So, with Obama the apparent...

[Yonivore]

...Democrat nominee, let's talk about one of his more troubling (for me anyway) proposed policy initiatives; negotiating with our enemies.

Senator Obama's victory speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099_pf.html) last Tuesday turned decidedly to the general election campaign. After all but clinching the Democrat Party's nomination for President, his speech sounded more like a convention nomination speech than a primary victory speech, I suspect some of the same themes will be repeated in Denver this summer.

So, who else caught this passage?


"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Okay, for the uninitiated, our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than were FDR and Truman. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

0 for 2. So, let's contrast Kenendy's pre-presidential military and politcal experience with Obama's paper-thin resume. Maybe Obama is thinking of Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. That summit was a disaster for resasons that bear intense scrutiny. Opposite of looking to this as validation of Obama's policy, I think Vienna is actually a fair comparison and warning against Obama's expressed intentions as President of the United States.

The closest historical analog to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet, with no preconditions, with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well, did it?

And the United States has been talking with Iran right along in any event. It's not for lack of communication that Iran has been conducting its war on the United States. It is amazing the media haven't pursued Obama on this subject, or challenged him on his repeated assertion that we're not talking or haven't talked with Iran. Okay, not so much "amazing" as unconscienable.

And, when Obama invoked past Democratic presidents in his speech Tuesday night, he started with Roosevelt but omitted Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Moving on from the Clinton era is part of the thesis of Obama's candidacy, so the omission is understandable. Of past Democratic presidents, none has set a better example of the pitfalls of "talking to our enemies" than Jimmy Carter, both in his presidency and his travels since, right up until that sham meeting with Hamas last month, (though Carter probably would not acknowledge that his interlocutors are our enemies).

Obama may not be knowledgeable enough to know he doesn't want to emulate Roosevelt at Yalta. Perhaps he believes that Roosevelt's name sanctions whatever action he can attach to it. But Obama is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to profess a desire to emulate Jimmy Carter, if only on political grounds. In substance, however, it seems to me that the president Obama most closely resembles on this point is Carter.

This certainly will be an issue in a general election atmosphere.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't have a problem with it. None at all.

[George Gervin's Afro]

...Democrat nominee, let's talk about one of his more troubling (for me anyway) proposed policy initiatives; negotiating with our enemies.

Senator Obama's victory speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099_pf.html) last Tuesday turned decidedly to the general election campaign. After all but clinching the Democrat Party's nomination for President, his speech sounded more like a convention nomination speech than a primary victory speech, I suspect some of the same themes will be repeated in Denver this summer.

So, who else caught this passage?



Okay, for the uninitiated, our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than were FDR and Truman. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

0 for 2. So, let's contrast Kenendy's pre-presidential military and politcal experience with Obama's paper-thin resume. Maybe Obama is thinking of Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. That summit was a disaster for resasons that bear intense scrutiny. Opposite of looking to this as validation of Obama's policy, I think Vienna is actually a fair comparison and warning against Obama's expressed intentions as President of the United States.

The closest historical analog to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet, with no preconditions, with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well, did it?

And the United States has been talking with Iran right along in any event. It's not for lack of communication that Iran has been conducting its war on the United States. It is amazing the media haven't pursued Obama on this subject, or challenged him on his repeated assertion that we're not talking or haven't talked with Iran. Okay, not so much "amazing" as unconscienable.

And, when Obama invoked past Democratic presidents in his speech Tuesday night, he started with Roosevelt but omitted Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Moving on from the Clinton era is part of the thesis of Obama's candidacy, so the omission is understandable. Of past Democratic presidents, none has set a better example of the pitfalls of "talking to our enemies" than Jimmy Carter, both in his presidency and his travels since, right up until that sham meeting with Hamas last month, (though Carter probably would not acknowledge that his interlocutors are our enemies).

Obama may not be knowledgeable enough to know he doesn't want to emulate Roosevelt at Yalta. Perhaps he believes that Roosevelt's name sanctions whatever action he can attach to it. But Obama is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to profess a desire to emulate Jimmy Carter, if only on political grounds. In substance, however, it seems to me that the president Obama most closely resembles on this point is Carter.

This certainly will be an issue in a general election atmosphere.



The problem with your positions is that Obama doesn't want to 'negotiate' with anyone. Your argument would be rock solid if you could find the word 'negotiation' in any of Obama's speeches. I guess we could continue to ignore aghmedinajid (whatever his name is) or we could sit down with him one time and explain his limited options. Or we could the neocon appraoch and invade his neighbor which apparently hasn't stopped him from talking about blowing up Isreal..

[Yonivore]

The problem with your positions is that Obama doesn't want to 'negotiate' with anyone. Your argument would be rock solid if you could find the word 'negotiation' in any of Obama's speeches. I guess we could continue to ignore aghmedinajid (whatever his name is) or we could sit down with him one time and explain his limited options. Or we could the neocon appraoch and invade his neighbor which apparently hasn't stopped him from talking about blowing up Isreal..
You've got to admit that Obama's references (and he could clear this up by explaining what he means by "talk") tend to lean more to negotiation than ultimatum.

And, if that's the case, it's already being done. Europe engaged Iran for a damn long time without any success. Our State Department has talked until it's blue in the face. If Iran had shown any inclination for cooperation, I'm sure a meeting with the President could have been possible...but, instead, they've remained defiant and have continued to bluster about Israel and inflame the region through their proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

What would be the point of lending prestige to that nutjob by our head of state meeting with him?

[Yonivore]

I don't have a problem with it. None at all.

Really? I'm shocked.

[JoeChalupa]

Really? I'm shocked.

Your unwillingness to be open minded never shocks me anymore. :sleep

[George Gervin's Afro]

You've got to admit that Obama's references (and he could clear this up by explaining what he means by "talk") tend to lean more to negotiation than ultimatum.

And, if that's the case, it's already being done. Europe engaged Iran for a damn long time without any success. Our State Department has talked until it's blue in the face. If Iran had shown any inclination for cooperation, I'm sure a meeting with the President could have been possible...but, instead, they've remained defiant and have continued to bluster about Israel and inflame the region through their proxies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza.

What would be the point of lending prestige to that nutjob by our head of state meeting with him?



You've got to admit that Obama's references (and he could clear this up by explaining what he means by "talk") tend to lean more to negotiation than ultimatum.

