Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Fire at Will

And not just at Will, on Barack too. The American Thinker makes a long, comprehensive and direct attack on Barack Obama. No punches pulled. Every aspect of his foreign policy scathingly deconstructed. The first two paragraphs set the tone -- and it's all downhill from there.

The ascent of Barack Obama from state senator in Illinois to a leading contender for the Presidential nomination in the span of just a few years is remarkable. Especially in light of a noticeably unremarkable record -- a near-blank slate of few accomplishments and numerous missed votes.

However, in one area of foreign policy that concerns millions of Americans, he does have a record and it is a particularly troubling one. For all supporters of the America-Israel relationship there is enough information beyond the glare of the klieg lights to give one pause. In contrast to his canned speeches filled with "poetry" and uplifting aphorisms and delivered in a commanding way, behind the campaign façade lies a disquieting pattern of behavior.

I won't put any words in Ed Lasky's mouth, but I think it is fair to characterize his message as being skeptical of Barack Obama's policies, intentions and honesty. The more interesting question is whether this, together with Richard Cohen's Washington Post attack on black supremacist racism at Obama's Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ represents the first salvos of what liberal blogger Taylor Marsh calls the "swiftboating" of Obama: "Mr. Cohen's column today is nothing short of religious bigotry at its worst. He's insinuating that if Barack Obama doesn't disavow his spiritual leader and his home church then he's an anti-Semitic. Words fail me.... almost." But as anyone knows, words never fail pundits. They are a simply a prelude to the main orchestral movement. And here it comes from Marsh in full symphonic majesty.

So now that that's settled (until the wing-nuts join in), let's get down to the brass knuckle politics of this. Cohen is outright attempting to push the fairy tale of the Wright, Obama, Farrakhan connection in order to scare the Jewish vote away from Obama. Few things are more nuclear for a politician than what Cohen is doing. AIPAC and their Israeli lobby tentacles reach far and deep into the blood stream of U.S. politics. A politician angers this large, loosely knit group at his or her peril. This is the other side of the race - religion issue; yet another unmentionable surfacing because of the diversity of the Democrats, which traditional media will expose in order so they can benefit.

The really interesting admission in this paragraph is that the "swiftboating" isn't coming from the "wing-nuts" because, according to Taylor Marsh, they still haven't joined in. That's a roundabout way of saying this attack on Obama is originating from liberal circles. The attack is a blue on blue (in both the metaphorical and political sense). It's friendly fire. It's Democrat against Democrat. It means in particular that Richard Cohen, who has spent most of his time attacking Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and President Bush, has now found the audacity to attack "Hope". That astounding fact, more than anything Cohen has actually revealed, is the real news.

Media watchers are now likely to propose two different explanations for the internecine conflict in the Democratic Party base. One school of thought will hold that the Big Tent stands firm, buffeted by wing-nuts storms maybe, but tall and proud. The vast rents in the fabric are thus really the work of Hillary Clinton and her attack machine rather than due to any shifting in the foundations. But the other school of thought will hold the combustion is directly due to the composition of the party itself. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post says, "It was never realistic to think that race -- or gender, for that matter -- would stay out of a contest starring the first woman and the first African American with realistic hopes of becoming president." Which implies that even if the woman candidate's name was Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feinstein instead of say, Hillary Clinton, the same lines in the same play would be spoken by a slightly different cast. Robinson concludes:

Is it possible that accusing Obama and his campaign of playing the race card might create doubt in the minds of the moderate, independent white voters who now seem so enamored of the young, black senator? Might that be the idea?

Who would have thunk?


Blogger Doug said...

Ben Nelson, Barack and a Disregard of Principle

Ben Nelson’s rationale for endorsing the most radically left-wing candidate ever to seek the presidency is that Obama can “unite the country” and “end the poisonous partisan atmosphere” in Washington. Well. I almost don’t know how to respond to that.

Yes, I do.

A few years ago, having failed to pass a partial birth abortion ban that would not be struck down by the courts, state and federal government was wrestling with the issue of at least protecting babies who were born alive during an abortion. In 2002, the United States Senate passed legislation providing such protection. The vote was 98-0.

Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate at the time. When similar legislation came before that body, Obama opposed it. This great uniter of the country, this paragon of virtue who Ben Nelson believes will end the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington, could not even find it in his hardened heart to offer protection to a baby who somehow manages to survive an abortionist’s attempt to end his or her life.

Do you realize the ramifications of such a position? Barack Obama, candidate for president of the United States, favors allowing abortionists to kill babies after they have been born alive!

1/16/2008 04:41:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

" The vote was 98-0."
The Great Uniter, indeed!

1/16/2008 04:56:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Obama says unite but what he means is you will do as I say.

My President is a guy who plays a lot of golf, builds aircraft carriers, and vetoes everything with an earmark.

Since that guy will never be elected you gotta' go with whomever is likely to do the least damage to the Republic. And that is not Barack Hussein Obama.

1/16/2008 05:41:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

The Depth of Cohen:

"As for Clinton's celebrated cry, it was not like its famous predecessors -- Ed Muskie's 1972 cry or Pat Schroder's 1988 breakdown -- a surge of self-pity. If I had to use a single word to describe it, it would be "maternal." She did not cry for herself. She cried for the country.

"It's not easy," she said of the campaign. "And I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. ... You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it. Some people think elections are a game, lots of who's up or who's down.
It's about our country.
It's about our kids' futures.
And it's really about all of us together."

Instantly, the more cynical of my brethren wondered if the cry was staged. They punditated about whether it showed weakness and how, for God's sake, Clinton could stand up to our nation's enemies if she was going to break down in tears from time to time.

They missed two points.
The first is that women don't consider crying a sign of weakness but of authenticity. And the second was that this so-called cry, actually a welling up, an emotional burp, was not a clear descent into self-pity, but a weep for the country:
"It's about our kids' futures."
We are the Whirrled,...

1/16/2008 05:41:00 AM  
Blogger Storm-Rider said...

The unity of a free people must not be confused with the coerced conformity of those people who are neither free to unite or divide.

1/16/2008 07:04:00 AM  
Blogger betsybounds said...

Yeah, we are the Whirled.

Visualize Whirled Peas.

1/16/2008 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

I suppose none of us should find it surprising that none of the MSM has taken up the task of examining these features of Obama's mind and his political evolution. Ed Lasky does us a great service by pointing out these failures of due diligence. And yet I have to wonder how many of the young college graduate, college student, and high school crowd would be peeled away were they made aware of these very significant features of Obama's thought?

Looks like Joe Biden's characterization of Obama as "clean" does not hold up to scrutiny. Says a lot about the trustworthiness of Sen. Biden's due diligence. Open mouth and insert foot. Do you suppose George Soros was laughing his **s off when those words were uttered?

1/16/2008 08:45:00 AM  
Blogger herb said...

I suppose that the term "Swiftboating" is intended to be a pejorative, meaning that there is something unfair or unethical in looking into or telling of things that are not compatible with the received narrative.

But does it work both ways when the received narrative is a negative (Thompson's laziness, Bush's ignorance) and the facts may be different?

1/16/2008 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/16/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the check back often.

1/16/2008 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Fred said...

The most lamentable thing about Barack Obama’s education when he was in his teens is that his time in Catholic schools did not impress upon him the true core of the Gospel and the legacy of humanistic learning of our Catholic faith. If you google up information about his mother, you would understand why. It appears that Barack’s mother’s atheistic, Marxist outlook trumped whatever Barack’s grandmother attempted to undo by enrolling him in good schools. Young Barack had a good mind, but evidently bad instincts. And when he was ensconced in Columbia University, and later Harvard University, his mother’s influence was more validated and reinforced.

The church he now associates with is not truly Christian in outlook and direction. It is racist and encourages hatreds. The fact that he cannot see this speaks volumes about the intellect and character of this man. In an earlier age when there were still certain forms of clarity observed, Obama and the church he associates with would be forthrightly called what is at work: Heresy.

1/16/2008 11:07:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

With all due respect to Mr. Marsh, Swiftboating is the wrong term to use here. How about Brownshirting instead.

1/16/2008 02:19:00 PM  
Blogger Whiskey said...

It would not matter WHO ran for President within the Democratic Party. Their coalition is fragmenting even as the Republican one shows signs of also fragmenting.

Jews and Blacks cannot realistically be in the same party because they want things that are mutually exclusive. And believe things that are mutually hostile.

Blacks are shot through with anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli feeling. Spike Lee's films, or Louis Farrakhan's widespread support in the Black Community show this. Many if not all Blacks feel Jews are oppressing Blacks at home and the real "reason" for Black poverty and violence and "oppressing" Muslims abroad.

But as David Brooks points out, Blacks and Latinos (or really, Mexicans) have mutually hostile and exclusive interests. Mexicans are in the process in LA at least (and also New Orleans) of economically cleansing Blacks out of historic neighborhoods. In New Orleans mostly through out-competing Blacks for dirt-cheap wages and horrific living conditions. In LA through gang violence backed by unlimited manpower as well as outcompeting on low cost in a high-cost area. And each group (Blacks, Mexican/Latinos) tries to maximize it's own Affirmative Action benefits against a white majority that is not very majority any more. In California whites formed 75% of the population in 1970. Currently they are 45%. White support for Affirmative Action is nil -- since it penalizes them, just another racial/ethnic group that is excluded by others, and rewards other groups.

Blacks, Jews, Latinos, Whites, Asians all face the same problem in the Democratic Party: the rapidly increased cost of doling out goodies means certain groups MUST LOSE for others TO WIN. Winners and losers create fractions that end up with losers leaving the Party.

I predict that the Democratic Party, regardless of Obama-Hillary, will end up being largely Latino-Upper Class Whites, Malibu Movie Producers and NYC Hedge Fund managers, and their maids.

Blacks are likely to form their own party and use a swing vote to influence elections (an excellent strategy and one that boggles that it has not been used before). Jews, Asians, and Middle Class Whites are likely to mostly go to the Republican Party.

I do not like this. Fragmentation is bad for the country and a sign of social weakness and a lack of societal and cultural confidence. Yet it seems to infect everything.

1/16/2008 06:16:00 PM  
Blogger watimebeing said...

Whiskey 199, could it be societal style creative destruction at work. De-constructing what does not work hoping to find a form that does.

Just gotta take care what is destroyed. As for what survives it should not be of a similarly mutually exclusive bent.
It is not up to us. However, we may tug and prod and urge adherence to the current bill of rights.

1/16/2008 11:09:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger