AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Does the senile Cicerone Imposter know that his link leads to Howard Stern and NOT BO?

Axelrod is a former failed Tribune Reporter. He loves to ridicule people who whould be left along but would scream to high heaven if someone ridiculed his disabled daughter. Just like a scumbag left winger.

This great post by James Morrison deserves reprinting. Only imbeciles like Cicerone Imposter who can not read beyond a sixth grade level do not understand it.


1 Reply report Sun 17 May, 2009 07:14 pm Re: Foxfyre (Post 3652238)
Re G. Will's JWR essay:

This is scary but of no surprise to MAC's or anyone paying attention to President Obama's present behavior or past rhetoric. Those so attentive remember the present Admin denying South Carolina's request to use stimulus funds to be fiscally responsible by paying down debt, which would result in financial savings down the road for the state. As we have mentioned in the past the MAC antennae became erect after hearing Obama's question to the representative American worker/entrepreneur, Joe the Plumber: "Don't you think we should share the wealth?" At the time neither participant in that conversation was wealthy or powerful. Joe Had plans to become so and merely wanted the Feds to stay neutral regarding his "happiness" which he intended to provide by his own labor and intelligence.

Obama has become powerful and feels that the Federal government can better plan and regulate American society at a Macro level than individual Americans can at a personal level. Presently there seem a growing number of individuals that would take President Obama to task on his socialistic goals both on a personal and national level of care. At issue is really whether Americans will truly be allowed to pursue "happiness" via their own lawful designs. If not, then Americans will have some "life" but little in the way of "liberty".

Candidate and President Obama, like the former Obama, "has a gift". We find a quote from D. Henninger's April 30th 2009 Column:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124105013014171063.html
Quote:
…Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

This is, of course, what Politicians do while on the campaign trail however, honesty and clarity is what is demanded of those that wish to become good national leaders:
Quote:
Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."
It is not hard to make the case that Obama, or any president, is still on the campaign while in the four years of what he hopes to become the first term of two. But, we have increasing evidence, by way of a demonstrated inability to control his own party and a constant longing to satisfy radical Democratic elements then often reversing those decisions when it is apparent that they were not entirely well thought out, (Memos, Photos, closing Gitmo, etc) that Obama either does not understand that his first responsibility is to the overall safety and economic well being of the nation or just does not know how to accomplish this goal via leadership skills.

To many this dichotomy is too kind. They would point out, as G. Will has in this scathing column, that Obama wants to scrap the American way of life and, indeed, the American Dream of self advancement and increased wealth for the European model of personal compliance to mediocrity and dependence on the state. This begs the question: “Does Obama realize who the Europeans (and others all over the world) have depended on for, not only economic success, but their very security since circa 1914?”

Finally, we are to believe that Obama has it all figured out (again we see subjective interpretation of Obama’s carefully espoused general and gauzy views) but again and again history teaches differently regarding ever increasing state control in both personal and economic matters. Recent examples point to the failings of the Soviet model and the poor record of the Europeans Re economic productivity. But a very recent testimony by a Chinese champion of economic liberalism points to the very claim that the State provides the best wisdom as fallacious because, as it turns out, the State Administration as Decider in Chief via all its experts still tends to distill down to a few or even a one man decision machine. Here are some thoughts from Zhao Ziyang’s memoirs. Zhao was Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party (can you say ‘Top Dog’?) During the Tiananmen Square thingy. Zhao championed economic liberalization under “soft authoritarianism” (not exactly sharing the wealth, which assumes private ownership, but a more socialistic Distribute the Wealth"assuming the state owns the wealth then doles it out-- perhaps a distinction with little difference):

Quote:
“…Zhao was initially a supporter of "soft authoritarianism." But he understood the importance of economic reforms, which he implemented as a leader in Guangdong and then Sichuan province. His policies, which included giving land rights to farmers and lifting state production quotas, were so immediately successful that a popular description became, "If you want to eat, look for [Zhao] Ziyang." Zhao also opened up the eastern coastal region to trade and development.
Only after his house arrest did Zhao conclude that a truly free economy also requires political liberalization, particularly a free press and independent judiciary. "If a country wishes to modernize, not only should it implement a market economy, it must also adopt a parliamentary democracy as its political system," he wrote in his memoirs.
This represented a shift in his thinking. "I once believed that people were masters of their own affairs," he wrote, "not in the parliamentary democracies of the developed nations in the West, but only in the Soviet and socialist nations' systems with a people's congress . . . This, in fact, is not the case. The democratic systems of our socialist nations are all just superficial; they are not systems in which the people are in charge, but rather are ruled by a few or even a single person."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124234178868121273.html
Here we have wisdom straight from the horse’s mouth: Communism and Socialism ends up being tyranny and is just as corrosive to freedom as any system that does so honestly, whether ruled by Monarchs, Czars, Ceasars, Hitlers, or just Saddam Husseins.

