About Me

Name: CUBFAN
Location: SUGAR LAND, TX
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Democrats putting Carter behind them...


Michael Ramirez demonstrates how the Democrats are putting
their best face
on the recent Carter fiasco in the Middle East...

(It's a good thing President Jimmy didn't meet with Hamass--not a pretty sight!!)

 
 
Tags: Carter   Hamas  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Goodbye to the New Deal

My Take: Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for bringing this piece to my attention--it is succinct yet sincere in weaving together the myths of Obama (the "Democratic Future") and the New Deal (the "Democratic Past"), the mysticism of identity politics (the "Democratic Present"), and the mystery of the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy." [Note to Hillary: There is no mystery, only your continuing misery in trying to expose that which does not exist--like sniper fire from the hills which have eyes....]

Goodbye to the New Deal
by William Tucker
(Published 4/28/08 at Spectator.org: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13114 )

I don't want to sound too optimistic, but it appears that, in a year when the Democrats were supposed to make their triumphant re-entry into Presidential politics, we may be witnessing the final demise of the New Deal.

The Pennsylvania primary was a clincher. Obama has two constituencies -- African Americans and college-educated liberals. They're both passionate bloc voters and will turn out in droves. But their numbers are limited. They'll give Obama Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Illinois, and maybe California and Oregon, but that will be about it.

Hillary's votes come from the Democrats' other constituency -- blue-collar workers, Catholics, and people without a college education. Catholics rejected Obama by 70 percent. That's scary. Catholics have been a core constituency for the Democrats since the days of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion. If they drift over to the Republicans -- as they were doing under Ronald Reagan -- there's very little left in the Democrats' portfolio.

I've just been reading Amity Shlaes's The Forgotten Man, a revisionist history of the New Deal. It's a wonderful effort and makes it clear that, although the Roosevelt Coalition was the greatest single voting bloc in American history, it was also cobbled together from very disparate elements.

Most important, it was led, fore and aft, by East Coast intellectuals and university professors. The New Deal was hatched in academia and among left-wingers who had made pilgrimages to the Soviet Union. But they had the people on their side. The Republicans had messed things up hideously and there wasn't any reason not to try something new. Herbert Hoover caved to the Republican Midwest-and-manufacturing coalition to pass Smoot-Hawley and what could have been just a bad downturn became the Great Depression.

Even though they were united against the Republicans and Big Business, however, the Roosevelt Coalition was a hodgepodge of conflicting constituencies. There was the blue-collar working class, much bigger in those days, and the natural adversary of Big Business. There were Catholic immigrants, always wedded to urban Democratic machines. (Only four years before, Al Smith had become the first Catholic to be nominated for President.) Then there was the "Solid South." It was still fighting the Civil War. The most conservative region of the country, the South still voted Democratic to get back at Abraham Lincoln. African Americans, on the other hand, were Republicans at the time, but that didn't help much because Jim Crow laws kept them from voting.


THIS WEIRD COLLECTION held sway over American politics for fifty years, functioning like something put together by Rube Goldberg. A Southerner always had to be on the ticket. When Northern intellectuals got overconfident, they nominated someone like Adlai Stevenson, who had almost no appeal outside academia. Southern senators and congressmen remained in office forever and rose to controlling positions in both Houses. Thus when northern liberals wanted reforms, they always found them blocked by their own Southern committee chairmen. John Kennedy spent most of his presidency wrestling with this dilemma.

The breakthrough came in 1964, when the civil rights movement threw African Americans into the Democratic camp. Lyndon Johnson was the first and only Democrat to benefit from this grand coalition, winning by the biggest popular margin in history. But Barry Goldwater's seemingly quixotic campaign got Southern conservatives thinking maybe they had more in common than they realized with rural people in the Midwest and Far West.

Ronald Reagan picked them off in the 1980s, but the tectonic shift didn't come until 1994 when Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and other Southern congressmen who had switched sides led the South into the Republican ranks. "The Civil War is finally over," said Newt after the election and he was right as usual. Instead of living with the anomalous legacy of the Civil War, the country has now divided neatly into liberal and conservative -- which generally means urban versus rural. That is why American politics over the past 15 years has become so evenly divided and so uniquely contentious.