I do agree that he should explain himself better so the right wingers will stop proclaiming he wants to negotiate with terrorists

[boutons_]

Yoni is saying "If ya gotta shoot, shoot. Don't talk."

Which is a fine, memorable line for a great spaghetti Western movie scene, but not as the strategy for the most dominant military power in world history, guranteed to kick any country's ass (kicking insurgents/terrorists' asses is a lot more difficult. 6 years in Afghanistan, 5 years in Iraq, and the asses still aren't kicked)

Of course, the little chickenshit is all for shooting as long as he's not the one shooting or being shot at.

Iran knows it will be destroyed if it initiates any attack, as a state.

I say talk, because in any case Iran won't shoot. Their infrastucture, and many 1000s of their people, wil be obliterated.

Iran will do lots of proxy shooting, eg, today in Beirut.

How will dubya solve that, by more shooting? Lebanon's a disaster.
What exactly is dubya's approach to Lebanon? Is there one?

Shooting is always the solution, like in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[clambake]

we don't negotiate. we build a giant stack of lies, invade, blowup as much shit as we can, build a new stack of lies (because the old lies are stale and inaccurate) and point the finger at anyone else but ourselves.......it's an oil thing.

[JoeChalupa]

I do agree that he should explain himself better so the right wingers will stop proclaiming he wants to negotiate with terrorists

I concur but it'll fall on deaf ears. The right wingers will keep on saying it over and over again.

[clambake]

why would you want him to clarify any of these statements? these are the people that would never vote for him under any circumstances.

[JoeChalupa]

why would you want him to clarify any of these statements? these are the people that would never vote for him under any circumstances.

That is a correct statement.

[ClingingMars]

this is going to be a disaster if he becomes president. even more incentive to hold my nose and vote for McCain, hoping that Huck gets the VP nod

also, we still don't know if Obama is the nominee, Operation Chaos continues! :corn:

- Mars

[Yonivore]

why would you want him to clarify any of these statements? these are the people that would never vote for him under any circumstances.
Because we're going to attempt to persuade those who might vote for him that he's wanting to negotiate with terrorists unless he clarifies.

Why wouldn't he clarify if, in fact, his intentions are different?

[PixelPusher]

Luckily for the Yoni and/or the blog he ripped his opinion from, Obama forgot to include Reagan in that list, who did talk with our enemy, the Soviet Union.

[Yonivore]

Luckily for the Yoni and/or the blog he ripped his opinion from, Obama forgot to include Reagan in that list, who did talk with our enemy, the Soviet Union.
Yes, and with results. Gorbechev tore down the wall, abandoned his insistance that we abandon SDI, instituted peristroika, and dissolved the Soviet Union.

Reagan's points were non-negotiable...they were an ultimatum. Another reason to believe Obama isn't talking about giving Iran an ultimatum, he didn't include Reagan.

Obama isn't Reagan and Ahmadenijad isn't Gorby.

[clambake]

yep, if ron were alive he'd rip W a new one for selling us out to china. then he'd look at obama and think it's time we had another smart guy in office.

[Yonivore]

yep, if ron were alive he'd rip W a new one for selling us out to china. then he'd look at obama and think it's time we had another smart guy in office.
Yeah, right.

[boutons_]

"Gorbechev tore down the wall"

Russia collapsed around him, he had little to do with it, when the Germans (not Gorbachev) broke through the wall, bankrupted and powerless Russia could not nothing.

Russisa was bankrupted and powerless because:

1) Russia invaded Aghanistan and got their asses kicked, spending many billions and causing serious civilian objections due to the very high loss of Russian military.

2) a huge drop in Russian hard $ revenues due to the West reducing oil demand after the Iranian oil shock of the early 80s. Russian ruble was not tradeable. Russian oil sales through the 70s and early 80s kept Russia going on oil hard $$. When the oil price collapsed, so did Russia. Reagan and Gorbachev had little to do with it. The Russian system was simply unsustainable.

[George Gervin's Afro]

"Gorbechev tore down the wall"

Russia collapsed around him, he had little to do with it, when the Germans (not Gorbachev) broke through the wall, bankrupted and powerless Russia could not nothing.

Russisa was bankrupted and powerless because:

1) Russia invaded Aghanistan and got their asses kicked, spending many billions and causing serious civilian objections due to the very high loss of Russian military.

2) a huge drop in Russian hard $ revenues due to the West reducing oil demand after the Iranian oil shock of the early 80s. Russian ruble was not tradeable. Russian oil sales through the 70s and early 80s kept Russia going on oil hard $$. When the oil price collapsed, so did Russia. Reagan and Gorbachev had little to do with it. The Russian system was simply unsustainable.

No Boutons, Reagan is the SOLE reason communism ended.. :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

No Boutons, Reagan is the SOLE reason communism ended.. :rolleyes
He is the principal reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Communism still exists in Cuba, China, North Korea, and elsewhere.

But, can we get back to what Obama's intentions are with our enemies? What could he say to Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Al Qaeda that would change them from their current courses of action? Something that's not already been said.

[ClingingMars]

Luckily for the Yoni and/or the blog he ripped his opinion from, Obama forgot to include Reagan in that list, who did talk with our enemy, the Soviet Union.

did the USSR attack us?

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

also typical strategy by liberals: LETS BASH REAGAN GUYS EVEN THOUGH THE DEAD GUY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND!

- Mars

[Nbadan]

Obama isn't Reagan and Ahmadenijad isn't Gorby.

Which begs the question why Republicans like to treat Ahmed like he is Gorbachev with hundreds of nukes pointed at the U.S....

[TxJudsonRocketTx]

...Democrat nominee, let's talk about one of his more troubling (for me anyway) proposed policy initiatives; negotiating with our enemies.

Senator Obama's victory speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/06/AR2008050603099_pf.html) last Tuesday turned decidedly to the general election campaign. After all but clinching the Democrat Party's nomination for President, his speech sounded more like a convention nomination speech than a primary victory speech, I suspect some of the same themes will be repeated in Denver this summer.

So, who else caught this passage?



Okay, for the uninitiated, our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender.

FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.

Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops.

Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than were FDR and Truman. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so.

When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.

0 for 2. So, let's contrast Kenendy's pre-presidential military and politcal experience with Obama's paper-thin resume. Maybe Obama is thinking of Kennedy's 1961 summit with Khrushchev in Vienna. That summit was a disaster for resasons that bear intense scrutiny. Opposite of looking to this as validation of Obama's policy, I think Vienna is actually a fair comparison and warning against Obama's expressed intentions as President of the United States.

