Posts Tagged ‘obama’

one vote Arthur, no Carter no Arthur no Carter, no…

Posted: January 10, 2009 by datechguy in arthur vs carter
Tags:

Well despite firing an aide over Hamas contacts during the campaign it looks like the president elect will be talking to Hamas, according to the Guardian:

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush’s ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency’s ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 ­Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group

Well that’s one vote for Carter, but wait a moment…That’s not what Fox says:

“The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements,” transition spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in a written statement.

Well in that case that one vote for Arthur instead but wait…The Age says they are, a vote for Carter.

But the Austin News says they will not, a vote for Arthur.

But the Jerusalem Post says they will, a vote for Carter.

But then it says he won’t a vote for Arthur…

But CBS says he will.

Well Newspost says maybe, lets stick with that for now. No votes awarded

I should point out that articles dated today have reported on both sides ARRUGH.

Maybe Nordlinger is right instead

Posted: January 6, 2009 by datechguy in arthur vs carter, opinion/news
Tags: , ,

In this post I made a rather provocative assertion when explaining why 65,000 civilian deaths dead in the fight against the Tamil-Tigers provoked no protest on the left as opposed to Israel and Gaza:

How could this be? Simple answer. If you can’t blame Jews or Americans, then its not evil or important. Why? Because their final goal is dead Jews. Period.

In is column today, Jay Nordlinger may have a better explanation:

During the Cold War, we used to speak of anti-anti-Communists. These were people (on the left) who were not exactly pro-Communist. But they so hated the anti-Communists, they were . . . well, anti-anti-Communists — the best, the fairest name for them.

Today, there are anti-anti-Islamofascists. They are not on the Islamofascist side in the War on Terror. But they hate those who are fighting, or attempting to fight, the Islamofascists more than they could ever hate the Islamofascists. They are anti-anti-Islamofascists.

The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz. Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists — I mean, the same people, in the flesh.

And it’s all embodied in a publication such as The New York Review of Books.

That is a much more charitable explanation, I’ll have to think on it.

He also touches on another quote I made during the first week of this blog.

You can take this to the bank: Any successful attack on American soil during an Obama administration is going to be wholly owned by not only that administration but the Democratic party.

Here is Nordlinger:

A wise Republican head said to me the other day, “I actually think Obama is going to have a hard time of it.” Here was his reasoning: “Two things Bush has done right are Iraq (after the surge) and preventing a second attack. Those are big achievements to live up to — especially if you don’t believe there is any connection between the president’s means and these ends.

This goes to the heart of the Arthur vs Carter question. Anyway its another reason why Nordlinger should be regular reading for you.

As for yesterday’s anti-anti Communists as today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists; I guess they are fooled twice. Shame on them.

Payback?

Posted: January 4, 2009 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags:

This story was a huge surprise to me:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, tapped in December by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of Commerce, has withdrawn his name for the position, citing a pending investigation into a company that has done business with his state.

The captain raises a very good point:

That Richardson would accept the nomination and then withdraw under these circumstances says something about how uncomfortable this scandal will get.

When this first started coming out I didn’t think anything would come of it.

I’m remembering how Richardson was the first of the Clinton people to go with Obama.

Here is the public one:

I can’t help but think of yesterday’s party. I had two guests standing next to each other, one a strong conservative and one a liberal (both great people) my conservative friend theorized that the Clintons would bring Obama down for 2012. My liberal friend took exception to it.

Maybe the president elect is too smart for this stuff, but I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Clinton remember the clips above fondly. Is this a coincidence? Who knows?

All I know for sure is that the Governor of New Mexico doesn’t apparently have the gall of either of Governor of Illinois or the former president.

Morning Joe Echos Limbaugh

Posted: December 31, 2008 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , ,

The wife accidentally hit me about 3 hours ago waking me up. Unfortunately I stayed up, but that means Morning Joe and I got the chance to see the start of the show. Since I’m typing as they are speaking quotes may not be exact.

Chuck Todd is on and just pointed out that moderates and independents voted for Obama in droves even though the candidate was John McCain.

This is John McCain who is supposed to be Mr Moderate

Joe Scarborough gets it:

Republican Moderates usually do poorly Republican true believers tend to do well.

Pat questions Todd pointing out that when he selected Palin he was up for a while until the market crashed and killed him.

(all this sounds like Rush Limbaugh so far)

Todd however is blaming a bad Obama campaign rather than the Palin pick.

Here is the actual answer. Obama didn’t run a great campaign against McCain, the media ran a great campaign for Obama. Obama was and in my opinion is a rookie pitcher from a corrupt machine with a lot of questionable associations but the media decided he was the next JFK and the cure to all that was wrong with race in America. They didn’t want anything in the way of the history they were making.

As far as McCain goes rallied conservatives with Palin and could have won this campaign but his position on the bailout murdered him and kept conservatives home. The media did and still hates Palin for what she is, an actual living example of conservative values who doesn’t give a damn what they think. So they did their best to destroy her.

Limbaugh was absolutely right about this one but as always we got the government we deserve, and we have 4 years to see if it was the right move.

Update: Morning Joe would be so much better if Andrea Mitchell wasn’t on it. Unlike the others on the show she still pretends that she is a reporter and not an advocate but you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Older Entries
Newer Entries