Political Diatribes

Another conservative take on the world around us

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Obama’s Response to a World’s Chaos

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on February 23, 2011

It started in Tunisia, and is being dubbed the The Tunisia Revolution. The official word is that the revolution was initiated due to economic conditions (high food prices, inflation, and unemployment) along with a boiling-point reaction to corruption and general suppression of freedom.

Then came Egypt. Buoyed by the successful ouster of the Tunisian President, we are told that some Facebook revolutionaries ushered in the eventual ouster of long-time leader, President Mubarak.

Both of these events should rightfully be highlighting the news, but we can’t keep up with new unrest. Even while Egyptians were taking to the streets, there were new uprisings in Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, China, and Sudan, among other areas of the globe.

And then our eyes turned inward, to Madison, Wisconsin in what could be a harbinger for similar knockings of heads in other states as they battle their budget woes.

But even this was only front and center for aa few days, when the next – and as of yet most significant as it pertains to U.S. interests – domino in the Middle East looks to be falling. Libya is falling out of Gadaffi’s control and this has the largest economic implications to the U.S. in terms of rising oil costs. It also comes with the most humanitarian baggage, including a literal execution of protestors and an ordered military bombing campaign against civilians. Further, there are indications that the unrest is turning toward a conclusion of a radical islamic state.

All this means that, what would normally be headline news for the entire 24-hour news cycle, rockets fired at Israel is almost an afterthought.

So many big things are happening in so many places that it’s impossible to figure out what is the most important and/or impactful story of the day, hour, or minute.

A turbulent world is nothing new, but one doesn’t have to be a sociopolitical analyst and Ivy League graduate to recognize that something strange, interesting, and possibly dangerous is going on. Some of this unrest can be looked at with positivity – people standing up for their rights, and a desire for freedom. Protests in and of themselves are not a bad thing. I am not here to say that Armageddon is a breath away, but if one doesn’t pause and realize that much of this is a high-risk balancing act taht can get ugly in a hurry, then I’d be remiss in not pointing out the sand around that person’s head.

But, our President has a plan.

Well, not on Libya yet, due to scheduling issues with Hillary Clinton.

But other than that, he has a plan.

This plan is the way back to sanity. In the face of rising oil prices, Middle East conflict and instability, domestic unrest over labor issues, unprecedented bedget deficits and runaway debt, here’s the answer: No more defense of the Defense of Marriage Act!

In these difficult times where energy is required elsewhere, it only makes sense to consider the family unit a low priority, don’t you think? Now is the time to raise this issue. As for the rationale:

“[T]he President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” Mr. Holder said. “The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination

.

Thank the heavens for the guidance of President Obama and the Administration. Let us defend to the death the Constitutionally-suspect Health Care Reform bill, let us challenge the Constitutionality of the Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill, and let us publicly flog in a verbal manner the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address the decision to strike down the unconstitutional campaign finance law. But Defense of Marriage? No way.

One wonders how the President found time to deal with this issue with his around-the-clock attention being given to the Libyan turmoil.

What a multi-tasker.

Advertisements

Posted in Barack Obama, Egypt, Libya, Middle East, President, Wisconsin | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

No Moderation: The liberalization of America Now Underway

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on January 23, 2009

Well, it hasn’t taken all that long for the expected to happen. But now that we’re underway, the mental preparation for it hardly sweetens the taste. Instead, it’s downright uncomfortable to watch.

My guess is that there is the segment of liberals who are paying attention and favor all the early moves of the Obama administration, either because they truly want socialism or because they don’t understand what socialism is and think they are simply transferring wealth and being good stewards. While the latter may be a generous motive, I fear that it will not turn out as they anticipate when all is said and done.

Then, there are those who are simply flummoxed by the fact that we Americans have allowed this course of events to take place, and are lamenting each and every move, as we realize that the election was won on symbolism, but that we have real consequences on multiple fronts, from the social to the financial.

If I were to guess, I would say that the two above camps do not total more than 25% of the populace. That means that 75% of us either don’t care enough to pay attention, or – more likely – have the attitude that the election is over, our job is done, and let me know in 2 to 4 years what I should care about for the next election. Most people simply don’t feel compelled to continually scrutinize, contact, and communicate with their elected representatives.