The closest historical analog to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet, with no preconditions, with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well, did it?

And the United States has been talking with Iran right along in any event. It's not for lack of communication that Iran has been conducting its war on the United States. It is amazing the media haven't pursued Obama on this subject, or challenged him on his repeated assertion that we're not talking or haven't talked with Iran. Okay, not so much "amazing" as unconscienable.

And, when Obama invoked past Democratic presidents in his speech Tuesday night, he started with Roosevelt but omitted Johnson, Carter, and Clinton. Moving on from the Clinton era is part of the thesis of Obama's candidacy, so the omission is understandable. Of past Democratic presidents, none has set a better example of the pitfalls of "talking to our enemies" than Jimmy Carter, both in his presidency and his travels since, right up until that sham meeting with Hamas last month, (though Carter probably would not acknowledge that his interlocutors are our enemies).

Obama may not be knowledgeable enough to know he doesn't want to emulate Roosevelt at Yalta. Perhaps he believes that Roosevelt's name sanctions whatever action he can attach to it. But Obama is smart enough to know that he doesn't want to profess a desire to emulate Jimmy Carter, if only on political grounds. In substance, however, it seems to me that the president Obama most closely resembles on this point is Carter.

This certainly will be an issue in a general election atmosphere.

Are you trying to make people think you caught all of this yourself or what? Put the link to Yahoo that you copy+pasted this from

[Don Quixote]

I find Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling.

[ChumpDumper]

I find Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling.Straight from John "No Negative Campaigning" McCain's mouth -- except you got the group wrong.

And please link their official endorsement.

Of course, the most prominent meeting with the enemy that no one has mentioned is Nixon's visit with China -- and I can't think of a president from Kennedy onward that didn't meet with a leader of the Soviet Union Of course there have also been the Clinton and Bush administrations' negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear programs.

But this is more fluff and BS from whomever Yoni stole this from and didn't properly attribute in a continued attempt to make himself look smarter.

Parroting talking points you just read or heard is not discussion.

[clambake]

I find Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling.

hey rev, so, you listen to hezzbolah? obama doesn't. if you want to know about hezzbolah, just ask israel. they just got back from a fresh ass kicking from them.

[clambake]

I find Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling.

one more question, reverend. do you spread these lies throughout your flock? i think it would be a bad idea, because i know for a fact that god hates a phony preacher man.

[boutons_]

"Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling."

... but you find Parsley's and Hagee's endorsement of McFlopPanderKeating non-troubling.

... but you find McFlopPanderKeating's embrace of Parsley and Hagee as McFlopPanderKeating's spiritual guide non-troubling.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

"Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling."

... but you find Parsley's and Hagee's endorsement of McFlopPanderKeating non-troubling.

... but you find McFlopPanderKeating's embrace of Parsley and Hagee as McFlopPanderKeating's spiritual guide non-troubling.
you and your stupid monikers you make up.

[JoeChalupa]

you and your stupid monikers you make up.

:lmao Like you don't.

[Don Quixote]

I love em!

Boutons ... you need to take your concerns to the Democratic convention. Do your views reflect the liberal consensus? Do you think they ought to adopt your views? Then, go to the Convention, you and your friends, and tell your party what you think.

[Don Quixote]

I'll support you all the way. I'll even contribute to the fund.

[clambake]

I'll support you all the way. I'll even contribute to the fund.

yeah, from the suckers you guilt the money from. right reverend?

[Yonivore]

Are you trying to make people think you caught all of this yourself or what?
People who know me don't think that.


Put the link to Yahoo that you copy+pasted this from
Kiss my ass...you "put" it.

[Don Quixote]

Croutons ... Go to the Democratic National Convention, young man!

You're just what they need.

However, if you can't get out on a weekend pass to go to the Convention, then I'm sure some of your like-minded colleagues can organize a fund to send a few of you. The DNC needs to hear from you!

[ChumpDumper]

People who know me don't think that.He's trying to impress the other people on the board who don't know he's a plagiarist.



Kiss my ass...you "put" it.:lol He gets really pissed when it's shown he's never had an original thought.

[Yonivore]

ChumpDumper is my own personal troll. Cute, eh?

[ChumpDumper]

It's just so easy to expose you. Maybe if you stopped pretending I'd lay off. Are you really that insecure?

[Yonivore]

It's just so easy to expose you.
Particular when I admit to stealing material. You're a real fucking genius, you are. A regular Sherlock Holmes.

[Yonivore]

It's just so easy to expose you. Maybe if you stopped pretending I'd lay off. Are you really that insecure?
I don't care if you lay off, I think it's cute. Have fun with it, I say.

[Don Quixote]

ChumpDumper is my own personal troll. Cute, eh?

We should all be so blessed. :lol

I actually keep a few of these very special people in a list I call "Ignore." Why waste time on the uncivilized?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't care if you lay off, I think it's cute. Have fun with it, I say.Keep plagiarizing and pretending, ya big phony.

[Yonivore]

We should all be so blessed. :lol

I actually keep a few of these very special people in a list I call "Ignore." Why waste time on the uncivilized?
Oh, he was there for awhile but, I got bored so, I brought him out of the closet.

[Yonivore]

Keep plagiarizing and pretending, ya big phony.
D'okie dokie.

[Don Quixote]

Guy doesn't even strike me as that radical. Just not a particularly nice person, that's all. I deal with enough jerks on a daily basis, why have to deal with more when I'm at my desk?

And I don't mind being critiqued or called out for wrong opinions or faulty logic. Just give me something of substance, with a little bit of humility, please. You are not the smartest person on this board.

That said, I am looking forward to an Obama candidacy this fall. But ... I can't wait for that Convention. Is MoveOn sending a group of people?

[Don Quixote]

And, will Hamas and Hezbollah send delegates to the convention? I understand the Democrats want the world's opinion on the matter. Or, certainly, at least the opinion of radical Moslems.

If we elect Obama, THEN they'll leave us alone. There will be peace, and happiness.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice of you to finally get McCain's "non-negative" talking point right. Only took you twelve hours.

[Don Quixote]

These are IMPORTANT questions!

[ChumpDumper]

Not really. We talk to enemies all the time.