Liberal analysts are always celebrating the supposed fissures in the Republican coalition-- the inherent dissimilarity between business executives and religious social conservatives. I personally think that hideous movie, There Will Be Blood, was made just to try to exploit this division. The Huckabee-McCain contest was also supposed to embody this dilemma. But Republicans are team players -- they know how to lose gracefully and close ranks. Huckabee just announced he will be campaigning for McCain this fall. It was a perfect Republican gesture.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the contest this year isn't just about politics and issues -- it's about identity. That won't be easy to mend. The big problem is the role for African Americans. No Democratic presidential candidate since Lyndon Johnson has won the white vote. African Americans -- usually voting 90 percent Democratic -- have become the party's core constituency. The Clintons knew this in their bones. That's why the constantly kowtowed to Jesse Jackson and every other black leader -- and why they feel so bitterly betrayed now.


YET IT WAS ONLY GOING to be so long before blacks tired of carrying water for the Democrats and asked, "What about one of ours?'' The Obama phenomenon was inevitable. At some point there had to emerge a bright, articulate appealing African American who would step forward and say, "Now it's our turn to run."

The problem with Obama isn't that he's African American. It's that he's a pure product of academia -- Columbia, Harvard Law School, Hyde Park. He's never been outside that circle, never bowled (imagine that!), and didn't even realize he had insulted tens of millions of small-town Americans with his guns-and-religion remarks. You have to feel sorry for this guy. He didn't mean anything nasty. He was just repeating the scuttlebutt he's heard ever since he entered college -- small-town Americans don't know their own minds, religion is a crutch, guns a sign of underlying pathology. (My favorite in this genre has always been Katie Couric's remark on the morning of John Kerry's defeat, when she turned to her co-host and said, "Who are these voters?" She still doesn't know -- and neither does Obama.)

And that's why the Democrats may be carving another historical milestone but without returning to power. Hillary has spotted Obama's weakness and is rousing blue-collar voters against him. But McCain will win them easily with the same arguments. From a coalition that once included about 75 percent of America, the Democrats have now whittled down to two constituencies -- African Americans and liberal intellectuals. That's enough to win Cambridge and San Francisco but not much else. When 2008 is over, the Democrats will have made history. They will have nominated the first African American for President, just as they nominated the first Catholic in 1928, and the first woman for vice president in 1984. But as in both of those years, they'll also have to go back and start trying to rebuild their increasingly narrow base.


William Tucker, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, is a writer in Nyack, New York.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Make Some Noise

That's what the two Chosen Ones for the Democratic presidential candidates did today on FOX News Sunday. Chris Wallace showed more patience than a human can possibly possess with the pathetic display of grandstanding put on by Sen. Richard "Dick" Durbin (D-IL)--part-time Marxist, full-time military critic, and mouthpiece for Obama--and Charles "Chuck" Schumer (D-NY)--full-time blowhard for Clinton.

Not one question was answered in a straightforward manner by these two yahoos.

Wallace pressed both for answers to every one of his questions. Schumer never met a microphone (or camera) that he didn't like and simply likes to hear the sound of his obstinant voice, so his performance was typical. Durbin, like the rest of America, has no idea what is inside Obama's head so had to bluster his way through a laughable diatribe of generalities. Perhaps Obama should revise his mantra to read: "Specifics for a Change."
 
Instead of Abbott and Costello performing "Who's On First," the FOX News audience was treated to Chuck and Duck's rendition of "Who's In First" with a taste of "What's My Line." All that was missing was Paula Abdul glowing on about how both contestants demonstrated all the colors of their talents and showed us that "you are who your really are" in an episode of "American Idle Minds."

Sort of reminds me of the Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon in which a dog owner is barking orders at his dog (Ginger), but the dog is oblivious to his master's voice. However, today's episode of the "Farce Side (of Politics)" had us playing along as Ginger and we were oblivious to the senator's (take your pick) voice. Problem is: Our cartoon moment was a single frame with no message to begin with ("What Senators Say to Us"--blah blah blah Obama blah blah... blah blah blah Clinton blah blah...).

