PDA

View Full Version : Krauth puts "The Hammer" down on Obama


revefsreleets
06-30-2008, 04:08 PM
Yikes. This is pretty brutal:

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/22586534.html?page=all&c=y

Opportunistic Obama
Published on Sunday, Jun 29, 2008
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
— Obama spokesman Bill Burton, Oct. 24, 2007
WASHINGTON: That was then: Democratic primaries to be won, netroot lefties to be seduced. With all that (and Hillary Clinton) out of the way, Obama now says he'll vote in favor of the new FISA bill that gives the telecom companies blanket immunity for post-9/11 eavesdropping.
Back then, in the yesteryear of primary season, he thoroughly trashed the North American Free Trade Agreement, pledging to force a renegotiation, take ''the hammer'' to Canada and Mexico, and threaten unilateral abrogation.
Today, the hammer is holstered. Obama calls his previous NAFTA rhetoric ''overheated'' and essentially endorses what one of his senior economic advisers privately told the Canadians: The anti-trade stuff was nothing more than populist posturing.
Nor is there much left of his primary season pledge to meet ''without preconditions'' with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There will be ''preparations,'' you see, which are being spun by his aides into the functional equivalent of preconditions.
Obama's long march to the center has begun.
And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge — for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.
Normally, flip-flopping presidential candidates have to worry about the press. Not Obama. After all, this is a press corps that heard his grandiloquent Philadelphia speech — designed to rationalize why ''I can no more disown (Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown my white grandmother'' — then wiped away a tear and hailed him as the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. Three months later, with Wright disowned, grandma embraced and the great ''race speech'' now inoperative, not a word of reconsideration is heard from his media acolytes.
Worry about the press? His FISA flip-flop elicited a few grumbles from lefty bloggers, but hardly a murmur from the mainstream press. Remember his pledge to stick to public financing? Now flush with cash, he is the first general-election candidate since Watergate to opt out. Some goo-goo clean-government types chided him, but the mainstream editorialists who for years had been railing against private financing as hopelessly corrupt and corrupting, evinced only the mildest of disappointment.
Indeed, the New York Times expressed a sympathetic understanding of Obama's about-face by buying his preposterous claim that it was a pre-emptive attack on McCain's 527 independent expenditure groups — notwithstanding the fact that (a) as Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, ''there are no serious anti-Obama 527s in existence nor are there any immediate plans to create such a group'' and (b) the only independent ad of any consequence now running in the entire country is an AFSCME-MoveOn.org co-production savaging McCain.
True, Obama's U-turn on public financing was not done for ideological reasons, it was done for Willie Sutton reasons: That's where the money is. It nonetheless betrayed a principle that so many in the press claimed to hold dear.
As public financing is not a principle dear to me, I am hardly dismayed by Obama's abandonment of it. Nor am I disappointed in the least by his other calculated and cynical repositionings. I have never had any illusions about Obama. I merely note with amazement that his media swooners seem to accept his every policy reversal with an equanimity unseen since the Daily Worker would change the party line overnight — switching sides in World War II, for example — whenever the wind from Moscow changed direction.
The truth about Obama is uncomplicated. He is just a politician (though of unusual skill and ambition). The man who dared say it plainly is the man who knows Obama all too well. ''He does what politicians do,'' explained Jeremiah Wright.
When it's time to throw campaign finance reform, telecom accountability, NAFTA renegotiation or Jeremiah Wright overboard, Obama is not sentimental. He does not hesitate. He tosses lustily.
Why, the man even tossed his own grandmother overboard back in Philadelphia — only to haul her back on deck now that her services are needed. Yesterday, granny was the moral equivalent of the raving Reverend Wright. Today, she is a featured prop in Obama's fuzzy-wuzzy get-to-know-me national TV ad.

Not a flinch. Not a flicker. Not a hint of shame. By the time he's finished, Obama will make the Clintons look scrupulous.
Krauthammer is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at letters@charleskrauthammer.com (letters@charleskrauthammer.com).

GBMelBlount
07-01-2008, 07:26 AM
Obama's long march to the center has begun.
And why not? What's the downside? He won't lose the left, or even mainstream Democrats. They won't stay home on Nov. 4. The anti-Bush, anti-Republican sentiment is simply too strong. Election Day is their day of revenge — for the Florida recount, for Swift-boating, for all the injuries, real and imagined, dealt out by Republicans over the last eight years.

