O'Reilly's Interview with Obama: The Democrats are in Trouble
Say what you want about O'Reilly; he's a pitbull of an interviewer. Today he pressed Obama on the Surge and Iran. The results were not good for Obama supporters.
Obama acknowledged the success of the surge but claimed it exceeded the wildest expectations of even Bush and McCain. (I don't see how that's a bad thing.) He would not, however, admit that he was wrong in voting against it. In the process he missed a great opportunity for powerful rhetoric.
O'Reilly: "If we had listened to you, we wouldn't have had a surge and we wouldn't be winning the war!" Obama (fire in his eyes): "If you had listened to me, we wouldn't NEED a surge because we wouldn't have STARTED this war in the first place!"
Now that's the Obama I love. Unfortunately, that Obama doesn't exist. Obama did not say that; there was no fire. He smiled and hemmed and hawed and said, "Well, we still are paying $12 billion a month on Iraq and..."
This remains an unpopular war among most of the American public and Obama needs to turn up the rhetoric. He would do well to remind us that we wouldn't be in this mess if he had been in the White House. (We might be in other messes, but not this one.) From what I've seen, it appears that as great as he is in a prepared speech, he isn't very good at extemporaneous speaking. Biden is amazing at it and that will help offset Obama's stilted responses, but Biden's not the guy who would be the commander in chief.
O'Reilly next moved on to Iran, and asked specifically what Obama plans to do. What happens if diplomacy doesn't work? Does he think military action is likely? Obama was quite evasive. He responded that, as a candidate for president, it's "not appropriate" for him to "tip his hand" regarding the direction he's going to go in Iran. Excuse me? You're not going to tip your hand? This isn't a Supreme Court nomination hearing, Obama, you are supposed to tell us what you're going to do. Eventually he gave his same old "all options are on the table" answer, but with no specifics.
Upon the conclusion of the interview, my first reaction was that Obama is going to lose. In any moderated debate with McCain, McCain will use forceful rhetoric about the need to use military force and confront our enemies. McCain will have fire in his eyes. Obama is, as usual, going to be very introspective, Kerry-like in his desire for nuance. It's not going to play well among the undecideds who agree the world is a very dangerous place.
Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential pick in the history of modern elections
Okay. Even if I were still considering McCain, his choice of the most unqualified, unvetted runningmate in the history of modern presidential politics would completely turn me off.
McCain meets her twice: at a governor's conference, and on the day he offers her the job. No one in Alaska had received any calls inquiring into Palin's background. The "vetting" process was almost certainly a quick Google job. I am not confident about a presidential candidate who doesn't do any real research before picking the second-in-command.
And McCain, who has a history of skin cancer and other ailments, had a father who died at 70 -- two years younger than McCain is now. There is a significant chance he could die in office, or become incapacitated. And then what? Palin named her kids Trig, Track, Willow, Bristol and Piper. I don't trust that woman's judgment at all. And she raised a daughter whose values apparently did not preclude having unprotected sex and getting pregnant in high school. Way to go, mom! So much for conservative values (other than her pastime of hunting caribou and encouraging the teaching of Creationism alongside Evolution in SCIENCE CLASS).
What does this pick say about McCain's judgment? And do we really think Palin is qualified to stare down Putin?
Word has it McCain really wanted Lieberman but decided against him because he didn't poll well. Yeah, real maverick.
Sorry, I'm just pretty annoyed at the direction the Republicans are going. Can someone please tell me why Palin is a good pick? I smell another Harriet Miers
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the pick myself, but I think you have been watching too much punditry and giving the McCain team short shrift. The guy in charge of the vetting, A.B. Culvershouse, is a partner at O'Melveney and about as inside Washington as it gets. The fact that he was brought on -- and elected to take the job -- means that everyone was serious about the search. So, regardless what you think about the ultimate choice, I think it is safe to say she was fully vetted. As for her foreign policy experience, that is a canard. Most governors, Bush and Clinton and Regan included, have little to no foreign experience. I'd hazard a guess that Nelson Rockefeller, Spiro Agnew, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Harry Truman (to name a few) had much foreign policy experience prior to taking office. Sarah Palin has been to the Middle East one less time than Barry (who has been twice, I think). I don't think that sitting in on a few committee meetings qualifies as voluminous foreign policy experience for the Senator. Just as Putin might be at an advantage against Palin, he would eat Barack's lunch, too. Granted she does not have the experience of Biden, but Joe has been wrong, I'd say, alot more than he's been right. Now, I'm just as nervous as you that she (and we) would be hip deep in it if she had to sit in THE SEAT on Jan. 22 and I all I can say is that I hope there are other very smart people around her. McCain, though, does not appear to be slowing down, has a clean bill of health by all accounts, and while his father dies at 70, his mom is still kicking at 96. As for this crap about Pailin's daughter, I say, who cares. It happens and has been happing for the last, oh, 2500 years. at least. I'm sure the Palin's gave her "the talk" and that she knew what could happen if she knocked boots without taking precautions. It's not a reflection of what kind of leader Palin would be. Regan had annoying kids; Carter's brother was a drunk; Roger Clinton. Family is family and they do what they do. By all accounts Gov. Palin and her husband are doing the right thing and standing by and supporting their daughter who may have made a questionable choice. What else do you want? I'd rather know where she stands on Social Security and Medicare reform. Now, I have libertarian leanings, so my live and let live tendencies is probably coloring my point of view, but idiot kids, brothers, sisters, parents, etc. are not germane to the election conversation.
