Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.
Yet again, and again, and again...
By Moe Lane Posted in 2008 | anti-war protesters | Obamafiles | The Mask Slips — Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Given that the Obama campaign has clearly decided to give this General McPeak a forum with which to express himself, how long before this rhetoric (H/T Gateway Pundit):
General McPeak: Most of this I don’t subscribe to. Let’s say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let’s say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense. So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical.
The secret of the neoconservative movement is that it’s not conservative, it’s radical. Guys like me, who are conservatives, are upset about these nenocons calling themselves conservative when they’re so radical.
...becomes explicitly part of the campaign?
Or, for that matter, this rhetoric?
Moe Lane
PS: You may take the position that it never will; but do not insult my intelligence by pretending that the question is not valid.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | It's A Conspiracy! — Comments (4) »
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. 38 Comments (0 topical, 38 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Hi guys,
I'm sure you despise my presence here, but I actually find this site to be very informative. I actually visit very frequently in an attempt to get a more balanced view of what's reported in the MSM, or at least a reaction from outside the world I live in (I live in Oregon :) )
I have a question though that I have been wondering about for a few days now and I thought I would turn to you guys. I can understand that conservatives would celebrate the stupidity that's going on in the Democratic party at the moment, but in all honesty, what do you guys make of this:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
(Basically it is trying to say the percentage of Americans identifying as Republicans is dropping while those identifying as Dems is rising)
Do you think its just completely inaccurate, reflects dissatisfactions with mccain, has only to do with excessive media coverage of the Democratic primary, or do you think this is a real phenomenon?
I am honestly not trying to infiltrate your community but I have been hearing Democrats go on and on about this and haven't seen any mention of it on a conservative site, so felt like I might broach the question here.
_we rarely despise Americans who stand by their beliefs. As for your question, we realize that more people identify themselves as Democrat at this moment. Yet we also realize that McCain is leading Obama and Hillary in the polls. To me that would say more about your candidates than it does about ours. It seems to me people want to be Democrat, but find the present contenders so unpalatable, they still support the Republican.
I don't know if you are new to politics or not but here is some reality. Republicans have been in power for 8 years. In fact, they have had the White House for 20 years out of the last 28. It is quite normal for Americans to desire change after one party has been in power so long. You ad in a war and a tough economy, and you get more people identifying themselves as Democrats.
I could go into a lot more issues such as illegal immigration, poor education, etc, but I will leave those out of it at this point. I will also admit to you that the Republicans in power have NOT fulfilled the promise that we expected of them. That is ok because it happens every time, politicians on both sides never completely fulfill their promise.
I think the Republican party must get back to the small government roots that made it a national party. I do not think McCain will likely pull this off, but he is a much better caretaker until the "next Reagan" than the two the Democrats offer.
In the end, political affiliation and the views about our nation will be decided by education and parenting. If we continue to let in those who do not love our country, if we continue to teach disdain for this nation, if indvidualism goes away like the Hollywood Western, then it might just be the dawn of a long Democrat majority, and a long slow decline of this country.
__________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
that's all i wanted to know. I understand your perspective completely and can identify with your frustrations more than you might imagine. I appreciate your thoughtful response.
as far as I am concerned, you are welcome here. Maybe you could post a diary next time if you have an issue not related to the thread :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
Please let me know what you think at this link instead:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mleq
...what I feel it's not picking up is that ideological trends aren't really shifting around. What you see is a growing wave of individuals like myself who consider themselves independents but primarily vote Republican because we feel they are the closest to meeting our political goals, even if, yes, they don't seem to show it very well. Those of us of a slightly more libertarian or anarcho-capitalist bent find Democrat policies to be anathema, Republican policies awkwardly ham-handed, and Libertarian Party platforms to be, well... bat[guano] insane. As a result, we tend to vote Republican mainly because it's one of the few options that doesn't completely disgust us, which isn't a huge surprise considering the state of the political process.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
Sorry, I just thought of one more nagging question I have been dying to pose to a conservative audience:
How do you really feel about Dick Cheney's "So?" on Iraq public opinion?
I mean: do you think that maybe that was just a little callous but in the proper spirit of governance or that its was fully appropriate (or maybe out of line entirely)?
I am really just curious to know what you think. Just to add some context from my universe the argument is that the opinion on the war cannot really be called "fluctuating" and has displayed a constant and stable trend. You thoughts?
Worse, threadjacking by poking at RedStaters with "pointy sticks".
You've been registered here for less than one hour. Before you post again, read the Posting Rules.
If you really want to solicit the opinions of the readers here, posting off-the-point comments on another post is the wrong way to go about it and, if continued, one of the moderators here will likely terminate your registration with extreme prejudice.
