Comments Posted By sknabt
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 37 Comments
The foundation of Obama's fall is his campaign's (and his wife's and liberal blogs') absolute hatred of Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Personally, I think this transcends the typical primary give and take - not that it didn't contribute - to a belief that Obama is the real liberal deal and all rivals need to be destroyed.
So Obama never even considered Hillary for a running mate despite pandering statements to the contrary. He also couldn't take the compromise step of picking up a woman like Sebelius. When I brought this up with liberal Obama fans they'd get outraged at Hillary supporters and whine they'd had to put up with lackluster moderates for years so the Hillary supporters could go $@#& themselves.
Nope. They're &5$*@$# Obama. ;)
I know one personally. A woman who feels so empowered a woman she can relate to is finally on a ticket. Palin is way, way to the right of her but she doesn't get caught up in ideology on abortion, gun rights, Supreme Court picks, etc. She assumes checks and balances and public opinion will keep Palin in the mainstream and, if you look at her performance in Alaska, she's been more moderate in action on topics like teaching Creationism than she talks.
I was listening to a non-partisan moderator on XM's POTUS 08. I think it was Wednesday or Thursday. He had talked to the Obama campaign who were being advised by Democrats to simply ignore Palin and she'll fade away. Obama wasn't buying this dubious advice because this is the same game Hillary played for a while when Obama was the hot new thing. It sunk her campaign and she never recovered. So he planned to start the attacks post-9/11 but had no clue how to go about it.
Me? I say Obama's only hope is to run an issues-based campaign that emphasizes stories which former Hillary supporters will relate to. Personal stories, like on health care, women can relate to that will point out how dangerous, say, McCain and Palin's ridiculous right-wing health care plan is.
Unfortunately, the left is still shocked by Palin's popularity and in full hysteria mode. For example, Huffington Post, a web site I often enjoy, is nothing but Palin-bashing smears.
Like you said, smears against Palin backfire. But the liberal Obama supporters, as I said, are true believers so they're in full angst mode. POTUS 08 was interviewing some guy named Jon Elliot, I think, from Air America who was in full smear mode attacking Palin's kids. Making comments about how her son could find drugs to abuse in her town but her daughter couldn't find a condom.
The moderator kept warning him POTUS 08 was going to get nothing but a lot of email blasting Elliott and the show for his smears - as he has in the past when liberals appear on his show and personally attack Palin or her family. He kept trying to get the guy to talk issues. But the guy was just too angry and agitated. He just kept up the personal attacks thinking it'll destroy Palin. No, the hate destroys Obama.
Obama and his liberal fans have about 50 days to calm down, abandon the insanity, and get on message. Not a lot of time. Hillary, IMHO, did a much better job addressing Obama in the early days than the hysterical nonsense coming from Obamaland and she still got buried until a little past midway through the primaries.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 13.09.2008 @ 11:05
OBAMA'S FULL COURT PRESS AGAINST FREE SPEECH
"I think more than anything, Obama will use anyone – even unreconstructed Maoists – to advance his career. If McCain used KKK’ers the same way, you would rightly be livid. Why give Obama a pass for this?"
Actually, I've made the point elsewhere, if not here, Obama's church affiliation is largely explained by him purposely joining it due to its prominence in the community he served.
Liberals counter-punch focusing on McCain flip-flopping on Bob Jones University and pandering to Reverend Hagee desperate for the right-wing religious vote.
We can smear Obama on appearances using guilt by association but then we need to dig into McCain's past and rekindle the stink of, say, the Keating Five. Fairness and balance.
The bottom line? At least we agree Obama doesn't share the ideology of the radicals you keep trying to tar and feather him with.
One last quick point. I've heard a number of African-Americans discuss liberation theology as an important part of the Black cultural experience in helping that community overcome the cancer of white racism. I've yet to hear a Caucasian make a compelling argument favoring the Ku Klux Klan. Feel free to be the first. ;)
Comment Posted By sknabt On 29.08.2008 @ 22:06
Beware of Obama, the radical liberation theologist!