There are plenty of ways to spin Palin, in favor or against. What bothers me the most is that she is not who McCain wanted. He wanted pro-choice Ridge or pro-choice Lieberman. But his party wouldn't allow it. And his bowing to their pressure nullifies his "maverick" image.
I don't know where the whole Ridge thing came from, and he may have been a good pick, but I don't think that Lieberman was ever going to be a realistic choice. Their views only seem to coincide on foreign policy. Otherwise he is an standard issue Democrat. He's a good guy, but votes down the line with the left side of the aisle. If he were the pick and they were elected and McCain went down, then you'd have D's in all seats. I think the prospect of Joe as VP was a Dem wet dream and they were goading McCain about not being a Mavrick enough in order to dare him into it. Above all though electoral realities are what they are. A pro-choice VP, when a significant sector of the base was in danger of not coming out, was never going to happen. If not Palin, then we'd be looking at Sanford, or Crist, or Pawlenty, or Romney, or Steele, or Hutchinson; all pro-life, conservatives. Daring McCain to pick Ridge or Lieberman would be like daring him to lose.
Sometimes I think Slate.com writers intentionally offer the most illogical, unsupported arguments, solely to increase their number of page views. Take this article from one Jacob Weisberg, arguing that racism is the only conceivable reason why Obama might lose the presidency.
Weisberg begins with the premise that Obama is the perfect choice that every non-racist would vote for. With such a ridiculous premise, of course the only logical answer that follows for his neck-and-neck standing in the polls is RACISM!
But the fact is, just because the country is sick of Bush policies doesn't mean they believe McCain will simply continue them. Despite the left wingers' cries of "Bush McCain," much evidence exists to suggest McCain is in fact his own man. People may prefer McCain's experience to Obama's lack thereof. People may still generally prefer conservative, small government principles, to liberal, big government principles.
In short, there are many reasons why McCain and Obama are neck and neck. Simply put, they both offer good policies that appeal to conservatives and liberals, respectively. The country is roughly equally divided between conservatives and liberals. So we get tied poll numbers.
I am not arguing that racism doesn't exist. There is clearly a small percentage that would never vote for Obama because of his skin color. But that is absolutely not the main reason for the current poll numbers.
I have now had several days to ruminate over the speech on race relations that Senator Obama gave to much acclaim on Tuesday. Several of the commentators who discussed the senator's speech compared him to John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Abraham Lincoln. I must admit, I was one of them, complimenting his speech as "Lincolnesque." It was brilliant. It contained a healthy dose of truth, and an incredible amount of introspection. It changed my mind about Obama's association with his church, and with Reverend Jeremiah "God damn America" Wright.
And yet, my friends, I am concerned. You see, Senator Obama paints himself as a man who wants to work with the other side to find a middle position that we can all agree on. He wants us to believe that he is a man of compromise. But his record drastically undermines his message. And his record is the one thing that I cannot overlook, and that all the amazing speeches in the world will not obscure.
I greatly admire Senator Obama. He has accomplished more than I could ever hope to in terms of political power and prestige. He is an intelligent and eloquent man, thoughtful and introspective and able to rally Americans of all colors and creeds. However, I cannot get over the unsettling feeling that Senator Obama is a massive hypocrite.
