Obamelot This Will Be Not
Building Democrat Dynasties One Charade At A Time
By haystack Posted in Clintons | Democrat Dynasties | Democrats | Kennedys | Legacies | Liberals | Obama — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As perhaps one of the most cynical people around, I couldn't help but wonder what business Caroline Kennedy had endorsing Barack Obama and then, reading through the Teddy Wail as he gushed all over this "new Kid on the block," I finally understood. The Kennedys need the Clintons gone so they can retake the Democrat party and make it their own once again.
Of course, had Teddy-boy possessed even a thumbnail's worth of the abilities his brothers enjoyed, he might have been elected and served a second term as President. THAT might have been enough to keep the Clintons from ever having REACHED the top of the Democrat heap in the first place. Instead, Teddy's miserable failure(s) wound up playing a primary role in the decline of the family name [in politics, of course]...the crimes alleged and never proven for most of the clan will NOT be mentioned by me..what's that? I just did? Ooopsies-quite sorry...
Picking Obama to ostensibly re-live the glory days of the Families Kennedy is really a very bad idea, for what it's worth. You see, Joseph was able to build the dynasty on the back of err, umm, questionable activities later to be made illegal. Clinton, likewise (I did NOT mention Whitewater!). Obama is just too squeaky ckean to rise atop this pile (well, ok-so he played with a few "technically illegal" hobbies as a youth...but who HASN'T?).
Bedding down with Barack and the Oprah will likely NOT turn out very well for Teddy-boy...and frankly I think it only cheapens what little there is left of a fine heritage of political giants in their time and place in American history...but who am I to get in the way of Teddy making a fool of himself...AGAIN?
I can't help wondering what JFK, RFK, and even Joseph P. might have to say were they alive to see this mess Ted's making of the family brand.
More below the fold...
Cribbing from a segment I heard on the Laura Ingraham radio program let me just point out this so-called "new" JFK holds to NONE of the positions espoused so willfully by John Fitzgerald Kennedy. JFK believed in a strong defense...he believed in tax cuts...he believed our enemy (Communism back then) was evil. AND, he believed "we, the People" should be looking for ways to give to our country rather than holding our hands out expecting something FROM our Government.
Obama is NONE of these things, running (to the shirt-tearing squeals from Liberal Progressives everywhere) on the premise that Government IS the solution to all our problems, and that making kissy face with our enemies will somehow be a better strategy moving forward for getting along with everyone in the world...they're decent people, you see...they're just misunderstood and we're just being meany-heads.
Honestly, for anyone to suggest this Obama character should even be MENTIONED in the same breath as Camelot, is for a whole slice of our population to have overdosed on Jim Jones' kool-aid...and Teddy-boy has apparently signed up to be bartender.
The Democrats might actually be longing for Camelot like we seem wont to pine for our Reagan, but Obama? Maybe we ALL need to take a deep breath and look (honestly) at ourselves in the mirror asking just exactly why it is we have this obsessive-compulsive disorder of making Politicians some weird mutation of an urban legend.
How 'bout we get back to the business of running a country with some pretty basic, yet profound, issues that need serious...GROWNUP attention...and quit all this "National Enquirer" politicking we got going on lately?
Where There's Smoke . . . (Part Deux) — Comments (3) »
Obamelot This Will Be Not 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
As carefully as you have obviously. However, I do believe that Obama is the best possible candidate for the REPUBLICANS. Let's look at his electoral successes; he had a strong base of African-American voters in Chicago in the Democratic primary, add that to the snafus of his white opponents and he cakewalked to the primary victory. Then, in the General Election, the leading R got caught up in a sex scandal from his past divorce and we were left with ALAN KEYES! to run against him.
His campaign for President is about "change" and "hope", meaningless feel-good terms. Well, how does Obama feel about homosexual marriage? (he supports it). About the 2nd Amendment? (he opposes it). About taxes? (he wants more of it). About national security? (he's going to talk dictators into being our "friend"). About abortion? (he believes in abortion on-demand). Bottom line, he is on the far left with his VOTING record and once the feel good mist of "change" and "hope" evaporated, or more accurately, are vaporized by our nominee, Mr. Obama will be left exposed as being the far-left candidate he truly is. His rhetoric about finding new ways of doing things is all about treading down the unpopular path of the far-left.
given the pop-iconic stature he seems to be getting, I am afraid he walks away with this election unless the GOP turns out in numbers never seen in my lifetime.
This character is inspiring a lot of different demographics, and the right busies itself with being justifiably angry at so many factions having been abandoned over the past few years...
All a recipe for a serious electoral disaster in the making I'm afraid-though I pray I am wrong-my batting average is pretty bad of late as far as guessing who is going to win...at almost EVERYTHING..so I hope I'm wrong here as well.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
But, obviously, I think he's going to turn out more against that for. For clear reasons, Clinton can run on him being too-far left (given the far-left populace of the Democratic party). Come general election time, that message will or at least should be spread.
Just one little example, Obama wants to give illegals driving licenses. No criticism in the Dem primary on that issue. Think the Republican will let that little antecdote slide?
I honestly don't believe Obama gets 45% of the vote in the General Election. As mentioned prior, I think McCain gets the majority of Edwards democrats. Hillary Clinton, or more accurately Bill Clinton, would keep those Edwards Democrats in the party.
I had many Democratic "worker bee" friends. It is hard to imagine today, but, in the 1960's and 1970's, "worker bees" of both parties felt more comfortable with "worker bees" of the opposite party than with their own political types.
One of my Democratic "worker bee" friends had worked closely with all three Kennedy brothers. He told me that he liked Jack best, was afraid of Bobby but thought that Teddy was the brightest of the three.