Beware of Barack HUSSEIN Obama, the radical madrasah educated Muslim!
Beware of Obama! He carries Mao's little red book and has memorized its religion hating ideology!
Conservative attacks on Obama are hysterically funny.
How many more strawmen are you going to throw up? Where do I call him a Muslim? Or a commie for that matter?
I think more than anything, Obama will use anyone - even unreconstructed Maoists - to advance his career. If McCain used KKK'ers the same way, you would rightly be livid. Why give Obama a pass for this?
ed.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 29.08.2008 @ 06:31
THE LEFT WILTS IN THE FACE OF AGGRESSION
To believe this mess doesn't revolve around Bush's push to get unstable Georgia into NATO and to base his missile defense system there is to believe Russia invaded for humanitarian reasons. According to Russia, 2,000 South Ossetian civilians were murdered and 40,000 fled to Russia during Georgia's unprovoked attack.
The BBC interviewed a non-partisan human rights agency investigating claims of genocide that could only document about 300 people being treated in hospital, most military combatants. 40,000 refugees would mean over half the province's population fled. In other words, it looks like the Russians are back to their old tricks of dreaming up ridiculous propaganda to cover their true intentions.
Going back a step, is there any doubt Georgia invaded South Ossetia believing it had the protection of the West? The message from opponents to their bid for NATO membership said it wasn't a matter of if, but when. Saakshvili's timing is no coincidence.
Not mentioned in your lengthy editorial is the fact nations in the shadow of Russia aren't lost on Putin's (and his sock puppet Medvedev's) real intention. Leaders from Estonia, Latvia, Poland, etc. showed up in Tiblisi expressing their support of Georgia. Not soon thereafter, if I recall, a column of Russian armor made a feint for Tiblisi. Counter-debate Putin style?
Poland is an interesting case because, in the midst of this crisis, they signed onto Bush's missile defense system. In response, the Russians publicly announced they were adding the nation to their first strike list.
Obviously, we don't question our own motives. Sure, we know we have we have no intention of invading Russia and are acting purely in a defensive manner. But to ignore or misinterpret Russia's perceptions is misguided and dangerous.
Even forgetting the Georgia-South Ossetia-Abkhazia-Russia connection, Bush's push for NATO membership never made sense because Georgia has been unstable since its independence in 1991.
So it looks like our ever inept president helped create another foreign policy mess. To apologize for this while bashing Obama because his rhetoric isn't as heated as McCain's is less than helpful because Russia has put an end to political rhetoric and posturing. While McCain and Bush were mouthing off the rhetoric that makes conservative hearts go pitter patter, France quietly and efficiently brokered a ceasefire.
For example, Bush lamely threatened to toss Russia out of the G8. American nationalists cheer! What a tough leader we have! What courage! One problem. He simply can't do it so it's a hollow threat. A fact not lost on the Russians. The empty threat does nothing but antagonize Russia to no purpose.
The only thing in our favor is, IMHO, Putin miscalculated. He hoped to embarrass America and NATO as inept and impotent in the face of action. That he accomplished. However, Putin's brutally crude action only reinforces the need of nations in Russia's shadow to embrace the West to maintain true independence.
A resurgent, oil rich Russia can flex its muscles punking puny Georgia and indirectly thumb its nose at the West. However, Putin knows he hasn't rebuilt his military to Soviet era levels which is to say he's no threat to NATO and can't punk its members. The folks he's trying to send a message to like Ukraine will redouble their efforts to join the NATO club.
Saakashvili was warned repeatedly - and not just by us - that Putin was preparing to invade on any pretext. He was also told that until the situation with both breakaway provinces was resolved through international mediators, Georgia would not be invited into NATO. People who speculate that he invaded expecting NATO help either don't know that condition or ignore it because it doesn't make any sense to say Saakashvili was expecting western help if he was forcibly trying to retake the province.
What happened was stupidity. Saakashvili responded to a provacation by the separatists - a bombing that killed 7 Georgians. He took the opportunity to try an end run around the peacekeepers and failed. The rest is history.
