| Times Online | 0 | |
| Fox Boston | 0 | |
| Merc. News | 0 | |
| Big Govt | Obama’s Shock Troops: SEIU and Political Intimidation in St. Louis |
0 |
| NYT | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Whiner-in-Chief:
"[W]hether the grumbling is about Republicans on Fox or bloggers in pajamas, there's a word for what the president and his aides are doing. That word is "whining." And nothing [...] does more damage to Obama's credibility or authority than the sense that a popular president is becoming the whiner-in-chief."
- John Nichols, Nation Magazine - 10/12/09
Barack Obama: A critical look
With Senator Obama now being he clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president, and talk of Hillary dropping out of the race blazes across the blogosphere, now more than ever the junior Senator from Illinois deserves intense scrutiny.
I have written on numerous occasions about Senator Obama and noted that how he is portrayed in the press, by the liberal punditocracy, his supporters, and sometimes himself, is at odds with who he really is and what he stands for. I’ve noted that in spite of the myth that he is a “moderate” “bring people together” type of candidate, in actuality he is a solid liberal, always has been and always will be, and one who leaves little room for compromise. Contrary to he message he wants to send out to voters that he is a political “outsider,” he’s very much an insider. Just because you haven’t actually spent a whole lot of time in Washington doesn’t mean you don’t know how to play the political game, and he has a track record to show for it.
In April, he redefined the word “violence” with a bizarre series of ‘updated’ definitions, which are documented here. His idea of making a political statement is refusing to wear a US flag pin. His speeches are not as “inspirational” as some of his his cult-like followers spin them out to be: Back in February, the man who wants to be Commander in Chief of our armed forces said that troop deaths in Iraq were “wasted” deaths, strongly implying that our troops had given their lives for a lie.
On the foreign policy front, Obama’s lack of experience is extremely worrisome: In an attempt to appeal to his party’s rabid anti-war wing, Obama stated in a July Democratic debate that he would “unconditionally” meet with some of the world’s most despotic “leaders” – sworn enemies of the United States – in an attempt to be diplomatic. In a blatant attempt at showing off his “tough guy” credentials, which in reality don’t exist, he threatened to invade War On Terror ally Pakistan. When pressed on his foreign policy experience, he admitted last month that his foreign policy credentials were based on the four years he spent overseas … as a child.
Just this past weekend, he stupidly asserted that the significant reduction in violence taking place in Iraq was happening as the result of Democrats taking control of Congress in 2006, because, in his view, Sunnis got scared that the US would pull out with Congress under Dem “leadership” and as a result, decided to change their tunes.
But worst of all, he declared back in July that the strong probability of genocide happening in Iraq should US troops be withdrawn before the mission is complete was not a reason to keep them there.
Yesterday, San Diego Tribune editor Robert J. Caldwell made similar points about Obama, and added on much more (h/t: Betsy Newmark). Give Obama his due for the way he’s run his campaign, Caldwell said, but his record is troublesome:
Obama is still the presidential contender with a one-page resume. The Illinois state legislature and half of one term in the U.S. Senate is scant preparation to be president of the United States. In his brief Senate tenure, Obama has no legislative accomplishments, mainly because for most of that short time he’s been running for president.
[...]
Obama’s inconsistency on Iraq is amply documented. He’s been alternately for and against withholding funding for the troops, for and against setting timelines for withdrawal, and for and against a quick retreat from Iraq.
Whatever one’s views on Iraq strategy and homefront support, these vacillations on a war in progress don’t inspire confidence; in Obama’s judgment, his grasp of Iraq realities and his constancy of purpose. Whatever this is, it isn’t leadership.
All of this betrays Obama’s lack of experience; a glaring deficiency that should be raising profound questions about his qualifications and fitness, at least now, for the presidency.
Then there’s the disturbing disconnect between Obama’s carefully crafted persona as a unifier and a supposed “trans-ideological” agent of change, and his actual record in office.
[...]
What’s troubling, however, is that Obama’s record doesn’t match his reassuring persona.
The liberal Americans for Democratic Action rates Obama’s voting record in the Senate at 97.5 percent, near perfection for liberal Democrats. The American Conservative Union, the ADA’s ideological opposite, rates Obama’s voting record at a rock-bottom 8 percent. Both ratings leave no doubt that Obama’s actual votes mark him as a traditionally liberal Democrat, not a moderate.
Where in these votes is the evidence of trans-ideological change that Obama is selling so successfully on the campaign trail? Where in this record is the evidence that Obama is the unifier he claims to be?
On domestic, economic, foreign policy and national security issues, Obama’s actual record is consistently liberal and consistently orthodox in Democratic Party terms. Obama typically talks like a centrist but votes like a liberal.
Obama’s record also raises another disturbing matter – his penchant for ducking tough issues. In the Illinois Legislature, Obama compiled a record of voting “present” on controversial and politically explosive bills. However politically convenient, this isn’t leadership. Obama’s three years in the U.S. Senate are similarly devoid of any leadership examples on legislation of consequence.
This doesn’t necessarily indict Obama’s claimed leadership skills as fraudulent. It does demonstrate that those skills have not yet been in evidence in his legislative work. That’s a curious, and worrying, fact.