This is EXACTLY how I feel. Most dem's have made up there mind and short of definitive proof that Obama is the Anti-christ, it is his election to lose at this point. The left wing media will dissipate Obama's negatives and sharpshoot McCain to pieces come fall imo.

rbryan
07-01-2008, 08:48 AM
In the PC world we live in few will speak up against Obama.....in public.

When its time to step into the booth, I'll be very surprised if mainstream America is ready to vote for him.

TackleMeBen
07-01-2008, 08:49 AM
In the PC world we live in few will speak up against Obama.....in public.

When its time to step into the booth, I'll be very surprised if mainstream America is ready to vote for him.
:iagree:

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2008, 09:02 AM
Of course when McCain flip-flops Krauthammer excuses it as a principled adjustment to changed circumstances.

Here is Krauthammer, on June 20, on McCain changing his position on offshore drilling:

His policy on offshore drilling is a flip-flop from his past positions. Perfectly justified, but a reconsideration nonetheless. :sofunny:

Krauthammer then proceeds to accuse Obama in that same June 20 column as follows:

Alas, McCain's proposed reform is only partial. Still better than Obama, however, who refuses to deviate from liberal orthodoxy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903022.html

Of course, in the June 27 column cited above Krauthammer takes off after Obama by charging "his long march to the center has begun"

So on June 20 Obama was accused by Kraut of refusing to deviate from "liberal orthodoxy" and on June 27 was accused of unprincipled abandonment of such alleged orthodoxy. Which is it?

I suppose Krauthammer has some credibility in accusing others of flip-flopping since he clearly is such a gifted practitioner of the art.

revefsreleets
07-01-2008, 09:09 AM
Well, I mean, c'mon. Krauth is far right, Obama is far left, so this isn't at all surprising. You have your EJ Dionne's carrying Obama's torch and your Krauth's carrying McCain's, and so on and so forth...that's the way it works.

Still, I'd MUCH rather have Krauth talk a little out of both sides of his mouth than hear the infantile prattling of that blithering nincompoop Maureen Dowd, whose column, were it not for ad hominem attacks, would only be about 25 words long.

stlrtruck
07-01-2008, 09:16 AM
short of definitive proof that Obama is the Anti-christ,

You jest but if you've read the christian fiction book series, "Left Behind" you would notice that the head bad guy, "Carpathia" is a smooth talking double tongued lying POS too.

Could it be...the End Times start with Obama?

:flap:

MACH1
07-01-2008, 10:24 AM
If elected he'll make jimmy carter look good.

TackleMeBen
07-01-2008, 10:51 AM
If elected he'll make jimmy carter look good.
:sofunny::sofunny:.. since i dont like either candidates this election, i have decided to write myself in... :chuckle:

GBMelBlount
07-01-2008, 10:56 AM
In the PC world we live in few will speak up against Obama.....in public.

When its time to step into the booth, I'll be very surprised if mainstream America is ready to vote for him.

What main stream America? It's all splintered groups. Minorities, Unions, Educators, Gays, exploited workers.......They have made up their mind. If you listen to why people voted for Obama in interviews it's generally "for change", "a uniter", etc. Not issue based. They will ignore the negative because their minds are made up.

I think the way it will portrayed by the media is an adulterous, old, senile, fragile, flip flopper with anger problems vs. a young energetic moderate uniter with no negative track record who has been thoroughly vetted and improperly tagged by his associations with people like Wright. The AP/media did a "hit job" on Romney and had a love fest for McCain because they felt Obama could more easily beat McCain. The media smells blood and they will be circling for the kill come election time....and patting themselves on the back when Obama gets the "W".

fansince'76
07-01-2008, 10:59 AM
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/58613/2/istockphoto_58613_hot_air_head.jpg

TackleMeBen
07-01-2008, 11:02 AM
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/58613/2/istockphoto_58613_hot_air_head.jpg

that photo cracks me up everytime..lol :toofunny::toofunny:

revefsreleets
07-01-2008, 11:18 AM
I'm not so sure...I think the mindset will be that many of the people who ostensibly "should" vote for Obama may get in the booth and change their mind. He's going to come under more scrutiny in the next 4 months then ever before, and there aren't going to be a lot of unanswered questions (like there are now) about him. The bottom line is that people are going to vote as they always do, and that's with their pocketbook. Maybe even more than usual this election...and the guy who can convey the clearest sense of positive direction is going to win.