The quote below, drawn from one of the links provided by James Morrison( thank you, Mr. Morrison) shows that BO does not have the leadership style needed to be the President of the United States:

quote


Barack Obama's oratory skills disguise a lack of clarity. Daniel Henninger explains. (April 30)
Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country


end of quote

genoves, did you read "Audacity of Hope"? That is also how that book is written. You can read page after page looking for Obama's opinion, without finding it. Its as if it is a treatise of all the conflicting opinions and solutions swirling around in the political world, both liberal and conservative, and he somehow tries to impart the impression that he, the ultimate mediator and judge of all of those opinions, has figured it all out and has the magical solution or combination of them all. It therefore seems to cast the impression that Obama understands all ideas and solutions, and he has absorbed them all into one ultimate perfect solution, the Obama solution, the Obama policy. And he does this without so much as telling the reader what it is, at least most of the time, at least not clearly.

A good example of this is the Obama speech at Notre Dame, where he urges "Open Minds on Abortion." What does that tell us? Not much of anything, but it conjures up a picture of somebody that cares. He cares about the baby, even if it dies, and he cares about the people that kill the baby, and the people that opposed the killing. He cares. He is compassionate. In reality, he did nothing, and said nothing. He took no stand. So we are left with what he actually does, and what he actually does is vote for every bill that comes along in favor of abortion, even partial birth abortion.

Obama's positions on all the issues are very similar, he brackets all the issues, and tries to make everyone think he agrees with them. Terrorists, he loves them, and he wants to eradicate them. Budgets, he loves to save money, and spend money, he spends trillions, then tells his staff to cut millions, so he has done both. Obama is a contradiction.

Ultimately, his track record, not what he says, will tell us what Obama is about. I think a socialist and an incompetent, and a very confused man. We will end up a more confused nation, unless the people wake up and start sweeping some of these people out, starting 2 years from now.

Oh fer cryin' out loud, okie. Perhaps Obama is taking a page from the conservative manual of Orwellian doublespeak and taking advice from a conservative minister who asked him to use words that sound fair. You're just jealous because Obama, that dern liberal, appears to play the conservative word game better than conservatives. If that's what he's doing, I mean, playing with your head with his word games. After all, someone who would write a book and title it "The Audacity of Hope" knows how to turn a phrase.

Yeah, and when I think of the title, I think how dumb is that? Pretty dumb. I thought it was a dumb title for a book, and still do. Makes no sense.

Alot of the problem with Obama is nobody knows for sure what he is really about, which in fact helped elect him, but as a leader, nobody knows what he stands for or will do. Everybody is left to guess. Liberals voted for him, and so did so called moderates and conservatives. I guess because he fooled them. All things to all people.

If anything drives me nuts about a politician, its when they won't tell you what they stand for, if they stand for anything at all. They at least owe us what they are and what they are about. McCain at least gave us that.

You are exactly correct, Okie. I live in the Chicagoland area so I know a great deal about Obama. Most know that he was a community organizer. He was. He organized the black community in the south side ghettos of Chicago. He was trained by Saul Alinsky disciples. Saul Alinsky was a far left wing Socialist.

Your comment about Obama bracketing all the issues is right on the money. That is the way issues are discussed in the ghetto. They call it "jiving".

When he meets Netanyahu, he will meet a distinguished statesman and former soldier who defended Israel. Obama will not be able to bulls.it Bibi.

You are prescient about 2010. The left wingers do not think this will happen but since the Unemployment figures will be above 10% when the campaign begins in 2010, the Democrats will lose seats. I think some on these threads have forgotten 2004, when Clinton got his as. whipped.

But, now, I will reference a book written by a left winger about Harvard Law School long before Obama became a Senator.