For all his talk about compromise, Senator Obama never has. Where Senator John McCain earned the respect of his political opponents and the ire of his so-called allies by routinely stepping across the aisle and sponsoring or backing bipartisan legislation, Senator Obama has remained firmly entrenched on the extreme left of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
So, as amazing as Senator Obama's speech was, it cannot erase the years of ultraliberal voting patterns. As enlightened as he wants us to believe he is, the fact remains that his political beliefs have been completely one-sided.
I would love to believe that the brilliant and eloquent Senator Obama can unite the country, but I am afraid his unwillingness to truly understand the other side will make him more of a divider than a uniter.
I'm not sure if Senator Obama could deliver a speech that would assuage my concerns about his unwavering liberalness. As eloquent as the man is, his voting record and actions in the Senate show him to be an unabashed liberal, unwilling to see the wisdom in the other side.And before you go calling me a "Monkey Republican" again, note that I would say exactly the same thing about someone who always voted Republican. Make no mistakes, my friends, there is always wisdom in the other side. Show me someone who always believes a certain way, who always votes with one party, and I will show you someone who is pigheaded and stubborn in his unwillingness to examine an issue from all sides.
Only a fool would think that his side is always correct.
I enjoy your interest in Barack Obama and I think you should read his book (Audacity of Hope). I didn't know about his being named most liberal and I agree that it's a little offsetting. In his book he has described his changing of positions and opinions and his path towards wisdom and I found that very enlightening. I like John McCain, I think he's a great man and I respect his ability to look at both sides but I don't consider him a uniter or a new page in America's book. My number one issue in this election is America's world relations and world image, which has been deeply tarnished by the current republican administration. When I hear McCain's policies I hear too much of the current administration in them. I have thoroughly enjoyed our political banter though :-)
I feel compelled to offer my voice in the ongoing cacophony that is the 2008 election discussion. This may become an ongoing feature. I'm not sure. All I know is that today, I want to talk about Senator Barack Obama.
I like the man. He is inspirational, he knows how to give a good speech, and he is intelligent. As Joe Biden put it, he is "clean-cut." At the risk of derailing my one-day presidential campaign, I must say that I agree with Senator Biden. Senator Obama appears to be an intelligent, charismatic John Kennedy for the current generation.
However, I am very disturbed by the recent revelations that have come to light concerning the people with whom he surrounds himself. Senator Obama thanked the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., when he won his Senate campaign, and he titled his second book, the Audacity of Hope, after the name of one of the reverend's sermons. Of course, Senator Obama married his wife -- selected her among all the women in the world as the person he wanted to spend his life with. He calls her his "rock." He depends on her for guidance.
This is disturbing because of what these individuals have said. The Reverend has been in the news lately because of some very incendiary remarks he made about America in several of his sermons. The wife was in the news recently for her comments that, until her husband had won the support of certain states, she had never before been proud of America.
I know that Senator Barock Obama is thankful to this country for the opportunities it has provided him. And I know that he regrets the things that his close allies have said publicly. He has called some of the remarks shameful and despicable. But the fact remains that he has chosen to surround himself with these people. This shows, to me, that he agrees with these sentiments -- at least privately. And, even if he does not consciously agree with these statements, it is a fact that, when surrounding yourself with certain viewpoints for so long, those viewpoints will begin to seep in.
An intelligent, impressionable individual who surrounds himself with America-haters for so many years is bound to pick up some of those beliefs. Even if he does not actively hate America, I am positive that at least some small part of him, spurred by the outright disgust of his compatriots, resents America.
None of this really matters to me; I am a John McCain supporter, as I have been for the past eight years or so. But I think it is important that my friends, who are so impressed by Senator Obama's idealism and intelligence and seeming integrity, listen to the words of Obama's preacher and Obama's wife. Don't just dismiss those anti-American ramblings as insignificant words of people who are not running for the presidency. Because, the fact is, those people, and those views, exist somewhere in the heart and mind of the man who is running for the presidency.
You cannot live for so many years with people who distrust America, and not start to develop some of the same views yourself.
Well, you are most likely white. So am I, but it's been a long time since I have felt proud of my country. Try to listen to the pastor's words from the perspective of African Americans who have been subjected to discrimination we will never experience. The Civil Rights era activists have a lot of anger---understandably, I think.
Obama is grateful for their struggles, which made his life easier (not easy!) as a black American, but he wants to turn the page and move forward.
btw, I found you through a post about MacSpeech. It's awesome, isn't it!?
I'm rather surprised you so readily make the leap from criticism to hatred. If anything, being openly critical of one's government and one's fellow citizens is the ultimate expression of American values.
Or do you subscribe to the "only traitors criticize our president/country/government" school of thought?