Now we'll see if he pays with Georgian independence.
ed.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 16.08.2008 @ 13:39
'WHY OBAMA CAN'T WIN' - CASTELLANOS
I think I've got my equilibrium back enough to type. Rick your spin is so intense it threw me out of my chair and onto the floor.
McCain. True blue war hero. Obama everything there is to loath in a human being.
I admire McCain's military career but to believe his life story of courage is what's behind his surge is a complete joke. McCain's not pushing that in his campaign ads. He's running one attack ad after another.
There's a lot of stuff in motion here. Far too much to cover in a comment but there are 2 really big events that have turned McCain's way.
One is violence is dramatically down in Iraq. While it's more complex than simply the surge working there's no questioning the surge is a large part of it. Obama was skeptical of the surge so his wondrous anti-war vision that set him apart in the primaries works against him now. Especially, since Obama appears clueless as to how to work the issue more to his favor. Instead he hems and haws.
The other one is drilling. $4 gas ended the debate on drilling in voters' minds. Conservatives are jumping on this issue as the one that'll push Obama to the curb. Obama is slow to articulate a strong compromise position on the issue and the door has about shut in his face on the topic.
Not an event but an issue is media bias. Despite all the conservative whining about the media being in love with Obama, a recent study showed since the primaries ended McCain has gotten less negative press than Obama. Of course, it's no surprise Fox News was the most negative of all ripping Obama 79% of the time.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 6.08.2008 @ 20:19
A SERIO-COMIC PARADE OF GOP HOOLIGANS
When partisans crow that only the other side cheats, lies, steals, flip-flops, etc. I have to laugh. Obviously, we're dealing with shared human nature so no political ideology is immune from said human failings.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 3.08.2008 @ 11:27
TOP TEN THINGS THAT CREEP ME OUT ABOUT OBAMA
Thanks for keeping your latest anti-Obama rant to 10 things. ;)
Comment Posted By sknabt On 31.07.2008 @ 06:56
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE <em>FUHRER</em>
Jon Stewart caught Steve Doocy of conservative "Fox & Friends" fame playing a similar game. He spun about Obama speaking before a monument "with ties to Adolph Hitler." Did Obama drive to his rally in a VW - tied to Adolph Hilter - to emphasize the point?
We have a common conservative theme spinning the rally symbolically into way more than, IMHO, it was meant to be.
I'm not going to comment directly on your post because I'm sure I'd be attacked as either a moron or smart ass deliberately misinterpreting your intent. But, IMHO, the most accurate interpretation of this latest line of conservative talking points is best handled by comedians like Jon Stewart. It's not a serious issue.
Large rallies. Talk of unity. Talk of hope. Occam's razor would lead any independent thinker to simpler explanations than comparisons to Hitler and Lenin. If Obama held the rally in Copenhagen instead of Berlin would Obama be likened to Vikings hoping to rape, pillage, and burn?
There's a Republican running an ad comparing a photo of Osama and Obama (in Muslim garb) which asks if the viewer can see the resemblance.
The picture is complete. The most liberal Senator tied to radically conservative Wahabism. At the same time, he's philosophically aligned with an atheist like Lenin. Stylistically, his politics are tied to Hitler. A useful tip to conservatives hoping to exploit this angle more: Hitler used the Catholic Church for his purpose. Let's add some nice ties-ins to Reverend Wright!
I guess conservatives can put two of anything on a graph and say they're related. Like Bush's largely symbolic administrative order allowing drilling offshore and the recent rapid decline in oil prices (a brainstorm of Brian Kilmeade also of conservative "Fox & Friends" fame).
But, personally, I think it's a hard sell to anyone except the true believers who already hate Obama with a passion and are willing to believe any cynical opinion of the man.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 26.07.2008 @ 13:35
I certainly can't recall the math but way back in the stone age when I attended college geology my professor made the point it was very, very long odds life formed and evolved on Earth. It makes me think that life on other planets is a relatively rare phenomenon.