McCain has run this gauntlet before, and he'll be better equiped to deal with the adversity. I don't think negative campaigning will be as ugly as some other recent elections because both these guys are fairly likable, but I do think that when the mud starts being slung, Obama has more chinks in his armor. It'll be interesting, that's for sure...

Mosca
07-01-2008, 11:36 AM
This is EXACTLY how I feel. Most dem's have made up there mind and short of definitive proof that Obama is the Anti-christ, it is his election to lose at this point. The left wing media will dissipate Obama's negatives and sharpshoot McCain to pieces come fall imo.


I truly believe that most Americans, be they Dem or Rep, are trying to decide which weak and thinly qualified candidate will do the least damage. The sad truth is that we've faced this same choice multiple times over the last 30 years, going back to Carter vs Ford. Will Obama bring much needed change? Or will McCain bring small changes and wise stewardship? My political radar says "NO" to both. Obama doesn't have the pull, doesn't have any chits to exchange; and McCain, despite his outstanding character, is not a wise man.

I think most wary Obama leaners are betting on the man growing into the office, the same way wary Bush voters (myself included) did in '00. And most wary McCain leaners are believing that Obama is in no way up to the measure of the office. In other words, I don't think many voters are actually for McCain; they are either for or against Obama, at this point.

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2008, 11:50 AM
You jest but if you've read the christian fiction book series, "Left Behind" you would notice that the head bad guy, "Carpathia" is a smooth talking double tongued lying POS too.

Could it be...the End Times start with Obama?

:flap:

Ronald Wilson Reagan - 6 letters in each name (666)

Draw your own conclusions:sofunny:

For those who do not have the sarcasm gene, i adored the Gipper

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2008, 12:00 PM
I don't think many voters are actually for McCain; they are either for or against Obama, at this point.

Agreed - ths election turns on Obama closing the deal with those who may support him but have not decided which way to go. For me the most important elimiantion already has been made with Hillary being knocked out

With regard to Obama having chits to cash in if he is elected, IMO one reason Obama is putting organizational resources into States he has little chance of carrying is to potentially assist down ticket candidates who will have a greater chance of winning if the top of the ticket runs a closer race in that State. Obama needs to expand working Dem majorities in Congress if he wants to escape the current gridlock.

stlrtruck
07-01-2008, 12:03 PM
Ronald Wilson Reagan - 6 letters in each name (666)

Draw your own conclusions:sofunny:

For those who do not have the sarcasm gene, i adored the Gipper

Maybe he was the iniatator and Obama will be the finisher! :rofl:

Why not, it seems like hell on earth already with the way things are! :sofunny:

I think I slipped in your sarcasm :toofunny: (ok well it made me laugh)

Hawk Believer
07-01-2008, 01:09 PM
I think it would be unwise for McCain to make Obama flip fliops a major issue as he has committed far more. Kinda like Obama shouldn't be attacking McCain's military exerience when he doesn't have any.

Except now that I think about it, swiftboating did work pretty well for Bush last time around.

revefsreleets
07-01-2008, 08:41 PM
Swift Boat was at least plausible, if not completely factual. Attacking McCain's military record is retarded.

Flip-flopping is interesting in context, though. McCain has a lot of years under his belt, and Obama has almost none. It'll be interesting to see how they compare when contrasted against time in office. There is that other thing, of course...the whole "Hey, I effed up and made a bad decision at the time" thing. McCain rings truer on that front, since no politician ever does it to begin with. I give him props for even being brave enough to assert it...

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2008, 09:27 PM
Swift Boat was at least plausible, if not completely factual. Attacking McCain's military record is retarded.
.

Clark's statement was ignorant but this was the context:

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Gen. CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob. So...

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe—could I just interrupt you?