Unfortunately, elections have consequences. Many of us understood the ramifications of the election, and many of us didn’t. Many of us voted and celebrated the outcome based on symbology and diversity, and simply didn’t care about policy. Many of us convinced ourselves that there is a social justice component that outweighs everything else. What is, in reality, feel-good liberalism was packaged, sold, and bought as compassion.

So, let’s review, after only three days, what is so important to this administration that things could not wait any longer:

Executive Order closing Guantanimo Bay and Eliminating ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques.

This move wasn’t so bad on its face, but the reality is that it accomplished nothing by way of what we actually do with the people at Gitmo, and basically limited all interrogation techniques to nothing. Even the administration admits this. They have absolutely no plan right now, other than to form committees to come up with a plan. Given this, the Executive Order, at best, is premature. It is an appeasement to people who don’t like America. It’s an appeasement to the UN, and other liberal leadership around the globe. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting to help our image around the world, but if you just say you’ll do something with no answer about what you are actually going to do, it’s lip service.

Bush wanted to close Gitmo, but there was no good way of deciding how to deal with the bad guys at Gitmo. The issues are complicated, which is why Gitmo wasn’t closed under Bush, and why Obama – after two years of talking about this – has nothing more than a committee to try to figure something out in a year. So, what happens if and when they don’t have a good answer? Well, it means they either do something stupid, like letting these guys free, in order to save face. Or it means Gitmo doesn’t close. Or it means that we move them to another Gitmo.

On the torture issue, I do not advocate torture. But again, the order here is overbroad by limiting techniques to an Army field manual. Even the administration admits that this needs to be looked at and the manual enhanced. So, why not take care of that first before tying the hands of our military and intelligence services? Because it’s feel-good liberalism to put the cart before the horse. The consequences are that we have no leverage at all with anyone at the moment from whom we need information.

This may make us feel nice, but as an American, do you feel safer now? I sure as hell don’t.

Green Light for US Stem Cell Work and lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding.

That’s embryonic stem-cell research. On the anniversary of Roe V Wade, Obama thumbs his nose at the largest gathering of Pro-Lifers of the year at the “March for Life” and allows the killing of human embryos as a means to an end, and allows my tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. I’m incensed. I knew it was coming, and it still ticks me off. Thanks to all those who voted for Obama on the grounds of “social justice.”

Economic ‘Stimulus’ Package

This farce is unbelievable. Giving money to people who don’t pay taxes is now considered a tax cut. This idiot Robert Reich is at least honest with us when he lays out that the stimulus package is really all about transfer of wealth:

But if there aren’t enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

What to do? There’s no easy solution to either dilemma. But there’s no reason to think about “green jobs” as simply high-tech. Many low-income and low-skilled workers — women as well as men — could be put directly to work providing homes and businesses with more efficient and renewable heating, lighting, cooling, and refrigeration systems; installing solar panels and efficient photovoltaic systems; rehabilitating and renovating old properties, and improving recycling systems. “Green Jobs Corps” teams could be trained to evaluate and advise homeowners and businesses on these and other means of conserving energy.

In other words, this isn’t a stimulus package. It’s a jobs package, or a redistribution of wealth. Or it’s a welfare package. Or a social program. Or something. But it’s not a stimulus package. It isn’t a tax cut.

Now, you may or may not agree that this is a good thing to do, but the point is that we are simply being lied to. Listen, I don’t want the government to send out checks or spend any more money, period. I don’t want a stimulus package or a jobs package or redistribution of wealth. I want government to stop trying to solve all our problems while creating brand new ones. But others disagree with me and think that we need to avoid a recession, so they want a stimulus package.

The truth is – and even the liberals know this – that if you really want a consumer-stmulus package, you cut taxes immediately. It makes no sense to send checks out instead unless you are trying to accomplish something else altogether. Since sending checks out creates an expense to government and creates more market inefficiency, it’s purely a socialistic move. Worse yet is that this package is not that simple. Over half of the money is not expected to be spent until 2011. What kind of ‘stimulus’ is that? It’s not. In the name of ‘stimulus,’ the package includes expansion of government health care, among all sorts of other pork that would make your head spin.