Current administration included.

[Don Quixote]

Who has Ahmed Ahmi-booby-job endorsed in our presidential race?

Has this superdelegate come out yet for Hillary or Obama?

[clambake]

Who has Ahmed Ahmi-booby-job endorsed in our presidential race?

Has this superdelegate come out yet for Hillary or Obama?

god hates a phony preacher man. remember where you heard this when your at the gate.

[ClingingMars]

"Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling."

... but you find Parsley's and Hagee's endorsement of McFlopPanderKeating non-troubling.

... but you find McFlopPanderKeating's embrace of Parsley and Hagee as McFlopPanderKeating's spiritual guide non-troubling.

are those terrorists who want to kill us?

- Mars

[ClingingMars]

god hates a phony preacher man. remember where you heard this when your at the gate.

:dont

- Mars

[Don Quixote]

There you go, quoting the angry trolls again, doofus!

I have them on my happy ignore list for a reason.

[ClingingMars]

There you go, quoting the angry trolls again, doofus!

I have them on my happy ignore list for a reason.

good point, i haven't gotten into the habbit of ignoring political trolls yet, the Hornet trolls have consumed my attention.

- Mars

[clambake]

i didn't know that lying, self promoting preachers were the new conservative standard.

and I never put minions on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

Once again no one bothers to find out what the candidate actually said.

“we should not talk to [Hamas] unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords”

That was Thursday.

Obama was also a cosponsor (along with McCain - go figure) of the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act which said the same thing. So not only does he have the same views on Hamas as Bush and McCain, he has had them all along.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?em&ex=1210564800&en=33fa65bea724d9b1&ei=5070

Why do Republicans have to lie about stuff like this? Are they that afraid of losing?

[boutons_]

"In 2006, he, like Mr. McCain, was a co-sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which called on “members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas” until it met all of the same requirements that Mr. Obama enumerated again on Thursday."

Are Old McFlopPanderKeating and his people really this stupid? :lol

YES!


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/us/politics/10mccain.html?em&ex=1210564800&en=33fa65bea724d9b1&ei=5070

Old McFlopPanderKeating is now against the Old McFlopPanderKeating-Feingold legislation. :lol


Pau, Manu, and ..... Old McFlopPanderKeating. :lol

[Yonivore]

Once again no one bothers to find out what the candidate actually said.

“we should not talk to [Hamas] unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords”

That was Thursday.

Obama was also a cosponsor (along with McCain - go figure) of the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act which said the same thing. So not only does he have the same views on Hamas as Bush and McCain, he has had them all along.

Why do Republicans have to lie about stuff like this? Are they that afraid of losing?
Well, then his position is the same as Republicans. Why is he making it out to be something new?

[Don Quixote]

Well, then his position is the same as Republicans. Why is he making it out to be something new?

Shhh! It's Change We Can Believe In!

With St. Barack, it WILL be different this time.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, then his position is the same as Republicans. Why is he making it out to be something new?It's not different concerning Hamas. It's not my problem you idiots can't tell the difference between states and groups just like Don Quixote couldn't tell the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas and McCain can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and Yoni can't tell the difference between himself and powerlineblog. Quit whining upset when your ignorance is exposed.

[Ignignokt]

It's not different concerning Hamas. It's not my problem you idiots can't tell the difference between states and groups just like Don Quixote couldn't tell the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas and McCain can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and Yoni can't tell the difference between himself and powerlineblog. Quit whining upset when your ignorance is exposed.

hamas and hezbollah are both groups... so what did you mean?

[ChumpDumper]

hamas and hezbollah are both groups... so what did you mean?That's exactly what I mean. This never had anything to do with non-state groups. DQ kept mistakenly bringing up Hezbollah when the McCain's talking point concerned Hamas.

[Ignignokt]

That's exactly what I mean. This never had anything to do with non-state groups. DQ kept mistakenly bringing up Hezbollah when the McCain's talking point concerned Hamas.

What you meant was that DQ mistakenly made birthday cake a Blizzard flavor.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I thought the war in iraq would make us safer? win the war on terror? now we have neocons opendly admitting, with the mention of other terrorists groups, that we aren't any safer now.... Mission Accomplished neocons!

[ClingingMars]

I thought the war in iraq would make us safer? win the war on terror? now we have neocons opendly admitting, with the mention of other terrorists groups, that we aren't any safer now.... Mission Accomplished neocons!

people who refer to conservatives as neocons are faggots. stfu.

- Mars

[Don Quixote]

Sorry. Confused Hamas with Hezbollah. Forgive me.

[Ignignokt]

I thought the war in iraq would make us safer? win the war on terror? now we have neocons opendly admitting, with the mention of other terrorists groups, that we aren't any safer now.... Mission Accomplished neocons!


The troops aren't for sure, but we haven't had an attack on the homeland in so many years with AQ actively gunning for us.

Not entering the war in Iraq didn't make Chechnya, Sudan, the Phillipines, and France safer either. They both have the same threat.

So can we MOVEON.org from these silly Daily Kos talking points. I thought you were a hillary supporter. I'd expect this from the Barrack Brats not you.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

:lmao Like you don't.
do i make up stuff anywhere near "McFlopPanderKeating"?

i didn't think so
:donkey:donkey

[Don Quixote]

My question is, will the delegates from Hezbollah and Hamas get seated at the DNC this summer?

[ChumpDumper]

My question is, will the delegates from Hezbollah and Hamas get seated at the DNC this summer?There are none. If you have a serious question, go for it.

[Ignignokt]

There are none. If you have a serious question, go for it.

is it possible for Shia Iran to cooperate with Sunni Alqueda?

[Don Quixote]

Hmm. Don't know. I imagine they do operate from some sort of pan-Islamic solidarity. I know for a fact that Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shiite, was very open to working with Sunnis. He is well known for his "work" in reconciling the two in Iran. And al-Qaeda, I am sure, would love help from Shiites. So, I would say yes.

Either way, I find their endorsement of the Barack the Blessed troubling.

[ChumpDumper]

Which Al Qaeda are you asking about?

[Yonivore]

It's not different concerning Hamas. It's not my problem you idiots can't tell the difference between states and groups just like Don Quixote couldn't tell the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas and McCain can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni and Yoni can't tell the difference between himself and powerlineblog. Quit whining upset when your ignorance is exposed.
Except you were using the Hamas example to legitimize his claim that he'll talk to our enemies and that it'll be different than what the current administration or Republicans would do.

