« Straw Man | HomePage | The Serbian Attack on Our Embassy »

Thursday, February 21, 20081203600891

Punish Friends, Reward Enemies?

Rove, K. (2008). Obama's new vulnerability. The Wall Street Journal. February 21, 2008. Available online: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120355939956381797.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries.

Karl Rove's new article on Barack Obama is partisan (of course), but his best paragraph also outlines an attack that Hillary Clinton will use to try to save her campaign, as well:

Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.


This is a serious concern. While John McCain and Hillary Clinton have done hard work, such as supporting the Orange Revolution in Eastern Europe even beyond legislation, Obama's adaption of leftist rhetoric would make foreign states happier being our enemies than our friends. This position is typical of the anti-American left, and if Barack Obama actually believes it (as opposed to pandering to the liberal/left flank of his party that gets him his caucus wins), it is very dangerous.

A best-case outcome for Obama is that he will get us involved in some wars in Africa, helping us build up our SysAdmin Industrial Complex and increasing Army-USMC expertise in counterinsurgency and shrinking the Gap.

In other words, Obama's substance has been so weak, support for him on international relations have to hope that his race trump his rhetoric -- that his ancestry trump his actions.

And that's too bad.

Comments

But that's what his following is all about! These people care nothing for "ideas" no matter how much Obama is supposed to be a big "idea" man. As far as what Obama believes, who knows? I sense more trianglization with him than even with the Clintons.

This is what we'll see with Obama. On the Domestic front, Obama will do all he can to push social Marxism and expand government programs. On the international front, he'll keep the NeoCons happy with an aggressive policy. His leftest followers won't complain because their either too scared to criticize an African American or are just to hypnotized by his phony speech.

The media will cover him like Pravda covered the Soviet leadership. He really can't do any wrong as long as he doesn't screw with the business community too much or leave the Middle East.

His followers are probably the most brain dead people I've ever seen? The next time someone moans about people not voting for Obama because he's black, assure them that many more WILL vote for Obama because he's black. Its important to remember that its not racism if you vote FOR Obama because he's black, its only racism if you vote AGAINST Obama because he's black.

Posted by: Seerov | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Good article on the mysteries of Obama....

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080120_obama.htm

Posted by: Seerov | Thursday, February 21, 2008

I have no love for the American Left, which is as anti-capitalist and anti-military as they come. Given that Senator Obama has ran on a campaign promising a more consensual kind of politics (rather than the cutthroat 50.1% politics of Herr Rove), I can't take seriously rhetoric that paints him as being policy-devoid, especially when many have already said that Obama and Hillary have minor differences over policy. Vision is the big thing here. Plus, having a blank slate is better than promising the voters many things and then completely changing your policies once in office (see Mitt Romney, and see GWB, promising to be fiscal conservative and foreign policy realist).

Further, Obama did NOT threaten any allies and is NOT appeasing Iran and Syria. As Doc Barnett points out, the soft kill is the way to go on this one, and I think Obama gets that as well. I see his administration continuing to tone down the hostility with Iran, cut some deals with the mullahs, and then watch as the theocracy collapses in on itself, CCCP style. And on Pakistan he only threatened to go after the al-Qaeda elements in the Northwest. Sounds exactly like our recent killing of al-Libi. Further, Obama is no fan of Musharraf, and neither are the Pakistanis, so that should work in our favor also.

Further, the vast majority of the American intellectual establishment is voting for Obama. Although we too have our faults, I think it's time for a thinking politican to run the show (as opposed to Deciders operating from their 'gut' or 'instinct').

And, (I might be deliberately provocative here) it's about fucking time for a minority to be president. Seriously. It sends a message to the world that we can get over our own internal and petty bullshit, and that we'd like to see others do the same.

I look forward to seeing the system do something productive for once.

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Stephen Pampinella,

"I have no love for the American Left, which is as anti-capitalist and anti-military as they come."

Indeed. Some aren't even proud of their country.

"Given that Senator Obama has ran on a campaign promising a more consensual kind of politics (rather than the cutthroat 50.1% politics of Herr Rove), I can't take seriously rhetoric that paints him as being policy-devoid, especially when many have already said that Obama and Hillary have minor differences over policy."

Wouldn't the opposite be true -- that a candidate whose major concern is consensus and process would naturally be interested in the policies themselves?

"Further, Obama did NOT threaten any allies and is NOT appeasing Iran and Syria. As Doc Barnett points out, the soft kill is the way to go on this one, and I think Obama gets that as well."

Perhaps, though he hasn't talked in specifics. What he has mentioned is that he completely devalues the legitimacy we give to a state through direct public negotiations: that is what a policy of talking to anyone, anywhere, anytime (as long as they or a proxy try to kill us?) means.

" I see his administration continuing to tone down the hostility with Iran, cut some deals with the mullahs, and then watch as the theocracy collapses in on itself, CCCP style. And on Pakistan he only threatened to go after the al-Qaeda elements in the Northwest. Sounds exactly like our recent killing of al-Libi. Further, Obama is no fan of Musharraf, and neither are the Pakistanis, so that should work in our favor also."

I'm generally sympathetic to going after bad-guys directly and ignoring state sovereignty in the Gap, so I don't mind that portion of Obama's proposed leadership. Still, he will either be as open about snatch and grab ops in Iran or Syria, or else give more respect to our enemies than our friends.

"And, (I might be deliberately provocative here) it's about fucking time for a minority to be president. Seriously. It sends a message to the world that we can get over our own internal and petty bullshit, and that we'd like to see others do the same."