I disagreed with the bailouts, so you can spare me the lecture on how Bush spent $700 billion. I know he did. I am mad at him for it. But to try and argue that because he did something stupid is an excuse to do something even more stupid is lunacy. And as much as I disagreed with it, at least the money is being spent on what I was told it is used for. Now, I’m not thrilled about the accounting of it all, and there may well be issues of waste, but I was told that the money is going to banks, and it is. Well, except for that whole auto bailout thing… But at least that was made public, too.

But how many people have even bothered to figure out what makes up this $825 billion package we’re talking about? We Americans should be outraged that the government feels that it is necessary to spend almost $3,000 for every man, woman, and child in the entire country. What kind of lemmings have we become? To put it in perspective, it would only cost us $200 billion if the government adopted a program to give $50,000 to the first 4 million people everyone who lost their job. And we’re going to spend more than four times that amount, to do what? Look at the numbers – it’s to create a couple million jobs.

The stupidity of this is remarkable.

You don’t have to believe me, but watch all this play out. If this package passes, the American way of life is history. It may already be too late – hopefully not. The bailouts at least have the hope of a repayment. This package does not. Whether this package is the straw that breaks the camel’s back or just moves us to that point much more quickly, I don’t know for sure. But this is unsustainable. There will come a day when other governments/investors refuse to buy our bonds (i.e. lend us money). The day that happens, we will have no money to repay expiring bonds, and since we operate at a deficit anyway, we will not have enough money to cover our obligations. When this happens, we need to “create” more money. As it is, the Fed is already doing this.

With virtually no more room to manipulate its main lever for the economy, the Fed has also been running its dollar printing press to flood credit markets with liquidity.

This quote isn’t technically correct, because most of the money creation isn’t even backed by a dollar bill. It’s a credit on a computer screen. But it doesn’t matter. It becomes part of the system and the more money that gets created, the more upward pressure will be put on inflation. When nobody lends us money, the ponzi-scheme that is our government financial system (where you need current influx of dollars to pay investor yields) will make the Madoff scheme look like child’s play. Hyper-inflation will ensue, the dollar will crash, and all hell will break loose.

I am not rooting for that. I hope I am wrong. But I have yet to have anyone explain how in the world we can ever dig our way out of the mess we’ve already created, and will be exacerbating very soon. I’m open to correction.

Posted in Barack Obama, Liberals, News, Opinion, Politics | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Hoping and Praying for Obama’s Success… and Failure

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on January 20, 2009

Obama InaugurationJoseph Farah, at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/, offers a perspective on praying for Obama’s success: don’t do it.

Farah presents his view from the point of view of a Christian who believes that praying for Obama’s success means that you are praying for success in his specific positions that are contrary to our moral position. These things by now are no particular secret. Clearly, abortion rights is a major issue, and any attempt to expand these rights through the Freedom of Choice Act, his past voting record as an Illinois State Senator, voting against an act that wouold protect infants who were born alive after botched abortion attempts, and the appointment of liberal judges can’t be supported. During the campaign, Obama and Biden both stated that they are not for gay marriage, though they favor civil unions. But in the past, Obama has said he favors it, and even since the election he does not support constitutional bans of same-sex marriage, and ‘respects’ state Supreme Court decisions that thwart the will of the people. When asked to discuss one of his greatest regrets, of all things he could have chosen, he decided to point to his support to review the case of Terri Schiavo. Why, of all matters possible, would an intervention to simply review the case one last time to ensure justice to a woman who is being starved and dehydrated be the one thing that comes to mind? It’s somewhat galling. This clearly presents Obama in a different camp than us Christians on the issue of euthanasia. It’s also been no major secret that Obama supports publicly funded embryonic stem-cell research.

These are moral issues. I cannot and will not support Obama in any of these issues if he continues to take the path he has taken in the past, and claims to want to take in the future.

But does this mean that I should pray for Obama’s failure as a president? Well, I guess it depends on what it is you focus on.

Here’s my thought: Hope and pray for America’s success. Pray that Obama succeeds in doing God’s will. Pray for his safety. Pray that, on issues that are not moral issues, he succeeds and fails in accord for what is best for our country.