Hell, under those conditions, I'd talk to Hamas as well. And, if he places similar preconditions on Iran, North Korea, etc... He's not one iota different than any Head of State would be. Yeah, we'll talk to them when they stop the crazy shit.

By the way, Hamas is a state. They are the elected representatives of the Palestinian Authority. PA = Hamas and vice versa.

[Don Quixote]

They keep quoting the trolls! Oh well ...

You right. Me another stupid Republican. Me can't tell difference between Hezbollah in Lebanon, who is backed by Iran, and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.

They both want kill Israel and Americans.

You smart me stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

Except you were using the Hamas example to legitimize his claim that he'll talk to our enemies and that it'll be different than what the current administration or Republicans would do.Except I'm not.

By the way, Hamas is a state. They are the elected representatives of the Palestinian Authority. PA = Hamas and vice versa.Except it's not.

[Yonivore]

Except I'm not.Except it's not.

Then what was the point of your statement about Obama and Hamas? Because the point of this thread was to discuss his seeming willingness to have unconditional talks with our enemies.

[ChumpDumper]

Then what was the point of your statement about Obama and Hamas? Because the point of this thread was to discuss his seeming willingness to have unconditional talks with our enemies.You just pointed out there are conditions, so why do you perpetuate this lie?

And my whole point when I first started posting in this thread is that talking to enemies is nothing new, even for the current administration.

[Yonivore]

Because idiots like you are lying about his stated position on Hamas. Even if Hamas was in control of all of the Palestinian lands, Obama would not talk to them unless they met the conditions that have been on record for years but you have either ignored or flat out lied about.

Are you lying or just ignorant?

I've never said anything about his position on Hamas. I merely quoted him in a speech and discussed how if he didn't elaborate more on what he meant about talking with our enemies, one could infer he was willing to do so without condition.

If as you say, he made conditions on talking with Hamas, he's no different than the current administration or Republicans. If that's how he'd approach all of our enemies, again, he's no different than the current administration or Republicans.

Where's the difference? Where's the change we can believe in?

[ChumpDumper]

I've never said anything about his position on Hamas. I merely quoted him in a speech and discussed how if he didn't elaborate more on what he meant about talking with our enemies, one could infer he was willing to do so without condition.

If as you say, he made conditions on talking with Hamas, he's no different than the current administration or Republicans. If that's how he'd approach all of our enemies, again, he's no different than the current administration or Republicans.

Where's the difference? Where's the change we can believe in?Again, I don't see too much difference. The Bush administration has talked to and negotiated with enemies and you still want him on Mount Rushmore.

Why is this an issue?

[Yonivore]

You just pointed out there are conditions, so why do you perpetuate this lie?

And my whole point when I first started posting in this thread is that talking to enemies is nothing new, even for the current administration.
No, you did. I hadn't heard what you claim he said about his conditions on talking with Hamas.

And, the part about talking to enemies is nothing new, I believe Obama is talking about personally sitting down with these nutjobs, a la' Jimmy Carter. The current President hasn't shut the door on any our enemies but, he's not going to throw the prestige of his office at a farce...like Jimmy Carter.

But, regardless, if that is his position on Hamas (or any other enemy, for that matter), he's no different that Bush, McCain, or any other Republican.

He talks like his foreign policy in this regard is different somehow. Care to explain how that might be? How's it going to be different?

[Yonivore]

And, you're a comlete fool if you think the current administration isn't in communication with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, China, etc...in some manner.

Obama seems to be implying he'd do something different than what is already being done. I'd like to know what that is. He's not saying. Are you willing to speculate?

[Wild Cobra]

people who refer to conservatives as neocons are faggots. stfu.

- Mars

I wouldn't say they are faggots. I just laugh at their ignorance and stupidity whan they talk out they ass like that.

Wait... open ass... faggot... maybe it applies afterall?

[Wild Cobra]

They keep quoting the trolls! Oh well ...

You right. Me another stupid Republican. Me can't tell difference between Hezbollah in Lebanon, who is backed by Iran, and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.

They both want kill Israel and Americans.

You smart me stupid.
I'm guilty of confusing them myself at times. To me, they are one in the same. Terrorists.

[ChumpDumper]

And, you're a comlete fool if you think the current administration isn't in communication with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, China, etc...in some manner.Are you saying you want to be in communication with these states or not?


Obama seems to be implying he'd do something different than what is already being done. I'd like to know what that is. He's not saying. Are you willing to speculate?I don't think it's going to end up being different, which is what I have been saying all along. It's yet another non-issue.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm guilty of confusing them myself at times. To me, they are one in the same. Terrorists.Like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq we have negotiated with and are currently paying off.

[Yonivore]

Are you saying you want to be in communication with these states or not?
Yes, to the extent that we continue to press them quit being jackasses, I think our government should maintain a line of communication with our enemies up to the point open hostilities are started. After that, I only want to listen to their unconditional surrender.

I don't think that communication should have to involve the President. And, I don't think this is the type of communication of which Obama speaks. But, he won't clarify so, we don't know, do we?


I don't think it's going to end up being different, which is what I have been saying all along. It's yet another non-issue.
So, just what are the issues that make Obama an attractive choice?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, to the extent that we continue to press them quit being jackasses, I think our government should maintain a line of communication with our enemies up to the point open hostilities are started. After that, I only want to listen to their unconditional surrender.

I don't think that communication should have to involve the President. And, I don't think this is the type of communication of which Obama speaks. But, he won't clarify so, we don't know, do we?So that's the only thing you are worried about? A summit level meeting with Ahmadinejad? it's not going to happen, so you can stop worrying.

Even though he'll hold hands with our close allies...

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-08/12/xinsrc_492080410053995381248.jpg



So, just what are the issues that make Obama an attractive choice?The best thing he's got going for him is he's not a Republican. Honestly. I wouldn't consider Obama a strong candidate by any stretch.

[Don Quixote]

To put it very concisely, it is my conviction that Obama, in his zeal for peace and cooperation with everyone (no matter how bad), is much more likely to put lives overseas in danger, and get us all killed too, than are his rivals. Sorry. It's much more likely that these thug-ocracies take advantage of St. Barack, than they are to stop their jihad against the West.

[ChumpDumper]

To put it very concisely, it is my conviction you are full of shit.