Now, this caused immediate derision among comedians and bitter left-wing activists. Bush is an idiot! Look, see what he just said? Buffoon!
Well, I am not so sure. After almost seven years, I am starting to think that perhaps our president is not as dumb as he appears. On the contrary, it is possible that he is far smarter than anyone gives him credit for. Indeed, I am fairly certain that President Bush speaks in metaphors -- which would no doubt cause confusion among liberals determined to malign him at every opportunity. Further, the president probably does not say what he is thinking, and when he does pick up a thought in the middle, it is even more confusing for the rest of us, who were not privy to his original internal discussions. ( I am fairly certain he does this, because I used to be guilty of the same offense. in my freshman year writing composition course, I never provided enough background exposition, and my grade suffered for it.)
So let's go ahead and break down the president's remark:
It probably made perfect sense to the president, because he was thinking of a recent discussion he had had, and so to him, the context of his statement was clear. To the rest of us, it was not, at least not initially. But, clearly, the president had been discussing freedom in Iraq, and somebody had probably asked him, why are there no Iraqi revolutionaries stepping up? Why won't anyone stand up against the violence and the injustices -- Where are all the Iraqi Nelson Mandelas?
Well, the president must have responded, "No one is stepping up because all of the potential democratic reformers were killed in Saddam's regime. There are no more Nelson Mandelas..." (and this is where he started the story with the reporters) "...Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."
In the president's mind, "Mandela" is a symbol for any outspoken Democratic activists. Now, I'm not sure if the president actually believes that there are no more potential activists in Iraq because Saddam killed them all, or whether he is simply speaking in hyperbole. But either way, he is clearly not unintelligible.
The key, then, to understanding the president, is to think like the president.
Neil the Intern recently asked me who would be my top 5 zombie presidents. He elaborated: "Who, if they returned from the dead, would make the best president?"
What an interesting prompt! I quickly took up the challenge, and came up with the list below. Note: My Zombie president list may or may not be the same as my “best presidents” list.
Ronald Reagan. I’m not sure if his aggressive Cold War style strategies would work in today’s world (it’s a lot harder to intimidate Gorbachev – who was, ultimately, rational – than to intimidate thousands (millions?) of people driven by religious fervor), but it sure would be fun to see Reagan try. “Mister bin Laden, tear down this cave!”
John F. Kennedy. Once the nation gets over the disgusting hole in the side of his head, I think Zombie JFK would still be able to inspire us all with his rhetorical abilities. His quotes are my favorite of any modern president. Particularly poignant: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Also, he’s a supporter of Israel. (“Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.”)
Abraham Lincoln. Granted, Lincoln was one of the ugliest presidents, and he would not do well in a televised world. This would go doubly so today: I highly doubt Zombie Lincoln would be more photogenic. That said, I think he would appreciate the enormity of sending our boys to die in Iraq, and be able to convey that gravitas to the world while still likely convincing a majority of Americans to go along with it. (As opposed to just pissing everybody off with a smirk and a few trite lines about freedom.) Also, we could install 21st century defensive technologies in his Top Hat, protecting him from any assassin’s bullet. “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. TESLA COIL ACTIVATE!”
Thomas Jefferson. I love this man, and I think it would be reassuring for the country to know that a Founding Zombie is watching over us. I’d also be curious to see if he drops his whole Agrarian vision today, in the age of commercialized factory farming. Finally, I think it is about time our country has another redheaded president.
Teddy Roosevelt. For no other reason than how cool it would be to see a fat Zombie Roughrider running around shouting, “Bully!”
I think you might have taken the wrong track here. As a known expert on zombies (I wrote and starred in the classic musical "Do the Right Thing: a zombie stem cell musical about ethics"), I feel you must consider some other contenders.
Warren G. Harding - Considered the worst president ever by many, Harding would make an excellent zombie. His lack of skills using the English language (normalcy? Normalcy?!1!!) would give him a leg up in his transition.
Richard Nixon - Keeping America in Vietnam that long was pretty brainless. I think he actually might have been a zombie, so nevermind.
George Washington - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZCNrf0IH_U He ate opponents brains. I need not say more.
I'd even move Teddy up to 1st. The image of a zombie Teddy Roosevelt shouting "Bully!" is surpassed only by the image of a zombie Teddy Roosevelt speaking softly and carrying a big stick.
Also, Calvin Coolidge would make a pretty decent zombie, mostly because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a live Silent Cal and a dead Silent Cal.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home