Let’s leave the moral issues aside at this point. We have strict differences there, and my opinion is known. I most certainly hope the promotion of these issues fails. It is nothing personal against Obama, and it is not for political expediency that I feel this way. It is because my convictions in these areas must outweigh any perceived lack of patriotism some misguided souls may inappropriately apply to such hope for failure.

But on other issues, should we pray for failure? I suggest that the answer is ‘no.” Don’t get me wrong here. I wholeheartedly disagree with increasing our tax burden. I disagree with trillion dollar debts and more bailouts. I disagree with increased regulation. I am less certain about the best strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and foreign policy. There may well be a few nuggets that I can agree with and support Obama on, as well. But these issues are debatable. They are not strict issues of morality (not even welfare, social security, and the role of government. That is NOT a moral issue. It is the strategy of attacking a moral issue which all of us fundamentally agree is an issue, but with different ideas of addressing it. That is why it is so maddening to have people compare that to abortion).

Let me outline my thinking here by providing the analogy of working for a company. Let’s say the company is discussing a new marketing strategy. Let’s say you have an idea on the best route to go with it, and someone else has the polar opposite view. Now, let’s say the polar opposite view from yours wins out as a strategy. Now, you may personally believe that this is a mistake, and it could be a disaster. You have made your opinion known, you have had the debate, but now the decision has been made.

So, do you undermine your own company and try to cause the new strategy to fail? Not if you have any integrity. Unless we’re talking about moral or ethical issues, you do your part to try and make this new strategy succeed. You assist when called upon, you do your best, and you falt-out hope that your perception of this was wrong. That’s right, you humbly hope you are mistaken, and wish success to the company President, the team, the whole company, and the guy who had the idea in the first place. If necessary, you shoot for success even if it’s in spite of the decision that was made in lieu of a potentially better way to go.

I personally believe we’re heading for disaster if we introduce a near-trillion dolalr stimulus package. I believe that an effort to roll back the Bush tax cuts is ill-timed and could cause even worse economic hardship. I am concerned that we will withdraw too quickly from Iraq. I am concerned about over-regulation in a number of areas, and even a restriction of our rights via the ‘Fairness Doctrine.’. I’m concerned that the left will go bonkers and start trying to send former administration officials to jail for political purposes.

Some of these I feel more wary about than others. But in the end, what I hope for is that, whether or not I can see the wisdom of a certain action, that whatever is decided is the right thing for America. Maybe that means Obama fails miserably in terms of getting his way, and that is what’s best. Maybe it means that he gets his way and I am wrong about the implications for the country. Maybe it means that Obama is more willing to stand up to the extreme left than I give him credit for, and that he really does want to govern from the center. Maybe it means that the Republicans get a spine and get energized, and thwart bad policy. And however it happens, if it’s the best for America, that means we’ll be better off in four years. And it may be because of Obama or it may be despite Obama. But that’s what I hope for.

It’s what we all should hope for.

So, hoping and praying for Obama’s success, in my opinion, is not the same as hoping and praying for a successful institution of his policies. It is at once reasonable to be praying and working for a failure of some policies, while praying and working for the overall success of our President and our nation.

Posted in Barack Obama, Inauguration, Opinion, Politics, Prayer, President | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Perplexing Electorate and the Next Eight Years

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on November 15, 2008

Originally posted at http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com on October 28, 2008.

Anyone who knows me well also knows that I have very strong political opinions. I’ve occasionally presented them here, but not too often. After all, with all this global warming statistical analysis, who has time for that? Plus, my meager little blog isn’t going to change the world, anyway. Plus, I really have decided to not push too many political buttons, since most readers don’t come here for that reason and anytime you delve into this arena, you’re bound to offend somebody.

But, with the Presidential elections only 7 days away, I am left perplexed by the U.S. Electorate.

OK, to be up-front about matters, I am a conservative. The intent of this post is not to argue about why conservatism is superior to liberalism. I believe it to be true, and others will disagree.

So, let’s just accept that 30%ish of us are pretty staunchly conservative and 30%ish of us are pretty staunchly liberal. I don’t know the exact numbers. Perhaps it’s not an even split, or perhaps it’s a higher percentage. None of that is particularly important, because it is not this group of people that perplexes me. Agree or disagree, one knows exactly why conservatives vote for conservatives and liberals vote for liberals. And while not universally the case, it is generally recognized in the current political climate that the conservative will vote for the Republican and the liberal will vote for the Democrat.

This is a little different from saying that each side is a strong supporter of that candidate. After all, McCain was probably my 4th or 5th choice among the Republican Candidates in the primaries. And just because he’ll get my vote doesn’t mean I’m overly excited about him. But compared to Obama, there’s simply not even a question about who is the better candidate for me to vote for.

Where my confusion lies is with that mushy middle. Those who are called independents, moderates, undecideds, or whatever the identifier of the day is.

The main reason I am perplexed has nothing to do with my own ideas of Obama and his own lack of qualifications for the Presidency, or his absolute liberalism on social policy that is out of step with the mainstream, or an economic policy that I think would prove disastrous in current times, or past ties with questionable characters, alignment with ACORN, Marxist professors, support for the “Freedom of Choice” Act, and the list goes on. I admit, I scratch my head as to why anyone supports this ideology, but since I know enough people personally who actually do support it, I understand that they exist and it would make sense to support Obama.

The main reason I am perplexed also has nothing to do with understanding that some people may align with one party on economic policy while aligning with the other on social policy, and that there is constantly a conflict in trying to determine which part of that means more to an individual at the given moment. I understand and accept that not everyone lines up well with either party, and so there is great thought put into the given candidates in order to settle on a preference.

No, the reason I’m perplexed actually has much more to do with the fact that an Obama victory coupled with an increase in the number of House AND Senate Democrats makes about as much sense as investing all your money in a single stock with no diversification.

Granted, we have only a limited ability to diversify our political leadership. There are, for all practical purposes, only two parties in the current framework. As much as I’d enjoy seeing more, the reality is that there isn’t a 3rd, let alone a 4th and 5th party that has any significant presence.

I suppose I thought it was not just mere lip service all those times where I’ve heard people talking about how bad it is to concentrate all this power into the hands of one party. I suppose that I thought a single-digit approval rating for Congress, both houses of which have a Democratic majority, should rightly put at risk some of those who are responsible for those record lows. It would seem to me that someone who is truly undecided and torn between the candidates would recognize that we are about to elect enough Democrats in both houses to put at risk a filibuster-proof scenario, while at the same time electing the most liberal Senator over the last two years to be our leader.

Of course, this is a nightmare scenario for conservatives and a dream come true for liberals. But for those in the middle of the road, is this truly what you want? Even if McCain isn’t all that exciting, and you may not like his stance on a war that will be coming to an end at about the same pace regardless of who gets elected, it would seem like the disparity between party power should leap forward to an undecided or independent voter as possibly the most important issue. Perhaps I underestimate how much the average person cares about that.

This is only my opinion, but here is what I believe is in store for us with an Obama Presidency coupled with a very secure Democratic majority. Some of you will probably think this is fine and dandy. I would think it would scare most others, conservative or not.

1) Freedom of Choice Act passes. Sounds nice enough, right? Well, regardless of your thinking on Roe v Wade, polls show that large majorities of Americans support some restrictions on abortion, including parental right to know, restriction of late-term abortions, not transporting minors across state lines, waiting periods, etc. This act effectively makes ALL restrictions on abortion illegal. Everything. It even goes so far as to force religious hospitals to offer abortions. It is a travesty. Obama has promised to make this his first act when speaking to Planned Parenthood. This is much more than an honest disagreement in ideology.

2) Suppression of Free Speech through the Fairness Doctrine, and other methods – The “Fairness Doctrine” is a sham, and it will be shown to be a sham. If there were a true fairness doctrine, it would apply to all media, whether radio, TV, newspapers, internet, etc. But it won’t. It will specifically target only that media which is condiered “right wing,” such as radio talk shows. Never mind that nearly all mainstream news leans left. This will be untouched. This will be a power play by the Democratic Party that is absolutely an infringement on free speech. What is amazing is that anyone will believe that this is necessary, considering they will have the executive and legislative branches all sewn up.

3) Suppression of Free Speech through intimidation. I’m not crazy. This has already happened, and it will only get worse. Talk to anyone challenging global warming, and you’ll understand what kind of intimidation I’m talking about. When the media are in bed with you, they can help portray dissenters as nutjobs. Worse, when it comes to anyone with dissenting opinions on liberal policies, whether it be economic or social, you’re a bigot, a homophobe, or a religious zealot who should have no voice. Just wait. This is already the case now, but things have only just begun.

4) Gay Marriage – Thank God I homeschool (well, at least I’m allowed to homeschool right now… wouldn’t be surprised to see pushback on that front within the next eight years, either). I can’t fathom the tripe all of our textbooks will have in them as public education continues to deviate from reading, writing, and arithmetic to social engineering on how to use contraceptives and present homosexual activity as a beautiful thing. Those of us with large families are considered an enemy of nature while we embrace unions that are unnatural.

5) Cloning / Chimeras / Embryonic Stem-Cells – Never mind that we have made so many advances with adult stem cells and alternative cells that act like embryonic stem cells without the need to clone and destroy embryos, you can bet this will be fast-tracked. Just another moral line we will be willing to discard.

6) Judges – Everyone thinks about the Supreme Court, but the President appoints all federal justices. This is literally hundreds if not thousands of judges over a President’s two terms. The scary thing about this one, unlike #1 – #5 is that those mistakes can be reversed in the short term. This cannot. I reiterate that this will be the most liberal President combined with the most liberal Congress in the nation’s history. It isn’t even close.

7) Carbon Taxes, and higher capital gains taxes – Carbon taxes are just plain stupid for all sorts of reasons, and so are higher capital gains taxes. There is no better way to crush investment precisely at a time where we are starving for investment.

And I haven’t even delved into general economics. And for the life of me I can’t figure out why people want to “change” to a guy who mirrors Jimmy Carter’s economic approach right now (or ever, actually). Whatever you want to say about Bush’s policies as it relates to the particular crisis we’re in right now, if there is anything saving us from complete collapse it’s because of the other economic policies in place. I really look at the financial sector and policies/regulations regarding that area as quite a different animal from the general economic policies of taxes and budget.

So, there it is. Are these really the policies the moderates want to see rushed through? Mark my words, this will be swift and dramatic. Pelosi laughably suggested that Congress will be much more bipartisan now with a large Democratic majority. I think she actually believes that lie. If bipartisanship means there is less fighting because you can just ignore the other side due to numbers, then she has a point. But this is not the definition of bipartisanship I know.

Well, anyway, that’s just one guy’s diatribe. Feel free to disagree that this will happen, or that it would be a bad thing.

Posted in Barack Obama, Elections, Electorate, John McCain, News, Opinion, Politics, Talk Radio | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The Cult of Obama – in their own Words

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on November 15, 2008

Originally posted on http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com on February 21, 2008.

I have no reason to believe Barack Obama isn’t a nice guy. I have no reason to think he is anything more than a politician who has carefully crafted his message, with a charismatic ability to get people interested. I am completely and totally at odds with his politics. I recently took one of those online tests that tell me who I best line up with. Romney, Huckabee, and even McCain, scored values between 16 and 21 points. Barack Obama scored a zero. So, it is clear that my perceptions of his policies are not just perceptions. It appears that we don’t agree on, well, pretty much everything.

Having said that, I greatly enjoy watching the political process bear itself out. What started for me as an interesting race between Obama and Clinton, a race where I truly felt like both candidates were equally unacceptable to me, has started to actually concern me.

By concern, it’s more than just policies. As a conservative, obviously I am concerned about the typical liberal approaches regarding abortion, taxes, universal health care, and so on. This post is not a debate on those issues. We just disagree, and an argument will get us nowhere.

My concern is the emergence of what I see as some sort of Messianism. Now, don’t get me wrong with that comment. I am not suggesting that Obama himself has suggested that he is a Messiah. I don’t think he’s the antichrist. I don’t think he’s another treacherous leader that gets the people behind him to try and conquer the world, such as Hitler and Mussolini. What I am saying, however, is that he continues to grow a base of followers that are talking and acting more and more cult-like, who see him as a type of Savior or Messiah. Again, I must explain that I do not believe ALL followers fall into this category. I know enough people who understand his policies that make me believe that they actually follow him for the right reasons (right meaning “based on their beliefs, research, and analysis – he’s their guy).