It's simple: No more earmarks for both of these losers--it's easy to see why the U.S. Senate is a useless den of lawyers. And, what's worse, the United States is about to elect one of these political eunuchs as president.
 
Pathetic.
 
                              Courtesy: Gary Larson / "The Far Side"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Time for Choosing

 --------------------------------------------------------------
Witness a Timeline of United States History that
most Americans learned about at one point in their adolescent lifetimes,
but have casually forgotten in their adult "pursuit of happiness":
 --------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Good People... We need to
regain a sense of wonder in our country's accomplishments (Our Past),
maintain a sense of love in our nation's goodness (Our Present), and 
retain a sense of pride in America's potential greatness (Our Future).
--------------------------------------------------------------
It is time to stop asking "Am I smarter than a 5th grader?"
and know your history and start believing confidently in America again!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Our Past: Knowledge that is tempered by Wisdom...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Our Present: Belief that is strengthened by Faith... 
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Our Future: Confidence that is quieted by Humility...
 --------------------------------------------------------------

"A Time for Choosing"

Given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.

by Ronald Reagan (1964)

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."

Reagan as Governor

This idea -- that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power -- is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
 
(Note: Courtesy of The Patriot Post, see http://reagan2020.us/.)
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Upthedownstreamofconsciousness...2


                                                    Michael Ramirez / 15 April 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all the noise about flag pins, appropriate debate questions, bitterness, whiskey shots, 3 AM phone calls, Weather Underground acquaintances, sniper fire, pastor problems, spouses talking out of turn, etc., it occurred to me that John McCain might be feeling a bit left out of the election process. Will Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel, Conan O'Brien, and Craig Ferguson finally show some courage on their late night broadcasts and begin lampooning Barack Obama--you know, the b---- candidate--with some of their jokes?? I watched a skit on Leno's show last night where the junior senator from Illinois had his credibility questioned when it came to providing "specifics" in his debate answers. It's the eve of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, we've had 22 Democratic debates and umpteenth press conferences, and someone (a comedian, of all people) is just now asking one of the questions that all reporters should have asked all along--"Who are you? What do you believe in? Why are you qualified to be President of the United States?" Forget the "Change You Can Believe In" mantra--I am reminded of the scene from the Brendan Fraser movie, "The Mummy," where the eunuchs are chanting"Im-ho-tep! Im-ho-tep!" as they are transfixed in their zombie-like trance (or has it been replaced by "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!")--and the flag-draped "political speech of our generation" on race, Mr. Obama is still an unknown commodity on the national political stage. Sure, he "cut his teeth" in the "rough-and-tumble politics of south side Chicago" with the help of a hatemongering church leader, a shady real estate dealer, and an unrepentant terrorist. Has anyone actually seen this man's résumé? Let's see: lived overseas as a child in Malaysia, grew up in Hawaii, two Ivy League degrees, community organizer, state senator, U.S. senator, author of two autobigraphical books, and two-time Grammy Award winner. Let's have him complete the essay portion of our application for President: "A. Do you love the United States of America? Why or why not?" "B. Please explain your positions (in 100 words or more each) on the following issues: 1. Taxes; 2. War on Terror; 3. Immigration; 4. Health Care; 5. Abortion; 6. Supreme Court and Judicial Reform; 7. Foreign Trade; 8. Energy Consumption, Conservation, and Development; 9. Social Security; and 10. Global Warming." "C. If elected President, who is the first foreign dignitary invited to the White House and why?" "D. If elected President, who is the first foreign dignitary visited and why?" "E. What does 9/11/01 mean to you as an American?" If the Obama camp is reading this (and as you can tell from my empty "Comments" section, that probably will not be the case) they can simply have his speechwriters share his responses with my local newspaper (Houston Chronicle) on my behalf. End.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Rules Are Changing for Obama

The Rules Are Changing for Obama
By Michael Barone
Saturday, April 19, 2008

Barack Obama seemed puzzled. Angrily puzzled. The apostle of hope seemed flummoxed by the audacity of the question. At the April 16 Philadelphia debate, George Stephanopoulos, longtime aide to Democratic politicians, was asking about his longtime association with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers.