Of course rare - we're talking probabilities approaching the statistical impossible - in face of a universe of planets so vast in number it's beyond our comprehension leads me to the conclusions there are a good many planets out there with life - at least at some point in time.
Because there's geologic time to consider. Civilization (written word) has been around like 7,000 years on Earth. That's nothing in geologic time measured in millions or billions of years. Other planets a 'hair' off our schedule could have civilization come and go hundreds of thousands or even millions of years out of sync with our own.
As has been pointed out we're talking vast, vast distances as well.
But let's buck the odds and say there's a planet with a civilization relatively close to ours in distance and development. As has been pointed out, the politics on their planet may be to sit back and listen as well.
I've always thought SETI was worth the try but never really expected it to bear fruit. It's fighting longer odds than playing the lottery.
Even in a Star Trek world of warp drives and life-detecting sensors, I think finding life in this universe is like digging for a needle in a hay stack. And, when we find it, it likely won't be a case of a civilization a few years out of sync with our own. Life will be many thousands of years out of sync. Maybe we'll find a civilization where they're like gods to us or one where it's stone knives versus dinosaurs.
Just my 2 cents worth.
All excellent points. Throw in the unknowns like how long an intelligent species lasts before going extinct and fold that into the 13-15 billion year age of the Universe and you may have millions of species who have come and gone before earth was even born.
And let's go one step further and contemplate how many advanced civilizations last long enough to become space faring civilizations. That number must be very small (comparaed to life in the Universe). These are some of the reasons why I would love the idea of aliens visiting us (even that governments would attempt to hide that from the rest of us) I just don't think the laws of probabilty are good enough to believe it.
ed.
Comment Posted By sknabt On 13.07.2008 @ 13:22
"Moron.
Wake up idiot. The man we are about to elect president has so many radical associations and radical political alliances God knows what he will be capable of. One or two, yeah, ok. But the number and extent of his radical friends is astounding."
So we're into name calling. Great.
Rick, you're wound up like a top over Obama. Not that I'm surprised. This isn't called the "Right-wing Nuthouse" for nothing.
Again, what do all your guilt by association smears add up to? "God knows what he will be capable of" doesn't cut it. Just more alarmism. Smear Obama with the stink of some radicals then leave the rest to one's imagination.
I don't think the lesson of Obama's relationships mentioned here is that he's a closet Weatherman sympathetic of anti-American violence, closet "racist" or "bigot", or any more financially corrupt regarding campaign money than Clinton or McCain. Do you?
"Ayers took a totally unknown Obama and put him in charge of his Annenberg educational project."
More leave it to the imagination guilt by association silliness. Implying what? Ayers saw a man of obvious talent or there's some grand conspiracy to build from straw?
It's not surprising an up and coming community activist in Chicago, such as Obama, would have picked the prominent church he chose. Nor is it surprising he's involved in prominent charities. Less surprising to me than Obama working with Ayers on the board of a charity is how a radical like Ayers is able to get back into the mainstream.
"The fact that you can’t see it or worse, don’t care, means you deserve whatever this guy comes up with over the next 4 years."
More insults. Actually, none of the above. It's obvious from my earlier post I'd heard of these controversies and weighed them. Moreover, I do care. He needs make clear he doesn't support, say, Wright's racism which he did. He criticized Pfleger's 'sermon' and even Pfleger has since apologized for it.
I held my nose during the primaries and voted for Clinton. She's out now except for the crying. I can bitch about it. I can whine about it. Doesn't matter, it comes down to McCain or Obama. IMHO, neither of them are good but the only real alternative is not to vote at all (which I am considering though unlikely to follow through on).
McCain's stance on the war and health care, thus far, are deal breakers. So I'm - as I type this (subject to change without notice) - favoring Obama. Like you, I can't stand not really knowing the guy as well as I'd like. Unlike you, my political bent isn't hard to the right so I'm not experiencing your anti-Obama angst which, apparently, makes me a "moron."
Comment Posted By sknabt On 1.06.2008 @ 16:35