[Don Quixote]

Yes, to the extent that we continue to press them to quit being jackasses, I think our government should maintain a line of communication with our enemies up to the point open hostilities are started. After that, I only want to listen to their unconditional surrender.

I don't think that communication should have to involve the President. And, I don't think this is the type of communication of which Obama speaks. But, he won't clarify so, we don't know, do we?


So, just what are the issues that make Obama an attractive choice?

Well ... he's for change. And the future. And a new age of peace.

[boutons_]

Obama - Hamas

Same swiftboat lying distraction like
Obama - Wright,
Obama - is Muslim


yawn


]

[ChumpDumper]

Well ... he's for change. And the future. And a new age of peace.
So he should be for staying the same, and the past and an age of war?

Everything's perfect right now?

[Yonivore]

So he should be for staying the same, and the past and an age of war?

Everything's perfect right now?
It could be much worse...and, from what I've heard from Obama, he'd like to run this country into a ditch...and take us all along for the ride.

[ChumpDumper]

It could be much worse...and, from what I've heard from Obama, he'd like to run this country into a ditch...and take us all along for the ride.All you've been saying is you don't know what he wants to do.

And that he smokes.

And that he's a secret Muslim who takes orders from a black Christian preacher.

[Yonivore]

All you've been saying is you don't know what he wants to do.

And that he smokes.

And that he's a secret Muslim who takes orders from a black Christian preacher.
No, that's not all I've been saying...that's just all you've been hearing.

[ChumpDumper]

No, that's not all I've been saying...that's just all you've been hearing.All the rest is stuff you've stolen.

[Yonivore]

Here's the original commitment...

oSFSUbMWenU

You decide what he meant.

[Yonivore]

All the rest is stuff you've stolen.
The stuff you listed was stolen too so, it's not all I've been saying.

[ChumpDumper]

The stuff you listed was stolen too so, it's not all I've been saying.One has nothing to do with the other.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's the original commitment...

oSFSUbMWenU

You decide what he meant.He'll talk to the leaders of other nations like Reagan spoke to the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Were you against that?

[Don Quixote]

Wow. These Obama cultists ARE tenacious. I block them, and yet there they are, on my screen!

I've never thought much of the allegations that he's a closet Moslem. I don't even care if he smokes, really. I'm more concerned about his foreign policy (one of negotiation with Islamic radicals, who don't deserve to be at our table, and won't keep the terms of any treaty anyway) and his domestic agenda (raise taxes to keep everything fair, abortions for everyone, etc.). Those things are the deal-breakers for me.

[ChumpDumper]

Quit whining.

You don't have to read my posts.

[Yonivore]

He'll talk to the leaders of other nations like Reagan spoke to the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Were you against that?
That's not what he said.

During the debate when asked if he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" Obama answers, "I would."

Reagan would have never said anything that stupid. Nor would have the Democrats he invoked; FDR, Truman, or JFK.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not what he said.

During the debate when asked if he would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?" Obama answers, "I would."

Reagan would have never said anything that stupid. Nor would have the Democrats he invoked; FDR, Truman, or JFK.You just said we already negotiate with all of them, as we do with groups we branded terrorists like the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, whom we are now paying off.

It's all semantics. We'll negotiate when it's in our interests.

Tell me, is Bush going to stop importing oil from Venezuela now that Chavez' ties to FARC have been substantiated?

[clambake]

They keep quoting the trolls! Oh well ...

You right. Me another stupid Republican. Me can't tell difference between Hezbollah in Lebanon, who is backed by Iran, and Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.

They both want kill Israel and Americans.

You smart me stupid.

i don't think you're stupid. i think you're a manipulater that lies to his flock. lying to people in gods name. god hates that shit.

[boutons_]

Obama Draws Line On Negotiations, Won't Talk To Hamas (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008/news/nationalnews/os_big_no_to_meeting_hamas_100345.htm)


Barack Obama - who has said repeatedly that America must meet with its enemies, including the tyrants who lead Iran, North Korea and Cuba - drew the line yesterday in refusing to talk with Hamas.


"They're not heads of state. They don't recognize Israel," Obama told reporters. "You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of a country to exist."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/obama-draws-line-on-negot_n_89766.html

And if Edgar and Charlie are so hell-bent on containing/attacking Iran, why aren't they invading Lebanon, at least bombing them, to suppress the Iran-proxy Hezbollah and to help the pro-Western Lebanese govt?

hmm, no oil in Lebanon?

just as there is...

no oil in Myannar/Burma,

no oil in Zimbabwe,

no oil in Sudan, oops!!, dubya is setup and operating in/around the oil in East Africa.

[Wild Cobra]

Obama Draws Line On Negotiations, Won't Talk To Hamas (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03042008/news/nationalnews/os_big_no_to_meeting_hamas_100345.htm)


Barack Obama - who has said repeatedly that America must meet with its enemies, including the tyrants who lead Iran, North Korea and Cuba - drew the line yesterday in refusing to talk with Hamas.


"They're not heads of state. They don't recognize Israel," Obama told reporters. "You can't negotiate with somebody who doesn't recognize the right of a country to exist."


Are you now admitting he's a flip-flopper?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you now admitting he's a flip-flopper?Do you have a quote of his saying he would meet with Hamas with no preconditions? I haven't seen one.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have a quote of his saying he would meet with Hamas with no preconditions? I haven't seen one.

No, but he let people believe he would?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't he wanting to do like president Carter, meet with them with no conditions, thinking he could bring them to peace? He refused to take the position of not meeting with them for sometime until the topic became hot, didn't he? Didn't he also want to speak with everyone over there?

I didn't follow this well. I don't know. I thought that was the case however. I do know he said he would meet with nation leaders without preconditions. I know. Hamas is a group, but they have become a nations controlling group. They currently holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Authority.

Obama said that if he wins the White House, he would break from the standard practice of refusing to talk to U.S. foes that refuse to meet preconditions. He has said he would be open to meeting with the leaders of countries such as Iran. Hamas is the leading political party in Palestine.


"It is not a state and until Hamas clearly recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism and abides by, or believes that the Palestinians should abide by previous agreements ... I don't think conversations with them would be fruitful,"

Funny.... I guess he doesn't consider other nations like Iran as states because many of them refuse to acknowledge Israel too.

I think Obama is incapable of thinking clearly on such actions.