Cataloguing the doubts about Obama isn’t nitpicking or partisanship. It’s the sort of scrutiny every presidential candidate should get. This is information that every voter deserves, and should want before making fateful decisions about this country’s future.
Read the whole thing.
Since Obama’s big win on Thursday night, I’ve been hearing and reading comments from conservatives who are asserting that if they “had” to have a Democrat for president, they’d like it to be Obama, because he doesn’t appear to be divisive and would reach out to the other side of the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is naive thinking. The only “reaching out” an Obama administration would do is reach out to get moderate Republicans on board with his administration’s liberal ideas on issues like socialized healthcare and Iraq. And with what will likely still be a Democratic Congress (with perhaps even larger majorities) once the 2008 elections are over, he’ll only have to reach out to a few moderate Rs in the House and Senate in order to easily advance his liberal agenda.
Let’s also not forget:
He’s got friends in low places.
We can’t make the mistake of confusing likability with substance. Senator Barack Obama is a Democrat that no Republican should be comfortable seeing sit in the big chair in the White House, especially not right in the middle of a war on terror he is unwilling to wage effectively.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
12 Responses to “Barack Obama: A critical look”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Great Post ST. ST wrote, “I’ve been hearing and reading comments from conservatives who are asserting that if they “had” to have a Democrat for president, they’d like it to be Obama, because he doesn’t appear to be divisive and would reach out to the other side of the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. This is naive thinking.”
I agree. Clinton/Obama/Edwards are equally divisive in my mind. They all are class warfare spewers, deride conservative thinkers as people who don’t “care” or people that “hate”.
My success in converting liberals to conservatives has always been when I conveyed the understanding that rank and file liberals and conservatives all have good “intentions” but the results of each camp’s policies are what matter. You can take from productive people and reward those who choose not to be responsible with 100 different programs but it will always be MORE caring and less hateful to teach a person to fish rather than give them fish. This does not mean that those who are not-able bodied should be told to fish. It just means that the ever expansive government needs to be chopped in half really but that is too extreme of a cut – it’d have immediate adverse consequences.
So while liberals want to take people’s money and provide insurance to people 400% above the poverty line – it might feel good to be so giving but we have to look at the consequences of those actions. 1) Administratively the cost of these programs are higher than if there was private health insurance paid for by each of these government recipients. 2) Choice would be severely hampered. it’s a one size fits all insurance program with little ability to change any of your coverage/doctor or cost – yes there is a cost people!!
So instead of these liberals, we need a conservative. Period. We need to focus very hard on spreading the message to all these people in Frank Luntz focus groups. You know. The people who focus purely on charm and likeability and how enthusiastic the candidate is.
We all as Americans need to focus on the substance of the issues. Every one of the Republican candidates would be better than Obama/Clinton/Edwards. Yes, even Paul.
I can’t believe how far we seem to come as Americans since conservatism seemed to take root in 1994. I mean, I know the MSM is blatantly liberal and in our world has been discredited on so many stories but where is the common sense out there???? How is it that 2 to 3 times more people showed up for Obama than the entire set of Republicans in Iowa?
Have to end this rant with Go Fred !
See how bad Hillary wants it?
Wake up folks. Fred cares and that is why he’s in the race. He doesn’t need to be obsessive about it like Hillary… His speaking style is as it is….
I didn’t think for a second that Hillary thought about anyone but Hillary
ST Obama reminds me of another Dem who said:
Nice words from Obama but where’s the meat?
Enough cliches?
If Hitlery is Carter on a steroid, then Barry is Kerry with a tan.
– Lorica
As a native New Yorker, I want to warn everyone about the man in that photo being embraced by Senator Obama. A hugging by Reverend Al is a mugging to us all.
I wouldn’t want him as prez, but love him as a nominee. He’ll be easier to beat in the general. Good post btw, substantive and concise.
ST-
You are right about likability vs. substance. I do think Obama comes across as likable in comparison with Hillary and John Edwards. Not sure which of the 3 would get my substance vote if I were a dem. Is there a box for none of the above?
Once the nominees are in place there will be plenty of time to take a hard look at Obama if he’s the frontrunner for the dems. I’m pretty sure he will be.
I’ll vote republican no matter who they put up, but I’m still predicting Obama vs. Mitt, with Mitt winning big.
The only thing certain about Obama is that he’s a rookie. And therefore, he can be counted upon to make rookie mistakes.
Go Fred! That’s all that needs be said.
Another blow against B. Hussein Obama is that he has such strong Muslim ties. Not only did he spend four years overseas in Kenya as a child, he went back in August of 2006. While there he supported the leader of the muslim opposition party whose election dissent has caused at least 300 deaths over there. This shows questionable taste AND muslim affiliation.
But I agree with sodaboy. We should keep this kind of thing quiet until he has sewn up the nomination. Then any republican we choose will get in.
I keep hearing about how Obama represents a “new” kind of politics, one that reaches across party lines and connect with all of us.
Okay. So when has he ever said anything that actually reflects what conservatives want or believe in? Where’s this reaching out? All I see is the same old class warfare and redistribution of wealth, only he’s fairly polite about it.
So if we get the standard leftist program without the personal abuse, why is that new and exciting and something for all of us to get behind?