After much reflection, I have to agree with my Democratic friend. Teddy was the best and brightest of the Kennedys. Jack realy did not care about the office but wanted to please his father. Bobby was a fighter who would fight at the drop of a hat and would drop the hat himself if necessary.
I must admit that, although I did not like Bobby and was working for Ken Keating, some of his campaign workers in New York City were real stand-up guys.
When they had a problem, they called for my assistance. We "worker bees" cared more for our opposite numbers than we did for most candidates. I was glad to help my fellow 'worker bees' even though I was also helping Bobby Kennedy.
I doubt that both parties "worker bees" would even consider requesting the assistance of the opposite parties "worker bees" today. That is a shame.
However, Barack doesn't need an iota of substance to be a formidable general election opponent. He's wearing the media's halo and Republicans will shy away from playing hardball because victicrats (and their media lapdogs) will stomp their feet and spin every criticism into a racial attack.
I'm praying for Hillary to slime her way to the nomination.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
about Obama being difficult to beat because the MSM will cover for him time and again. I can't stand Hillary, but Obama is even further to the left than she. When he was in the Illinois state legislature he refused to support a bill that required doctors to attend to babies who had survived abortions. We are talking about an already born child, and he did not feel that doctors should be obligated to provide medical care for the child. That is flat out infanticide. When a similar bill came before the US Senate, it passed unanimously.
Here is a link:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647
Even NARAL did not oppose the bill.
Obama's church is also interesting (very divisive and giving its allegiance to Africa, as opposed to America). Obama's pastor has given awards to Louis Farrakhan in the past and has traveled with him). Here is a link to the church's website:
I am so ready for some of this info to come out. He is not at all what he presents himself to be. Hillary would be a nightmare, but Obama would be even worse.
(and Clinton for that matter). But the advertisements, debates and alternative fair-minded media outlets will hopefully cover Obama's RECORD rather than his fluffy rhetoric.
...and wins the nomination, marginal voters who may have put down the remote long enough to vote for Obama will be less likely to reward Hillary. On the other hand, I'd expect a greater Republican turnout vs. Hillary than against Obama - which may help in Senate & House races.
The MSM may not unanimously cover for Hillary against McCain. After all, they have a bit of a tepid affair with McCain, too.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
There is no way that the Clintons are going to wait eight years for another shot at the White House (she'll be 69 in 2016, and he'll be 70) if they can have an option in 2012. If Obama gets the nomination, then expect Clinton, Inc., to cut his legs out from under him any way they can.
And, by Clinton, Inc., I mean all of the DLC nomenklatura who know that an Obama victory--backed by the Dean/Kennedy old-guard left--puts the last nail in the New Democrat coffin and thereby threatens the graft gravy train they've been riding for the sixteen years since the male Clinton perjured himself in front of the world by taking the Presidential Oath of Office.
If Obama wins the nomination, then the hardest hardball dirty shots against him will come from democrats. After all, these guys will literally be playing for money.
Every time anyone said anything questioning Obama, it was responded to as a racial attack.
Bill Clinton says Obama's story on his Iraq position is a "fairy tale". That's an unfair racial attack???
Bill Clinton said that he liked Obama and referred to him as a "brilliant, aticulate, compelling vision"
And I saw people call this racist, because using the articulate word as an adjective for a black man is a way the White man demeans black people
Good grief, I can't even imagine a general election race where any time a Republican spoke he has to make sure he doesn't use a common phrase in the lexicon, which happened to have been used ina racial manner 400 years ago
If Obama is the nominee than it is going to be a very long 6+ months, and there are a lot of people who are going to have to parse every single word that comes out of their mouth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59794
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Check out this site--wevoteright.com. It's a growing conservative community. The bigger we grow, the louder our voice will become.
and end up getting yourself Blammed! for your troubles -- why don't you write up a nice blog of your own telling all of us all about your little site. Heck, I'll even give you the first recommend.
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
The fact of the matter concerning his presidency is:
The Bay of Pigs was the Pearl Harbor of Cuban resistance. But whereas the U.S. recovered from Pearl Harbor and went on to eventual victory, the Bay of Pigs was so devastating that it enabled the Castro regime, in danger of being overthrown at the time, to pull itself together and tighten its control over the population. Never since then has Fidel Castro faced a serious challenge from rebellious citizenry.
Two other important events during his term were the Alliance for Progress (the US provided aid to Latin America) and the problems in Southeast Asia. North Vietnam was sending troops through Laos to fight in South Vietnam. The South's leader, Diem, was ineffective. America increased its "military advisors" from 2000 to 16000 during this time. Diem was overthrown but new leadership was no better. When Kennedy was killed, Vietnam was approaching a boiling point, and we know what Dems do when things get hot.
Critics observed that he made no effort to oppose the anti-civil libertarian excesses of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy.
OOh, and the biggie: Cuban Missile Crisis! Yeah, if he hadn't screwed up during the bay of pigs, we wouldn't have narrowly escaped nuclear holocaust in the first place.
And did I mention Kennedy's confrontation with Nikita Khrushchev in June 1961 led to the construction of the Berlin Wall?
JFK was a bumbling, womanizing, incompetent leader. The left has painted him as some glorious poster boy. Let them. The facts remain: Castro is still alive. Central and South America is overrunning with communists, thugs and oppressors which, by the way, is why we have such a large "illegal alien" problem. Nice way of saying they are refugees without discrediting Kennedy.
Bring it on Obama boy. You think you're Kennedy? Better hope your wife doesn't find out.
"Two legs bad, four legs good."