[ChumpDumper]

NoNo need to go any further then. You have failed to show he has flip flopped on Hamas.

[Wild Cobra]

No need to go any further then. You have failed to show he has flip flopped on Hamas.

In don't care. That wasn't my purpose. I asked if Bouton's was "admitting he's a flip-flopper?"

Not exactly the same thing. I understand your confusion. If I wanted to call Obama a flip-flopper, I would have had examples first. I can come up with some, but It doesn't matter. I don't want to get into that until September or October.

[ChumpDumper]

In don't care. That wasn't my purpose. I asked if Bouton's was "admitting he's a flip-flopper?"So where did boutons say Obama would talk to Hamas unconditionally?

[Wild Cobra]

So where did boutons say Obama would talk to Hamas unconditionally?

Did I say he did? NO! I was asking.

Why are you being an ass?

[ChumpDumper]

Did I say he did? NO!It's implied when one asks a question like that. It reads like a rhetorical question plain and simple.
Why are you being an ass?Why are you asking boutons if he's admitting Obama is a flip-flopper? The only way you could reasonably do that is if you had seen an instance where boutons claimed Obama would meet Hamas without preconditions. Considering we have been talking specifically about Hamas and that boutons posted Obama's stance on meeting with Hamas, differentiating it from what he had previously said about actual nations -- you have all the information you need.

[Wild Cobra]

It's implied when one asks a question like that. It reads like a rhetorical question plain and simple.Why are you asking boutons if he's admitting Obama is a flip-flopper? The only way you could reasonably do that is if you had seen an instance where boutons claimed Obama would meet Hamas without preconditions. Considering we have been talking specifically about Hamas and that boutons posted Obama's stance on meeting with Hamas, differentiating it from what he had previously said about actual nations -- you have all the information you need.

You know, sometimes you are pretty smart. Sometimes you are just a stupid ass. You are now being a combination. Just a smart-ass. I'm done with you. If you want to just argue, find someone else.

[ChumpDumper]

It just seemed to be an odd question to ask since everything is right there in the thread.

[Wild Cobra]

It just seemed to be an odd question to ask since everything is right there in the thread.

Maybe so, but I have to wonder...

With you defending Bouton's so much...

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/untitled.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe so, but I have to wonder...

With you defending Bouton's so much...

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/untitled.jpgSo you admit to flip-flopping about being done with me.

[Don Quixote]

Wow. Obamaniacs parsing words! And I thought they were beyond the politics of the past!

[ChumpDumper]

Wow. Board Republicans failing to understand the English language! I didn't think they were beyond their stupidity of the past!

[Wild Cobra]

So you admit to flip-flopping about being done with me.

LOL...

You got me there. What can I say, I couldn't help myself.

[xrayzebra]

Wow. Board Republicans failing to understand the English language! I didn't think they were beyond their stupidity of the past!

Stupidity of the past. Read on my friend, read on and heed the words
they are so very true.

Jimmy Carter’s Second Term
By Jeffrey Lord
Published 5/13/2008 12:07:55 AM


You have to admit it takes guts. Audacity, even.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of the Democrats, has in essence just defeated the heiress of the Clinton era by campaigning as the heir-apparent of the Carter era.

The question for the rest of the year is this: Are there enough voting Americans who survived the disastrous odyssey through the late 1970s that was led by blessedly now ex-president Jimmy Carter? While Ronald Reagan is rated in poll after poll by Americans as a great president, (most recently he rated second only to Lincoln), are there enough people who recall that Reagan's election came about because of Carter's...ahhh..."performance" in the Oval Office? And will they be able to make the Obama-Carter connection for younger voters hearing terms like "windfall profits tax" for the first time? More to the point, can Senator John McCain do this?

The greatest charade of the year thus far is the idea that something "new" is being said in this campaign. By anybody. To be bluntly accurate, the only thing new is that one of the final two candidates is black. It seems to escape some that in a country even as young as America, 55 presidential elections (2008 is the 56th) covers just about all the ground there is to cover in debating any given next four years in the life of the United States. Consider.

Since the 1788 election that produced (unopposed) George Washington as the first president, the agenda for presidential elections has been narrowed to one underlying issue: the role of government. Understood in that fashion, the following 220 years of American history can be read as if with Superman's X-ray vision. From slavery to abortion, the War of 1812 to the War in Iraq, from Lincoln's support for "internal improvements" to John McCain's disdain for congressional earmarks, the question at issue was the role of government. Whether dealing with the isolationism of Washington or Robert Taft or Ron Paul instead of the internationalism of Jefferson's chase after the Barbary pirates, Wilson's League of Nations or Ronald Reagan's determination to win the Cold War, the underlying question every time was the role of government.

This can be expressed in terms of its size (big or small), of its engagement with the world (the kind and quality of diplomacy) and its ability to protect American citizens (do we do it here or over there?). Yet always the issue is exactly the same. It is the underlying skeleton and vital organs of every question of policy facing the American people.

So too is it more than safe to say that America has seen every kind of candidate there is to be had in these 55 elections. Only the packaging is different in number 56, a truism of every previous election. Black this time for Obama, female for Hillary, there was Catholic for JFK. Short for Martin Van Buren, tall, skinny and hot tempered for Andrew Jackson. A failed haberdasher in Truman, a glossy movie actor in Reagan, a joke-cracking railroad lawyer in Lincoln and a school teacher in LBJ. A peanut farmer with Carter. Yet what each was saying both as candidate and president fell along one side or the other of the role of government argument. And as the string of American presidents and presidential campaigns gets longer, the newest candidates and the latest president have taken to looking backwards to select the presidential policies of admired predecessors

Which makes the audacity of the Obama campaign more than amusing -- and amazing -- to watch. Consciously or not, Obama has selected the philosophical template of the Carter administration, from defunding the military, fighting the "special interests" down to imposing the windfall profits tax on the rich. Well, as Justice Clarence Thomas might say: whoop-dee-damn-do! This is precisely the philosophy of Jimmy Carter, although Carter had the good sense not to campaign as the pacifist he really is in 1976, waiting until the moment his hand came off the bible for that.


IS IT POSSIBLE that America really wants to return to those depressing days of gas lines and leisure suits? Of malaise and shock over the aggressiveness of America's enemies? The days when the policies Obama is advocating raised unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation rates into the double digits? When America's enemies looked the President of the United States in the eye -- and found he really wanted to kiss them on the cheek?