The book is "Poisoned Ivy" by Eleanor Kerlow--St. Martin's Press--New York.

On P. 11, Kerlow writes:( Note the spelling of Obama's name by Kerlow)

quote

"His predecessor, Baruch Obama, had been the first African-American to serve as the Review's president in 103 years. Obama was friendly and outgoing but the class succeeding him wanted a TOUGHER editor to lead them."

Kerlow says Obama was a wimp?

*********************************************************

Better than the self serving autobiographies of BO, is the fine book-
"Obamination". Obama's autobiographies are more famous about what they leave out than what they have in them.

It is amazing to me that Obama writes so little about his classes at Occidental and his studies at Columbia. He doesn't give much information about his law school days either. Could this be because he was an Affirmative Action baby?

You bet--The record shows that Obama WAS NOT a Magna Graduate from Columbia. Even if he had a perfect LSAT score, he would not have been admitted to Harvard Law School unless he was admitted under Affirmative Action.

Will he be perplexed and stunned when the US Supreme Court issues its finding in June with regard to the New Haven Firefighters case, which, essentially is a case which penalizes whites and favors blacks?

You bet!

Debra L A W just flunked. I am amazed! Debra L A W does not know that Obama filched his title--"The audacity of Hope" from his minister, the Reverend Wright. You know, the temperate minister( who Obama never heard except when he referenced "the audacity of hope) who said--God Damn America and white doctors created Aids to commit genocide on black people.

One of Obama's main mentors, of course. Obama attended Wright's church for nearly a decade.

But Obama never heard Wright's comments. He also did not know that Blagojevich was corrupt. He also knew nothing about the Anti-Americanism of his neighbor(who served on several boards with him and had coffees in his home to present Obama as a Senatorial Candidate0, The Neighbor--The famous ex-Weatherman- Ayres. Obama also knew nothing about the sleazy and corrupt( now convicted) political fixer who saved Obama a bundle on the cost of Obama's mansion on the South Side of Chicago.

For such an allegedly brilliant man, Obama seems to either be unable to process information( a deadly shortcoming for a president) or to be complicit in the Chicago Corruption because of his refusal to blow the whistle.

You notice, Okie, that Debra L A W,for all her incredible learning in the L A W, also wets her panties when she sees one of my posts. I invite her to rebut my last post, unless, of course, she cannot. Perhaps she is just one of the chimpanzee leftists who are afraid to do anything but groom each other while muttering imprecations about Republicans.

I forgot that. Good point. No wonder it was a dud of a name for a book.

Sure.. and McCain was for eliminating all Mideast oil usage for the US in 8 or even 7 years. Something you now want to argue is IMPOSSIBLE.

Are you sure you want to say that McCain gave you honesty at the same time you want to argue Obama can't do something McCain promised?

parados, okie usually doesn't know what he's talking about; that's the reason why I put him on my Ignore list. Here's what McCain said about Middle East oil:

From the Huffington Post:



Sounds a lot more extreme than what Obama has said about dependence of Middle East oil.

But that didn't stop okie from attacking Obama for having unrealistic goals concerning energy on the global warming thread when Obama said we would be off Mideast oil in 10 years.

But I guess if only Obama had said what he really stands for unlike McCain who set "realistic" goals, okie wouldn't be in such a snit.

Yeah, okie was always jumping on Obama's energy plan without understanding what McCain said about the same topic. Ignorance and okie fits like a glove.

It is true Obama promised a 10-year timeline to eliminate dependence on Middle East oil. McCain said he thought ending or sharply reducing dependence on oil from places 'that don't like us very much' could be done in about seven years.

Which had the more realistic plan to do so?




http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9453.article

i find myself wondering when mac is gonna share his extensive knowledge of "just where" bin laden is, and "just how to get him".

i mean, is it like, "well you voted for the other guy, so screw you. figure it out yourself." ? that doesn't sound very patriotic.

or maybe he was just throwing out some campaign boogie-woogie?

I don't know a single MAC who has ever said he or she knows where bin Laden is. So why do you wonder?

I wonder what you think about my previous post though. In your opinion, did Obama or McCain suggest the more realistic energy policy? Why do you think so?

DTOM meant 'McCain' when he/she said 'mac' right then.

Cycloptichorn