Instead (after reading posting rules), write your own diary expressing your own opinions about the topics you raised in your "comments" here and provide some reasoned argument for your position. If expressed in a manner that is not deliberately provocative, you should get the kind of response you're seeking.
And one more thing, be prepared to stay around for a while and engage in dialogue. It's very annoying when someone, especially from the left side of the political divide, starts a conversation on controversial topic and then disappears, never to return. Such "drive-by" posting is considered bad faith and may lead to your not being welcomed back in the future.
First of all, I have been reading posts on this site for a while now and am by no means someone who shows up "never to return." I am a graduate student in political science with a genuine interest in all sides of the political spectrum. I am usually just a reader on this site but due to increasingly polarized media coverage, I was hoping to ask a question (or two) about topics that have been a focus of conversation on one side of this debate, and hear the real world response outside of the echo chamber of the Huffington Post and NYT.
I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I will post on the diary if thats the way its supposed to go. I don't do this for a living or anything, or just for fun. I am asking these questions in all seriousness, not with "pointy sticks." I am not trying to incite a riot.
I posted here, linkjacked here apparently, only because in my naivety/ignorance I didn't know where else to post. Posting on message boards is something I do very infrequently as is demonstrated by my apparent faux pas. I posted an hour after joining because being able to ask these questions and get an honest response was the only reason I finally joined a conversation I have generally stayed out of. I have no agenda. I was seriously just hoping to hear the other side of this debate for once.
I have really done my best to not be deliberately provocative and invite honest feedback. I read the news--both Fox, Townhall, Free Republic, and this site along with liberal sites-- about four hours each day and I really am just so tired of living in two worlds and was looking to bridge the gap. Maybe its just not possible to have the kind of dialog I was looking for.
If you'd like I will delete the above comments. Sorry for intruding.
I appreciate your responsive attitude and willingness to move the conversation to its own thread.
By the way, you can edit or append to your diary entry (another advantage to starting there) whereas you cannot edit nor delete comments. That make the preview button especially important to use when posting comments.
would make decisions based on polls. Bill actually chose a vacation spot based on polls once. We elect leaders to lead, you might want to look up the deffinition of lead someday.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
this debate predates you and me. Should an elected leader vote his beliefs or those of his constituents. I guess you know my opinion :)
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I agree. I might be getting myself in more trouble here with the powers that be, but is there any grey area in between the two sides of that debate (following his beliefs vs. following those of his constituents). Is there any time or place, or any type of issue, where a compromise between the two would be appropriate?
I guess that probably sums up the heart of what my question was, as I agree completely that leaders are elected by the people for that very reason-- to make decisions on the big issues. I just wonder if there is any room for a middle ground. Guess that's a typical liberal thought, isn't it :) ?
Obama is imploding, because his appeal is based on false premises. He is said to be a candidate who can unite, but his politics are radical in one direction only.
To unite people, you either you have to find common ground or present such a convincing argument that you pull people toward your viewpoint. Obama tried the latter, and is finding it more difficult than he supposed.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
It made him a bit hot under the collar.
His words-"McPeak is a loon. He needs to shut his mouth."
I say let him continue. Obama has been able to gain some favor within a certain segment of the military because of his hopeandchangehopeandchangehopeandchange message. But the more he lets his surrogates speak, the less they like him.
McPeak front and center and a possible candidate for Sec Def will squelch any possibility Obama has of picking up many votes within the AF.
and disavows his remarks. But McPeak taught him military history and he and Michelle have been out to the grenade range on Sundays with the general. Obama's children have sat at the general's knee and heard that Benedict Arnold wasn't all bad and under the general's tutelage have even fired off a few rounds from M-16's.
He rejects McPeak's comments but stands by the man. {How's that?]
McPeak though has been asked to step down from Obama's military advisory committee.
Who and what are next ?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
going to have a campaign left?
I have a hard time believing Obama had any problem with McPeaks' words though. He was grinning ear to ear at a rally in Oregon yesterday while this man was spewing his "McCarthy" rhetoric. I've not seen any evidence of him "disavowing" the remarks.
I've been reading RedState just under two weeks now. Forgive my ignorance, please.
What does "n/t" mean?
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
A. Lincoln
In other words, that's the end of her comment.
--------------------------------------
GOP McCain for President, 2008
It makes everything bold .
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
not for the years of small arms and military history training McPeak is said to have provided the Obamas.
And I wonder if there are tax implications. Was McPeak's donation of tactical training, military history, and how to be a complete and utter tool listed as an in-kind donation to the Obama campaign, or shown on his income tax statement?