After all of those 55 previous elections for president, with policy results seriously on record from George Washington to George W. Bush, it doesn't take much now to understand what doesn't work. The policy failures, not only of American presidents but world leaders in general, are all right out there to be seen.

Obama's windfall profits tax idea? A Jimmy Carter biggie. "Unless we tax the oil companies, they will reap huge and undeserved windfall profits," fumed Carter on national television in 1980. The New York Times agreed, warning darkly that "legislators who sit by idly while oil profits soar will have to answer to the voters." With Democrats controlling Congress they got their way. As if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose. Eventually even the Times was agreeing the tax had to be repealed, and by 1988 Reagan, who campaigned against it, signed the repeal (by a Democrat Congress no less) into law. And Obama wants to do this all over again? Yes. It's not only not a new idea, it's not a better idea. Yet in terms of Obama, most tellingly it was a Carter idea.

Another Carter favorite was to appear to attack the wealthy, going after "rich businessmen" who enjoyed themselves with the "$50 martini lunch." Elected, Carter went after the martini business lunch tax deduction all right, but then quickly turned on the middle class with a Social Security payroll tax. Obama is already well on board with Carteresque rhetoric about "tax cuts for the wealthy." What taxes will a President Obama raise that, as with Carter, can't be discussed as a candidate?

Appeasement and the notion that we can look evil in the eye and smile? Another Carter favorite (captured forever with the image of the American president kissing Brezhnev on the cheek at a Moscow summit in 1979) that more famously was the notion underpinning British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's desperate face-to-face sitdowns with Adolph Hitler. Didn't work either time, nor will it ever work as Obama seems to be seriously proposing with Iran. Why? Because bullies are bullies -- be they Russian Communists, German dictators or Iranian mullahs. Senator John McCain succinctly sums up Obama's take as a lack of both judgment and experience, which surely is true.


BUT OBAMA'S VIEWS are also something else. They are the product of a world view that has been around for centuries -- failing every time it's tried. Obama's campaign website says Obama "will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global." He also pledges to stop the research and deployment of a missile defense, the same system that Reagan created to end the Cold War.

America was led down this philosophical garden path most recently by Carter. Whether advocated by Carter in 1979, Chamberlain in 1939 or a President Obama in 2009, the philosophy behind this idea has simply never worked. Period. Yet , to borrow from Reagan's line in his debate with Carter, here we go again.

With all of the sweep of American history to look back on, with virtual libraries of history recording what works and what doesn't when running the American government, Obama has stunningly selected the Carter policies as his role model.

Tax cuts? Not for Obama. Military superiority? No, not for Obama. Do tax cuts work? Yes, as shown by Presidents Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush 43. Military strength? Yes, decisively too. From Lincoln's Union Army to Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet and his maxim to "talk softly and carry a big stick," from Wilson's Allied Expeditionary Force to FDR's vow to victory "so help us God" to Ronald Reagan's peace through strength, the idea of overwhelming military superiority works -- if the enemy believes you will use it. Or you actually use it.

But Obama, as with Carter, is having none of these approaches. From hiking Social Security payroll taxes to investing 20 percent less in defense budgets to telling Americans they had an "inordinate" fear of Communism, step by step Carter's policy selections and his decisions on the role of government led the American people down a dark and dangerous path that produced the worst economy since the Great Depression along with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a beachhead in Central America with the Communist take-over of Nicaragua. When his policy towards Iran resulted in abandoning the Shah in favor of the extremist mullahs and the taking of American hostages, Carter's military was in such bad shape that American soldiers died in the Iranian desert during a miserably failed rescue attempt.


PERHAPS MORE ASTONISHING than his advocacy of a return to Carterism, Obama channels the Republican president to whom Carter was frequently compared -- Herbert Hoover. Obama is completely on board with protectionism, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the Smoot-Hawley tariff that was a product of the Hoover administration in 1930. Upping the tariff on some 20,000 goods it is famous forever as the disastrous idea that deepened the severity of the Great Depression.

One has to wonder about the survival prospects down the road for the Democrats. They either can't get elected because their ideas are so bad -- extremist or tried and true failures -- or every once in a good while the latest crowd of American voters actually forgets their history (or never learned it in the first place) and gives a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton a go at holding the reins. Enemies are then appeased, taxes raised, and judges go wild -- which in turn creates a new generation of conservatives who begin to understand why the last generation voted Republican.

The question for Senator McCain, accused by Obama of wanting to serve George W. Bush's third term, is whether he will hold Obama's feet to the fire on Obama's apparently passionate desire to serve Jimmy Carter's second.


Jeffrey Lord is the creator, co-founder and CEO of QubeTV, an online conservative video site. A Reagan White House political director and author, he writes from Pennsylvania.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said pay heed my good friends. The man speaks the truth. Like it
or not. Obama is not a man of change but the man who is nothing more
than the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, makes a good bumper sticker though.

Unless there is some major further Republican losses in Congress, there won't be a ton of liberal legislation coming out of there anyway. Are you guys counting on losing more seats in Congress as well as the presidency?

Pretty sad.

[xrayzebra]

Nah, makes a good bumper sticker though.

Unless there is some major further Republican losses in Congress, there won't be a ton of liberal legislation coming out of there anyway. Are you guys counting on losing more seats in Congress as well as the presidency?

Pretty sad.

Spoken a person who is so un-informed. All budget matters are being
left to the new President. Tax cuts will be allowed to expire (tax raise).
And he says everything will stay the same. But a Chump is a Chump.
Liberals are what they are and Obama is nothing but a lame politician
cut from the same mold as Carter. God help us, because it looks like
he is going to be the nominee for the dimm-o-craps and McCain a
RINO should just go ahead and join the dimm-o-craps so he can reach
across the aisle and work with the Conservatives. Yeah right.

[Winehole23]

meeting Iran without preconditions was the height of naivete in 2008...

[spurraider21]

The closest historical analog to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet, with no preconditions, with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well, did it?
:lmao

[Spurtacular]

I find Hezbollah's endorsement of Obama troubling.


Straight from John "No Negative Campaigning" McCain's mouth -- except you got the group wrong.

Salty bad then. :lmao

[Winehole23]

Now do Pompeo:

1135149006772985857

[boutons_deux]

Now do Pompeo:

1135149006772985857

and Iran calls bullshit "word play"