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

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Juan Williams on Obama & Race

최고의 이진 옵션 브로커.

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 and their antique auto insurance rates.

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

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

Its atomic wall clocks with the president. 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
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:

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 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.)


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

Obama - Clueless About Iran

Amir Taheri completely destroys Barry's naive belief that simply chatting with the Iranians would resolve our differences:


The Problem With Talking to Iran
May 28, 2008; Page A17

In a report released this week, the International Atomic Energy Agency expressed "serious concern" that the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to conceal details of its nuclear weapons program, even as it defies U.N. demands to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

Meanwhile, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama – in lieu of a policy for dealing with the growing threat posed by the Islamic Republic – repeats what has become a familiar refrain within his party: Let's talk to Iran.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with wanting to talk to an adversary. But Mr. Obama and his supporters should not pretend this is "change" in any real sense. Every U.S. administration in the past 30 years, from Jimmy Carter's to George W. Bush's, has tried to engage in dialogue with Iran's leaders. They've all failed.

Just two years ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proffered an invitation to the Islamic Republic for talks, backed by promises of what one of her advisers described as "juicy carrots" with not a shadow of a stick. At the time, I happened to be in Washington. Early one morning, one of Ms. Rice's assistants read the text of her statement (which was to be issued a few hours later) to me over the phone, asking my opinion. I said the move won't work, but insisted that the statement should mention U.S. concern for human- rights violations in Iran.

"We don't wish to set preconditions," was the answer. "We could raise all issues once they have agreed to talk." I suppose Ms. Rice is still waiting for Iran's mullahs to accept her invitation, even while Mr. Obama castigates her for not wanting to talk.
The reason is that Iran is gripped by a typical crisis of identity that afflicts most nations that pass through a revolutionary experience. The Islamic Republic does not know how to behave: as a nation-state, or as the embodiment of a revolution with universal messianic pretensions. Is it a country or a cause?

A nation-state wants concrete things such as demarcated borders, markets, access to natural resources, security, influence, and, of course, stability – all things that could be negotiated with other nation-states. A revolution, on the other hand, doesn't want anything in particular because it wants everything.

In 1802, when Bonaparte embarked on his campaign of world conquest, the threat did not come from France as a nation-state but from the French Revolution in its Napoleonic reincarnation. In 1933, it was Germany as a cause, the Nazi cause, that threatened the world. Under communism, the Soviet Union was a cause and thus a threat. Having ceased to be a cause and re-emerged a nation-state, Russia no longer poses an existential threat to others.

The problem that the world, including the U.S., has today is not with Iran as a nation-state but with the Islamic Republic as a revolutionary cause bent on world conquest under the guidance of the "Hidden Imam." The following statement by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme leader" of the Islamic Republic – who Mr. Obama admits has ultimate power in Iran -- exposes the futility of the very talks Mr. Obama proposes: "You have nothing to say to us. We object. We do not agree to a relationship with you! We are not prepared to establish relations with powerful world devourers like you! The Iranian nation has no need of the United States, nor is the Iranian nation afraid of the United States. We . . . do not accept your behavior, your oppression and intervention in various parts of the world."

So, how should one deal with a regime of this nature? The challenge for the U.S. and the world is finding a way to help Iran absorb its revolutionary experience, stop being a cause, and re-emerge as a nation-state.

Whenever Iran has appeared as a nation-state, others have been able to negotiate with it, occasionally with good results. In Iraq, for example, Iran has successfully negotiated a range of issues with both the Iraqi government and the U.S. Agreement has been reached on conditions under which millions of Iranians visit Iraq each year for pilgrimage. An accord has been worked out to dredge the Shatt al-Arab waterway of three decades of war debris, thus enabling both neighbors to reopen their biggest ports. Again acting as a nation-state, Iran has secured permission for its citizens to invest in Iraq.

When it comes to Iran behaving as the embodiment of a revolutionary cause, however, no agreement is possible. There will be no compromise on Iranian smuggling of weapons into Iraq. Nor will the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps agree to stop training Hezbollah-style terrorists in Shiite parts of Iraq. Iraq and its allies should not allow the mullahs of Tehran to export their sick ideology to the newly liberated country through violence and terror.
Mr. Ahmadinejad is talking about changing the destiny of mankind, while Mr. Obama and his foreign policy experts offer spare parts for Boeings or membership in the World Trade Organization. Perhaps Mr. Obama is unaware that one of Mr. Ahmadinejad's first acts was to freeze Tehran's efforts for securing WTO membership because he regards the outfit as "a nest of conspiracies by Zionists and Americans."

Mr. Obama wavers back and forth over whether he will talk directly to Mr. Ahmadinejad or some other representative of the Islamic Republic, including the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Moreover, he does not make it clear which of the two Irans – the nation-state or the revolutionary cause – he wishes to "engage." A misstep could legitimize the Khomeinist system and help it crush Iranians' hope of return as a nation-state.

The Islamic Republic might welcome unconditional talks, but only if the U.S. signals readiness for unconditional surrender. Talk about talking to Iran and engaging Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot hide the fact that, three decades after Khomeinist thugs raided the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, America does not understand what is really happening in Iran.

Obama clearly does not understand the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran. We have nothing to offer President Tom or the Mullahs. They do not want anything from us other than our surrender.

Obama does not recognize this and will likely make a huge blunder in foreign policy regarding Iran. His inability to grasp the basics is terrifying.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Monday, May 26, 2008

Memorial Day

It is that one day of the year when we make an effort to remember those who paid the price for the lives we have.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

Sunday, May 25, 2008

I have nothing to add to this. Thanks to my pal Geri B back in Connecticut for this gem

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

I Made That Trip to the Santa Cruz Mountains

I gassed up the car, after I passed the credit check, and headed up toward the Santa CruzMountains to take a look at the Summit Fire. It really was not all that impressive when I got there. It had been pretty spectacular on Wednesday when it consumed the better part of 4,000 acres, but by Thursday it was spreading slowly. It had gone from "wind fed" to "fuel fed." Fortunately it stayed that way.

I camped out on a ridgeline about a mile and a half from the southern edge of the fire. The wind was from the west, so I had a good view with the smoke blowing off to the east. Helicopters came and went, trailing buckets of water that they dumped on the hot spots.

My brother pointed out the carbon footprint the choppers had and threatened to call Al Gore and have this ecological depradation, the helicopter exhaust that is, stopped immediately.

Anyway, here is what it looked like for you flatlanders out there who don't see this sort of thing everyday.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: MontereyJohn

©Copyright 2007-2011 - Another Rovian Conspiricy | Glamour Photography | SEO Management | RSS Feed