[/snark]
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Obama is developing a real history for standing by his advisors/mentors while disavowing their remarks/beliefs. There is Rezko, then the anti-semitic woman who got bounced for saying bad things about Hillary, then his "pastor/mentor", then his grandmother, now McPeak.
I can hardly wait to see who's next.
I also wonder why in the world he spends so much time hanging around with and hiring people who's opinions he seems to have no use for once they become public knowledge. Or could it be he agrees with them but is just afraid to say so until AFTER he gets elected.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Often one can highlight the ridiculousness of a position when you change the context and try the same line of argument. Good job here.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
from the Obama campaign that it was time to get a tad less inflammatory or it might make it a bit difficult for Obama to continue peddling his hopeandchangehopeandchangehopeandchange mantra.
An excerpt of Moss's rant is here-
"The new pastor at Barack Obama’s church used his first Easter sermon on Sunday to compare controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to Jesus’ death at the hands of the Romans.
Sunday’s sunrise sermon, delivered by Rev. Otis Moss III, was called “How to Handle a Public Lynching” and focused primarily on the media firestorm that has focused international attention on this Chicago ministry, which is the church attended by the Democratic presidential candidate."
It also appears that Otis is getting ready for a legal battle-
"Moss issued several pleas to congregants to donate to what he called the “Resurrection Fund,” stressing that during this time of battle, money is needed to defend the church. He offered no additional specifics about the fund, telling churchgoers he didn’t want to get into it because Trinity is streaming the service live on the Web and the services are available for purchase on DVD."
Obama is enjoying a "resurrection" of sorts late this week in the polls. So much so that he is confident enough to take a few days off and go bask in the Caribbean. Upon the messiah's return to the trail, we should demand he denounce this divisive rhetoric and resign his memebership in that hateful church. If he truly wants to "heal" us, he needs to distance himself from those that want to prolong the divide.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/23/in-eastor-sermon-trinity-united-...
I would like to remind folks here that McCain was also a strong critic--not of the need to fight the Iraq War, but at least of the way that Rumsfeld chose to fight it.
It seems that supporters of the war will not allow any legitimate criticism, even constructive criticism, of any aspect of it. Try criticizing the number of troops we sent, or the hyping of the WMD issue only to find there weren't any, or anything else, and you seem to incur the automatic reflexive wrath of the war's supporters.
This inevitably forces nail all of us to support every facet of the Bush war effort. And that is simply unacceptable. SOMETHING must have gone wrong, for us to have gotten into a war with no definable endpoint without even having had so much as a debate as to what we were getting ourselves into. And it is the responsibility of the General Staff--in any democratic country--to alert the civilian leadership to potential pitfalls and point out alternatives.
For myself, back in 2002, I had supported a military expedition to go into Iraq, get the WMD, and get out fast, moving on to the next terrorist target of opportunity (which I believed was Syria at that time). I did NOT want us to linger for one moment in the midst of the tribal conflicts between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. I remembered Somalia all too well.
But Bush chose not to go that way.
Like General McPeak, I too tried to make those points as the war unfolded. And I found myself being slammed mercilessly for the first time in my life as a "socialist," a "liberal" (very big insult in some circles), an "appeaser," a "terrorist sympathizer," and even a "traitor"--all because I didn't see how what we were doing was consonant with the original goals we had set out for ourselves.
There has to be room in this debate for constructive criticism of the Bush war policies. A position of "Bush did everything right and everybody who disagrees is anti-American" is just a non-starter.
that GWB did everything right?...Or, that everything has been done right in regards to the war?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Something that General McPeak needs to learn.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This sort of anti-semitism is what made me a lover of Israel and of Jews.
I figured that if that many people hated them, they had to be doing something right. So, not knowing many Jewish people myself
(I grew up in rural Louisiana) I did some research and discovered that most of the scientists, thinkers, and especially the economists I most admired were Jews.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
when you ASSume.
So, in 2002 you believed we should have sent in surgical strike forces, into a country the size of California, to find WMDs, probably crippling the Saddam military forces in the process (unless you believe they would have simply stood aside while we searched) then pulled out, leaving...what? Chaos? Civil War? A Saddam regime that would need to suppress its citizens (can you say genocide?)
I WILL agree with you on one point. Syria should have been the next immediate target, and would, IMHO have prevented much of the chaos we have faced since that time, since that border would have been closed to terrorist crossings. (In addition, we might have been able to dig up those WMDs that experts tell us were transfered via convoy to the Syrian desert.)
how do you read critism of the Iraq war into this?
about their vision of governance and justice, much as many Russians found out too late from 1918 forward.
Within 10 minutes of Obama's nomination. Or before if they really think Hillary can "steal" the nomination and I would bet they try to link her to the neocons because of her vote to go to war.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.