The Weather Underground attacked the Pentagon, the Capitol and other public buildings; Ayers was quoted in The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001, as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

It was at Ayers' house that Obama's state Senate candidacy was launched in 1995; Obama continued to serve on a nonprofit board with Ayers after the Times article appeared.

Obamaites live-blogging the debate were outraged. The press is not supposed to ask such questions. They are supposed to invite the candidates to expatiate on how generous their health care plans are. Or to allow them to proclaim that "we are the change that we are seeking." Or to once again bash George W. Bush.

There was some of that in this debate. But Obama was asked about his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his remarks about wearing an American flag lapel pin, his comment that "bitter" small town Pennsylvanians "cling to guns and religion" and his "friendly" relations -- "friendly" is his campaign adviser David Axelrod's word -- with William Ayers.

Did Obama expect that this would never come up in the campaign? He certainly gave that impression. The normally poised candidate looked irritated and weary. "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English" -- actually, it's education -- "in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

He compared Ayers to Sen. Tom Coburn, who has advocated the death penalty for abortionists. But of course Coburn has never advocated bombing their houses or clinics.

"A guy who lives in my neighborhood." Debates are held not just to learn the details of the candidates' health care plans -- which given the complexity of the issue will probably be considerably altered if they are ever actually put on the table -- but also to learn who the candidates are. And that includes learning about which guys who live in their neighborhood they chose to befriend. About Obama almost all Americans knew next to nothing when he got up on the podium of the 2004 Democratic National Convention and instantly made himself presidential candidate material.

His gracefully written autobiographical "Dreams From My Father" -- we could learn, if we could get through all 464 pages -- is a story not of transcending racial barriers but of developing a black and African identity.

The presidency is a uniquely personal office, and each incumbent puts his individual stamp on it. Obama's choice to join Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church and his choice to befriend William Ayers were not those most Americans would make, and Hillary Clinton was quick to declare, perhaps opportunistically, they were not choices she would have made.

This doesn't mean that Obama is responsible for Wright's outrageous statements or for Ayers' criminal acts (the charges against him were dropped because of government misconduct). But Obama's choices to associate with Wright and Ayers tend to undercut his appealing message -- very appealing after 15 years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush -- that we must strive to overcome the racial and cultural and ideological divisions which have dominated our politics They are something that voters are entitled to weigh as they make their decisions.

Obama fans are upset that ABC News' Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson broke the unwritten rule that you are not supposed to ask Democratic candidates about these things. Associations with unrepentant radicals and comments made to contributors at a San Francisco fund-raiser in a billionaire's mansion are supposed to be kept indoors. Only the face that the candidate wants to place before the public should be seen.

Beliefs that most activist liberals share should be kept under wraps if they are unpopular with most of the voting public. That is how mainstream media have operated for the last generation or more. But not at Philadelphia's Constitution Center on April 16. The rules had changed. And Barack Obama was not well prepared.



Michael Barone is a senior writer with U.S. News & World Report and the principal co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, published by National Journal every two years. He is also author of Our Country: The Shaping of America from Roosevelt to Reagan, The New Americans: How the Melting Pot Can Work Again, the just-released Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Competition for the Nation's Future. (Note: This article borrowed from Townhall.com)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Ramirez: An Exit Strategy, Part 3

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Living Lie

A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.

There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.



Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. (Note: This article is borrowed from Townhall.com)

©Creators Syndicate
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I AM the change you can BELIEVE in...

                                                   Michael Ramirez / 21 March 2008 
 
 
Tags: obama   change  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Ramirez: I Second That...

 
Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
 
Source: IBDeditorials.com/cartoons (March 19, 2008)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Judgment at Philadelphia

Or: Senator Barack Obama's "I Have A Goal" Speech
 
------------------------------------------------------

"Obama's speech was an act of political necessity, not courage." 
                                                                               --Rush Limbaugh
 
Another commentator (I believe it was Sally Quinn of the Washington Post on CNN shortly after the speech) gushed that it was a "magnificent" speech and the most important speech on race since Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech 45 years ago...
 
