up the white flag and bow to their superiority.
[...]
Bush has many faults, but his willingness to fight the conventional wisdom was not one of them.

Bush's inability to communicate his strategery is the biggest fault of his presidency - a fault which Scott McClellan played a big part in. The deer-caught-in-the-headlights look that McClellan delivered each day made the nightly news regularly.

Thank God Bush saw the error of his ways and decided to change course when it came to his press secretary.

Is McClellan the worst press secretary ever? Perhaps... I'd have to say that Joe "I'm a Sleezebag Flack" Lockhart of the Clinton Administration has to be up there, although the time period in which he served certainly gave him some of the most....ummmmm.... sensitive questions.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler