I think it was Dean Barnett who noted that Obama likes to think of himself as a bridge-builder. . . . We've seen that phrase and metaphor come up repeatedly in Obama's press clippings.
To be a bridge-builder, you have to stand in between two opposing groups. You can't pass judgment, or denounce, or conclude that one side has crossed the line. You have to ignore the provocations of a side, urge people to forget past wrongdoing, and convince wary and hurt combatants take leaps of faith in trusting the other.
If you can really build a bridge between two groups that hate each other, God bless you. It's one of the world's toughest tasks.
But sometimes, both sides aren't equally at fault. Some folks deserve to be judged and denounced. Sometimes, provocations can't be ignored, past wrongdoings shouldn't be forgotten, and leaps of faith are exercises in naivete. Sometimes, you just can't build a bridge with someone.
In Ayers, as well as Wright, Rezko, and the ACORN shenanigans, we see that Obama repeatedly tolerates the intolerable. He's the opposite of quick to judge; he refuses to judge until long after it would do any good. Long after everybody else has figured out the character of his associates, Obama is left lamenting, "This is not the Jeremiah Wright I knew" or "This is not the Tony Rezko I knew" or "This is not the Jim Johnson I knew." And on and on. Obama is always giving people with well-established track records the benefit of the doubt, often to his own detriment; as President, he'll bring that same judgment to decisions that affect the country.
If you want to build a bridge with Iran, you can't denounce Ahmadinejad. If you want to improve relations with Venezuela, you can't put the spotlight on human rights abuses. If you want a successful summit with Syria, you have to pretend they weren't building a nuclear reactor on that site Israel bombed.
William Ayers is one mislaid wire away from being Timothy McVeigh, and remembered as one of America's most bloodthirsty terrorists and unforgivable traitors. There's no indication that Ayers' history of building bombs that claimed lives caused Obama a moment's hesitation.
That's what their relationship teaches us.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/16/2008 10:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gee, I didn't hear any about this from obama last night when he set the record straight. What is that ol lesson, when asked about something important telling only half the truth is still deceitful.
forwarded to me by a relative, just begging to be fisked. here for your snarky entertainment...
Subject: N.O.W.
To:
FYI, The National Organization for Women has endorsed the Obamba-Biden ticket for just the reasons listed below. They usually do not endorse, but in this case believed it was absolutely necessary to take a stand. Why, after that reckless L.A chapter brass sounded so darned sympathetic when she introduced Gov. Palin, why, they simply couldn't bear the thought of being even remotely associated with the idea that NOW might have actually lent its official stamp of approval! Sort of like the Democrats WRT Bush for the past 8 years...
If you agree, please pass this on. And if you don't agree, pass this version on.
Subject: Women and Sarah Palin
Friends,
We are writing to you because of the fury Because Hell hath no fury like a voting bloc scorned
and dread Doom! DOOM!!!
we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate that has a real possibility of becoming fact.
Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. Hmm... this'll be news to your opponents, ladies -- a lot of them they don't believe you intend for yourselves or anyone else on this planet to ever bear children again. Maybe you should spend more energy making that more widely known, instead of working yourselves into a bout of the vapors over Her Guvnership.
To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, And what was John McCain's interview with the Nature Conservancy? Or was that the NWF? Excuse me while I fact-check my own arse -- but still, what was that -- chopped liver?
alternative energy development, oil shale, tar sands... that's not alternative energy development? Somebody's invoking the Humpty Dumpty Rule again...
freedom of speech, I must have missed that one -- when exactly did she come out against freedom of speech?
gun control, No, she's very much FOR gun control. Being able to hit your target, that is.
the separation of church and state, and polar bears.
Oh dear Gaia, stop the presses! How could anyone with a HEART even POSSIBLY be against those cute cuddly POLAR BEARS!!
Oh effing please.
To say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-(and possibly first)-most-powerful person on the planet. Repeat that again: if being a mayor and sitting governor isn't qualifying for Veep, how the Eff does You Know Who's thin resume qualify HIM for CIC?
We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, No, she's just a gyno-American who doesn't agree with our stance, ergo, she's not a "woman" in the political sense of the term. Thank you, H. Dumpty.
a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and altogether devastating choice for Vice President. As opposed to, say, Condoleeza Rice? You got a better suggestion in mind?
Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and from which we've so demonstrably benefited. What -- because "18 Million cracks in the glass ceiling" wasn't a big enough hat tip?
First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters. Never mind that there is a whole Flyover Country of women whom she DOES represent -- but we won't mention them. Gosh, it's like they don't even count.
We want to disagree, publicly. If you agree that Palin is an irresponsible, even dangerous, choice for VP, please consider participating in this drive. Gentlemen, send this to the women you know and care for. I know it's tough to understand the way this choice is impacting women, but I have never seen so many women so outraged, angry and distraught in my entire life. We'd like our voices heard. Trust me, ma'am, they are... It's those other gyno-Americans, whose votes ALSO count, if you hadn't noticed? Y'think maybe they might like to be heard too? I thought diversity was a good thing
If you agree, PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour, you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns seriously. Assuming that this is your only concern.
Stranger things have happened. Yeah, this could have been a Rudy / Hillary matchup. And where would you be then?
#1
*giggle* Well done, Querent! Perhaps this is the final push by the idiot branch of the Democratic Party, and next time round they will give us a worthy candidate. To think liberalhawk was right when he said there'd come a time when we'd look back fondly on Hillary Clinton's candidacy.
You could have won a lot of money this year betting that the winning presidential candidate would carry more than 300 electoral votes. Most everyone expected a narrow contest this year because that is what we have become accustomed to. George W. Bush won his elections by sliding in just over the 270 electoral vote mark required for a win: 286 to 251 in 2004 and 271 to 266 in 2000.
The political orthodoxy has held that we live in evenly divided nation in which a handful of swing voters in a few states hold sway over the nation. We bemoaned the tyranny of the undecided Ohio voter.
This was supposed to be the next episode in the saga of our deeply divided nation. There were many predicting that an electoral deadlock was possible, with Nancy Pelosi establishing the new administration with the swing of her gavel.
But most pundits, myself included, agreed that we would see something very much like 2004, or at least 1976 when Jimmy Carter edged Gerald Ford 297 to 240.
Now, a clear-eyed examination of the electoral map shows us that Barack Obama is headed for a 313 to 221 victory over John McCain, and maybe much more. More frustrating for political scribes is that unlike other prospective big wins, this one does not feel at all concrete.
If Obama could snatch the lead back from McCain a month ago and run up a lead of six or seven points in that time, it's not unimaginable that we could see the race whipsaw yet again. A historically large number of uncertain, unsatisfied voters who are not strongly committed to either candidate could certainly still make another leap.
The tyranny of the fickle has replaced the tyranny of the undecided.
It's understandable that we'd crave predictability in politics. The version of the world presented on cable news and the Internet casts each political showdown -- whether it's a real battle over how to cool the financial meltdown that politicians themselves cooked up or a run-of-the-mill transportation bill -- as a looming Apocalypse.
With so much at stake, it was comforting, if a little dispiriting, to think that the order of things was unchangeable in this 51 percent nation.
But the breathless, screechy tone of our discourse has made it hard to recognize real change moments when they present themselves.
This election features the oldest first-time nominee to ever run and the first minority nominee.
It is also taking place while U.S. forces are at war in two counties and malefactors in Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, Caracas, and the caves of the Hindu Kush are looking for chances to exploit our stretched status.
Meanwhile, the economy is undergoing a major reordering as the biggest, most selfish generation in American history is starting to retire. The Baby Boomers may have been upset about Laos and Cambodia 40 years ago, but we hadn't seen anything until they had to watch their IRAs get fricasseed three weeks before an election.
By selling an opaque vision of change and relentlessly tying John McCain to the status quo, Obama was perfectly situated to take advantage of the terrain.
It had been favorable ground for any Democrat before, but Obama was slowed by his exotic background and scant experience. At the same time, McCain's bipartisan record, biography, and unpredictable style had kept him well ahead of the typical Republican.
As the members of President Bush's ownership society grew worried that they had bought swamp land instead of a share of steady markets, though, all of the reagents that limited Obama's success were taken out of the formula.
Also removed was the notion of national deadlock that has so fascinated us since Al Gore got nipped in 2000.
In this new environment, large, lasting changes are looming. Could Barack Obama do for liberals what Ronald Reagan did for conservatives and reorder the electoral map for the next generation?
Can Republicans find courage and leadership at this darkest moment of their political fortunes since the 1960s and turn back Obama?
With our national deadlock now broken, anything is possible.
One thing I liked about the Bush/Gore debates is that it was obvious both men loathed each other and they didn't care who knew it. That liberated them, for good and ill.
By contrast, for all the characteristically ponderous huffing from Bob Schieffer about "negative campaigns", McCain was never able to cast aside the Senatorial collegiality and really stick it to Obama. Why couldn't he have used the s-word - "socialism"? Why couldn't he have said that his opponent is a perfectly pleasant fellow but he has an all but blank resume so all we have to go on is his votes and his associations and both suggest a doctrinaire liberal well to the left of, say, Bill Clinton? Why couldn't he have pointed out that Barack Obama would be the most left-wing president ever elected in the United States?
McCain lacked the killer instinct. A man who cheerfully crashes planes and survives years of torture appeared nervous that clobbering his opponent might dent his image as Mister Bipartisan. You look at the way he sneered at Romney in the primary debates and compare it with his tentativeness toward Obama. His reluctance to whack the Democrat wound up, by default, elevating Obama. When a veteran Republican who's been on the national scene for a quarter-century and a Democrat whom nobody had heard of 20 minutes ago appear to be equal in stature, then by definition the Democrat wins.
And that, Kathryn, explains those insta-polls. McCain has no one to blame but himself.
#1
yeah, Mccain has sucked in the debates, I saw obama leave himself open for straight rights, uppercuts and a ton of jabs, mccain the former boxer never really connected. (minus telling bho he should've run against bush)
#2
Good think I'm not running for President. I woulda told Schieffer the following: "You can call it negative if you want but the people have a right to know about William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, ACORN, the lack of a birth certificate, etc, etc. And if guys like you won't tell them I sure as hell will."
Consider yourselves warned...
Its January 2009. President Barack Obama has just been sworn in, beneath the beaming smiles of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Welcome to the United States of Massachusetts.
Some of my friends here at the Herald used to grouse when Gov. Mitt Romney, out on the stump, would crack wise at the expense of Massachusetts. But Romney understood that for most of America, the Bay State - and Boston in particular - is viewed as alien territory. Were the weirdo, hippie brother of Americas 50-state family. And yet, if the Democrats sweep in November as projected, thats exactly the kind of government were going to get: Beacon Hill meets Capitol Hill.
I dont mean geographically. Obama only spent a few years in Cambridge, studying law and skipping out on parking tickets. But ideologically speaking, an Obama /Pelosi/Reid government reflects American political beliefs the same way the Rev. Jeremiah Wright represents the typical American churchgoer.
For one thing, America isnt big on one-party politics. In Massachusetts, Democrats running government is like gravity, or being stuck on I-93 - an inescapable part of life. But at the national level, weve only had six years of single-party control since Reagan was elected in 1980. Even then, the majorities were relatively small and ideologically divided. Southern Blue Dog Democrats kept their party from moving too far left, and New England Republicans slowed their partys move right.
An Obamafied Washington will look like the Bobs Country Bunker brand of Massachusetts politics: Weve got both kind of Democrats: left, and far left!
Obamas attitudes about big labor are also far more Massachusetts than Main Street, USA. Its easy for us to forget how little popularity unions enjoy across the country. Right now, only 8 percent of the private sector is unionized, and 22 states have right-to-work laws. But ObamaPelosi would get Washington and Big Labor back in bed together and gettin busy too. One of the priorities for next year, for example, is big labors assault on the sanctity of the secret ballot, aka card check. Pro-union or not, everyone agrees that unionization raises business costs and slows the creation of jobs - dumb policy during a recession. But as Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard writes: With Washington controlled by Democrats, it would sail through Congress and President Obama would sign it.
Then theres the issue of taxes. Here in Taxachusetts, proposals for across-the-board tax cuts are viewed in the same way as proposals to teach creationism in school. We cant even get income tax rollbacks after voting them into law. Which is why we roll our eyes when we hear Obama promise tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. Oh, you mean like Gov. Deval Patricks vow to cut property taxes? He pushed through a $500 million state tax increase.
On economics, Obama, Reid and Pelosi almost make Beacon Hill look moderate. Then again, they do the same for Fidel Castro.
Obama defenders say that his far-left past is no predictor of his presidential future. Massachusetts defenders point out were not nearly as liberal as marketed, evidenced by Hillary Clintons defeat of Obama in the Bay State primary.
Regardless, a President Obama is going to govern America a lot more like were used to here in Massachusetts than they are in Montana or Mississippi. And like a Massachusetts liberal, hes going to do it whether we taxpayers like it or not.
#2
The same thing will happen to America that has happened to Mass: all the productive who can will flee, while the state becomes a sump of leftist losers dependent on government for everything.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