Affirmative action on the nuclear-arsenal level is the way to do that?

"I look forward to seeing the system do something productive for once."

As opposed to actual substantial accomplishments, such as welfare reform, WTO, NAFTA, DR-CAFTA, MFN with China, etc?

Seerov,

"Its important to remember that its not racism if you vote FOR Obama because he's black, its only racism if you vote AGAINST Obama because he's black."

I think Stephen just proved your point!

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Just remember, McCain has his own weaknesses:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/751tryie.asp

While you're in there, the article linked on the right about the Army Officer Corps is good too.

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, February 21, 2008

Comparing track records:

DR-CAFTA [1]
McCain Aye
Clinton Nay
Obama Nay

Comprehensive Immigration Reform [2]
McCain Aye
Clinton Aye
Obama Aye

All candidates accept the economic gains we can make from foreigners living in our countries. But of the three, only McCain has voted to help our economy by trading with those latinos outside our borders, as well.

[1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170
[2] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00157

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, February 21, 2008

"I think Stephen just proved your point!"

Indeed he did. I'm sure Stephan is an expert at whatever his discipline is. I bet he looks very objectively at his studies and would never let his emotions dictate the results of his research. Then, the issue of race comes around and he's hooked like Benny Hinn's congregation. And like he said, "most of the intellectual community is doing the same thing." In another post, I described the racial socialization that we receive in the West. And I described the academic community as the main agents of socialization. Wouldn't it make perfect sense that those who spend the most time in the halls of socialization be the most socialized? We're all familiar with the idea of learning something by teaching it.

Posted by: Seerov | Friday, February 22, 2008

By now I'm sure most of you have heard the accusations about McCain having an affair? Seems as if Obama is being accused of the same thing. The only difference is, the media is not covering it. Lets see if the story gets out or if its swept under the rug. I'm betting on swept under the rug. Make sure to watch the You-tube video that is linked to this story. One thing is certain, Obama doesn't "discriminate" when choosing a "partner."


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626

Posted by: Seerov | Friday, February 22, 2008

Seerov,

Initially, my reaction to your comment was "Of course the New York Times hypes charges against McCain. He's a Republican."

However, your hypothesis that much of the support for Obama is race-based -- and Stephen's apparent agreement with that statement -- definitely argues for your explanation as well.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, February 22, 2008

Yeah, I guess I did prove Seerov's point. And I agree with the notion that those who do the most socializing of others are culturally those who are most socialized by those ideas. But Benny Ginn? I need you to clarify that for me. ( I know Benny Hill the British comedian who loves sexy parties, but beyond that...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgrdOCSygY )

And, anyone who claims 'expertise' in anything has given up on new learning. The only expertise I have is in being corrected by others. Hence the utility of blogging.

Posted by: Stephen Pampinella | Friday, February 22, 2008

Stephen, I assume that Seerov's is refering to Benny Hinn, the televangelist [1,2], who combines a politically correct ancestry (Israeli-Palestinian-Armenian) with a message his audience wants to believe.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQftnekCv8U
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Friday, February 22, 2008

Interesting Benny Hinn story:
My girlfriend used to work at the Savvis Center in St. Louis. Hinn had brought his road show to the city and on the day of the show my girlfriend arrived early to help set up the restaurant at the Club level. While there, she got to watch the rehearsal for the show, INCLUDING the miraculous healings, hands laid on, falling back, everything. Having come from a fairly religious background (underground church in a communist country), she was disgusted.

Meanwhile,
I think Obamas wife is making more a a play toward class warfare than race:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-michelleobama21feb21,0,5061497.story

I guess all the hard work that got her to Princeton and Harvard and a million dollar house were just 'luck.'

Posted by: ElamBend | Friday, February 22, 2008

"And, anyone who claims 'expertise' in anything has given up on new learning."

Yes I agree, poor choice of words on my part.

"However, your hypothesis that much of the support for Obama is race-based -- and Stephen's apparent agreement with that statement -- definitely argues for your explanation as well."

Even Obama's opponents are scared to go after the him. All Hilary can come up with is that Obama plagiarized a speech? I read somewhere that John McCain had a campaign staffer who quit because he's afraid to criticize Obama(I'll try to find the article). I'm starting to realize that Political Correctness has a caste system in which some people can be criticized (untouchables) while others are off-limits. This is very unfortunate but as I pointed out, its the result of 40 years of socialization.

Posted by: Seerov | Friday, February 22, 2008

ElamBend,

Michele has a fanatical love for her husband, which is good.

It will be interesting to see if she wants to expound a coherent political philosophy on the campaign trail, or use her position as a candidate's wife more strategically.

Seerov,

Good use of the word "untouchable" -- excellent analogy to the caste system.

There's a sense - and again, I'll use Stephen's fluent comment as an example of this -- that compared to Obama's, other candidates have tainted blood/ancestry. During the 1990s there was a good deal of Republican focus on military service proving virtue -- that is, Bob Dole had earned more virtue than Bill Clinton. I wonder if in the 200s the Democrats are also focusing on virtue, but believe it is given according to a politically-correct bloodline.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, February 23, 2008

If Rove wants to talk about appeasement, he should mention Bush's and neoconservative elite mouthpiece John Bolton's rush to rationalize Musharraf’s withdraw of Pakistani military and law enforcement from Waziristan back when Bolton represented us in the U.N., and I just happened to be setting right next to you at a Bolton speech when he did it.

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Monday, February 25, 2008

Thank you for sharing this post. Another knowledge gained. Looking forward to read more from you.

Posted by: directory | Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Post a comment