Gen. CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any

of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTYxY2U0N2M3YjY3NDJlNjA5NWE4ZDRlNzZmOTllZWY=

Schieffer's comment threw into play the inference riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

McCain having that happen to him is heroic but in fact it does not uniquely qualify him to be President. Clark was not saying McCain did not have an exemplary military record; he said his background was not a particularly useful qualification for the Presidency.

Dwight Eisenhower was elected President, but his wartime experience that uniquely qualified him for that job was successfully managing one of the largest operations in the history of our country (while not being batshit crazy like MacArthur). If being the biggest war hero was the test, we should have elected Audie Murphy and Sergeant York, not Ike.

Of course, it also just may be that someone from the Army like Clark has no use for someone from the Navy like McCain:chuckle:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194600/

Preacher
07-01-2008, 09:48 PM
Clark's statement was ignorant but this was the context:

Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk, it's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, `I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?'

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Gen. CLARK: He hasn't made those calls, Bob. So...

SCHIEFFER: Well, General, maybe—could I just interrupt you?

Gen. CLARK: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any

of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

Gen. CLARK: Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

SCHIEFFER: Really?

http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTYxY2U0N2M3YjY3NDJlNjA5NWE4ZDRlNzZmOTllZWY=

Schieffer's comment threw into play the inference riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.

McCain having that happen to him is heroic but in fact it does not uniquely qualify him to be President. Clark was not saying McCain did not have an exemplary military record; he said his background was not a particularly useful qualification for the Presidency.

Dwight Eisenhower was elected President, but his wartime experience that uniquely qualified him for that job was successfully managing one of the largest operations in the history of our country (while not being batshit crazy like MacArthur). If being the biggest war hero was the test, we should have elected Audie Murphy and Sergeant York, not Ike.

Of course, it also just may be that someone from the Army like Clark has no use for someone from the Navy like McCain:chuckle:

http://www.slate.com/id/2194600/


Funny thing... Obama running the clean campaign, other running the dirty campaign.

Wait a few weeks for the GOP to bring out the same thing (they like to politic later in the year).

Like I have been saying... A whole lot of exactly the same.

Atlanta Dan
07-01-2008, 10:02 PM
Wait a few weeks for the GOP to bring out the same thing (they like to politic later in the year).
.

Wait? - Karl Rove on Fox "News" yesterday

Well, look, today Senator Obama went out and obliquely rebuked General Clark. I mean, that was an outrageous comment by General Clark, who knows better than this. Shame on him. And today Senator Obama went out. I have to give him a B for speed. He waited for nearly 24 hours, letting this smear, this libel, lay out there. I give him a B-minus for the content. He didn't rebuke him directly, though he rebuked him indirectly. He wrapped it up in a little bit of whine (ph), though, saying that he, Senator Obama, had had his patriotism questioned. I'm not certain exactly what he's referring to.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374643,00.html

Rove knows the Obama patriotism speech on Monday had been in the works for weeks and added the Clark rebuke only after Clark stepped on the message on Sunday

Not exactly the first shot at Obama from Karl

Karl Rove told Cybercast News Service in an interview Wednesday that Sen. Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign was helped when she responded in a smiling, self-deprecating manner when asked during Saturday night's televised debate why some voters had an issue with her "likeability" and that her rival Sen. Barack Obama only enhanced the positive impact for Clinton when he responded like "a smarmy, prissy little guy taking a slap at her.""...

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080109e.html

And last week we had this bizarre analogy from Karl:

Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said,..."He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/rove-obamas-the.html

It may get worse Preacher but the gun sounded for the GOP some time ago.

revefsreleets
07-02-2008, 08:57 AM
Actually, when looked at again in context, this whole "Clark/McCain" thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Mosca
07-02-2008, 09:07 AM
Actually, when looked at again in context, this whole "Clark/McCain" thing is a tempest in a teapot.

Absolutely; it distracts us, the electorate, from the real issues, and tries to make us think with our emotions rather than our minds. It is something we need to ignore, from the Democrats slinging at McCain just as equally as the Republicans slinging it at Obama.

revefsreleets
07-02-2008, 09:14 AM
I saw Clark on one of the news shows yesterday. He made it clear that not only was he not dissing McCain, but he actually likes and admires him.

Anyway, you're right. This is election by "ET (Entertainment Tonight), appealing to the lowest common denominator.