 
King was appealing to a nation's better angels during a time of racial upheaval, courageously asking all of us to judge the content of one's character and not the color of one's skin. His message was from the heart--a social manifesto with political overtones to move lawmakers to action in the civil rights struggle. The public setting of the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. was fraught with danger as handlers and police mingled about in full view of an assembled throng...
 
 
Obama was attempting to recover from the public relations fiasco brought on by his "crazy uncle," Rev. Jeremiah Wright, consciously asking all of us to suspend judgment on his mentor while he interjects race in lieu of character. His message was from the head--a political manipulation of the social undercurrent of race meant to "spark a (supposed) dialogue" on this important issue. The handpicked audience in the studio setting was treated to a vivid blue backdrop of eight prominent flags and the aforementioned "rock star" hovering over them with teleprompters at the ready. Very safe...
 
 
And yet, Obama never made eye contact as he feverishly worked the teleprompters--back and forth, to and fro--delivering his speech. The current rash of "body language experts" would question his authenticity but not his delivery--it was flawless. And I suddenly found myself mesmerized by the cadence of the words and the lilt of the voice... yes, I can understand why Sally Quinn was taken in by the magnificence of the speech. SNAP OUT OF IT!! But what about the message?? 
 
 
He begins with the three most important words in the Constitution: "We the People." With this opening he attempts to engage us in his dialogue, but it rings hollow because he needed to focus on "He the Problem." Obama proceeds to spend the next thirty minutes deftly weaving Jeremiah Wright, faith, Grandmother, race, Geraldine Ferraro, bigotry, Black Community, understanding, White America, hate, War in Iraq, change, Health Care, hope, Global Warming, and politics as usual. (Okay, so that last one was implied.) His theme throughout the message is that we the people are still on the road to forming "a more perfect union" with he, Obama, as the new Dream Weaver. (What a coincidence that the song that comes to mind was recorded in the mid-70s by Gary Wright... "Ooh, dream weaver / I believe you can get me through the night / Ooh, dream weaver / I believe we can reach the morning light") 
 
 
All in all, Obama's message was mostly about race and change. But it was just a political speech. Again, I simply label it his "I Have A Goal" speech, and that is to convince most Democrats that he is worthy of his party's nomination (emphasis on race) and to convince most Americans that he is worthy of their ultimate choice as President (emphasis on change). If he is honest about race, then Obama will acknowledge the need to tap into the white guilt that permeates our consciousness. He is the self-annointed agent of change who will transcend the politics of hate and end our long national nightmare of racism in America. (Sigh of relief.) Don't you feel better already?!
 
------------------------------------------------------
 
("What?! That's it?!") (Now you know how I felt after Obama's speech...)
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Don't tell me words don't matter..."

Like I said before: Actions (and pictures) speak louder than words...
 
Tom Harking Steak Fry Iowa Democrat Hillary Clinton Barack Obama John Edwards Criss Dodd Joe Biden Bill Richardson
 
Reminder: This photograph was taken at the Tom Harkin Iowa Steak Fry in Indianola, Iowa, on 16 September 2007, and was published in TIME magazine. A video of this event on YouTube documents the playing of the National Anthem at the time this image was captured. Not pictured here, but at the far right of the stage, other loyal Democrats (including John Edwards, Tom Harkin, and Joseph Biden) were standing with hand over hearts in honor of America. In fact, all of the participants on stage struck this patriotic pose with one notable exception.
 
"I pledge allegiance to the flag..." Just words!!
 
"Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light..." Just words!!
 
"God Bless America..." Just words!!
 
"I don't think that my church is actually particularly contoversial..." Just words!!
 
"Not God bless America... God damn America!!" Just words!!

"I did not hear such incendiary language..." Just words!!
 
"In White America... U.S. of KKK A." Just words!!
 
"I wasn't in church... I would not repudiate the man..." Just words!!
 
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country..." Just words!!
 
"I won't wear that (flag) pin on my chest..." Just words!!
 
 
(Note: I apologize for not having a cool YouTube video screen at the ready... Hey, I'm new at this!!)
 


 
Tags: obama   Words  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Ramirez: An Exit Strategy, Part 2

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Source: IBDeditorials.com/cartoons (March 18, 2008)
 
Tags: cartoon   obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and the Minister: An Exit Strategy

The conventional wisdom circulating on talk radio, cable news networks, and the web is near unanimous: Sen. Barack Obama needs to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright... NOW!! Better yet: YESTERDAY!! Okay, how about TOMORROW!!

To achieve this feat, the good Senator is presenting his mea culpa to the world in a speech on national television tomorrow morning at which time he will wax eloquently about race, judgment, and crotchety old uncles. "Hey, I didn't know my pastor was foaming with this hatred while Michelle and I were away trying to figure out why it is we want to lead a country that we have just recently grown to respect. Honest!!"

Actually, Mr. Obama will no doubt WOW them in Peoria, as well as in the network news bureaus in New York. But I predict that he will fall short of the mark. Why?? Because of this simple fact of life: Actions speak louder than words.

A better exit strategy: Appear at the podium with Oprah Winfrey and announce to the world that you and your family have left the Trinity United Church of Christ to join the loving congregation at Ms. Winfrey's church home. Ms. Winfrey can share her misgivings with Rev. Wright and how Sen. Obama's capacity to learn and grow and seek forgiveness are the true qualities that America needs in these times of economic and social uncertainty. Mr. Obama can offer his own apology to America and ask for forgiveness and reconciliation. He can say once and for all time that his time at Trinity served its purpose in leading him to a relationship with Jesus Christ and provided a spiritual home for almost twenty years (without his knowledge of the good pastor's darker side). "But enough about me--we have a country to heal!!"
 
I can see the headlines in Wednesday's New York Times: Obama Says Good Riddance to Wright and "God Bless America!"
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Our National Alienation

 
Our National Alienation and Amnesia

How do we ask our children to fight, and perhaps die,
for a country they do not know?

By William J. Bennett

Tens of millions of Americans are about to celebrate our nation’s Founding. The worrisome question is, will future generations take to this celebration the way we have for the past 231 years if they do not know the first, second, or third thing about their country?

Two years ago, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David McCullough told the U.S. Senate that American History was our nation’s worst subject in school. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (a.k.a., “our Nation’s Report Card”), released last month, bears that out again. Our children do worse in American history than they do in reading or math. McCullough testified we were facing the prospect of national amnesia, saying, “Amnesia of society is just as detrimental as amnesia for the individual. We are running a terrible risk. Our very freedom depends on education, and we are failing our children in not providing that education.”


Double Tragedy

McCullough is right, and it is a double tragedy: a) our children no longer know their country’s history and b) the story they do not know is the greatest political story ever told.

It is not our children’s fault. Our country’s adults are expected to instill a love of country in its children, but the greatness and purpose of that country are mocked by the chattering classes: Newspaper columns and television reports drip with a constant cynicism about
America while doubts about her motives on the world stage are the coin of the realm. Too many commentators are too ready to believe the worst about our leaders and our country, and our children’s history books — and even some of the teachers — close off any remaining possibility of helping children learn about their country.

Many of our history books are either too tendentious — disseminating a one-sided, politically correct view of the history of the greatest nation that ever existed; or, worse, they are boring — providing a watered down, anemic version of a people who have fought wars at home and abroad for the purposes of liberty and equality, conquered deadly diseases, and placed men on the moon.

Today, we have textbooks that give severalchapters to Bill Clinton’s “reinventing government” theme but dismiss Dwight Eisenhower’s support of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956 with a single sentence. Young Americans are likely to learn more about Eisenhower’s impact on the country by actually driving with their parents on an Interstate and seeing the signs by the roadside than by reading biased textbooks.

The National History Standards team completely missed the moon. They called for standards which emphasized Soviet gains in space in the 1960s and the American Challenger disaster in 1986, but they completely omitted any reference to the
U.S. landing on the moon.

Historians of greater standing, like the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., pointed to the moon landing as thegreatest event of the 20th century. It happens also to have been JFK’s greatest success. Schlesinger is right and the standards are wrong. 

 

Former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett is the author of America: The Last Best Hope, Volume 2 (From a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom), and the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. This is an excerpt from a recent essay (September 2007