So, what exactly am I talking about? Well, first we have the fainting people. By all accounts, this happens more than occasionally. Then, there are the humorous things, such as when the guy is getting applause for blowing his nose.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

News: 01-29-2008 – Sebelius’ Son, Clinton goes nutso, Edwards the kingmaker, and sleazy art

Posted by The Diatribe Guy on November 14, 2008

Originally posted on http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com on January 29, 2008.

Sebelius: Don’t Drop the Soap!

Governer Kathleen Sebelius gave the Democratic response to the President’s State of the Union address last evening. My 6-year-old son exclaimed as she spoke, “She has a skinny head!” While that is irrelevant to the commentary on the news of the day, it is nonetheless something I found funny.

One thing she forgot to mention is her son’s entrepeneurship, as outlined in the story above. I wonder why…

Liberals to Bill: It was OK when you did this to Republicans, but now you’ve Crossed the Line!

Today is the Florida primary, and it looks like McCain and Romney are in a statistical dead heat. But that’s not what this story above is about. Clearly, the big political news of the day is the Florida primary, but unless Giuliani, Huckabee, or Paul pull a stunning upset, the Republican race seems to be headed towards a two-man race that could be largely decided after Super Tuesday, February 5.

But a lot has been abuzz regarding the Clinton strategy of campaigning. In particular, Bill has been an attack dog. Now, here’s the amusing part to those of us who never particularly cared for Bill’s politics: this is nothing new. What’s new, however, is that the tactics are being directed towards a Democrat. And dare I mention it – a black Democrat. And that, my friends, is unacceptable.

Lies, distortions, class warfare, playing the race card, calling into question the other person’s record… all that is fine and dandy if the opponent has an “R” behind the name. But put that tactic into action during primary season against a beloved media figure and suddenly you have the Washington liberal elite telling you to shut your trap. The fall from grace has been quick and, well, funny.

But here’s the part that is even more pathetic: if Hillary wins the nomination, everyone will coalesce around her and Bill, call the past the past, say that politics are politics, ignore all the intentional comments that attempt to divide the electorate by race, and we will see Hillary at the pulpits of African-American churches (with nobody complaining that the church in question should have its tax status questioned) and they’ll all sing Kumbaya and convince each other that conservatives are racists.

Edwards the Kingmaker…

Sick of politics yet? Hey, it’s the news of the day. And so it will be for the next number of months. Anyway, an interesting perspective here about why Edwards isn’t bowing out of the race any time soon, even though he and everyone else knows he doesn’t have a chance at winning the nomination in the actual primaries.

Delegates on the Democratic side are awarded in most states on some complex proportional basis. This means that Edwards never has to win a single state, and could still end up with a good deal of delegates pledged to him. With Hillary and Obama in a tight race for first, and if it stays this way, we could realistically end up with a brokered convention on the Democratic side. The reason for this is that one candidate needs to secure a majority of the delegates in order to win the nomination. If Edwards gets 15/20/25% of the delegates, and Hillary and Obama essentially split the remaining delegates, it means we will go to the convention without a nominee.

This puts Edwards in a position of unique power. He can have very strong influence with his pledged delegates and broker a deal with someone. Stay tuned, ladies and gents. If you like politics, this little situation could get really fun to watch.

It seems less likely that this would happen on the Republican side, because many more of their states are “winner take all” states. In these states, the second and third place finishers don’t get squat. It looked like there was the potential for three or four guys to be battling for the nomination early on, but Huckabee has faded, Thompson never established anything and has since dropped out, and Giuliani has run possibly the worst campaign in history (unless he actually pulls off Florida, in which case I take it back). Paul has an avid base of supporters, but it’s just not widespread enough at this point to look viable. If this is truly a two-man race, then one of those two will secure the majority of the delegates and receive the nomination.

Reason #1,437 to avoid Public Universities

In a sad commentary about the gutless administrators at today’s college campuses, William and Mary President Gene Nichol is allowing students to have a Sex Workers’ Art Show on campus after they failed to find another venue.

The reason? The First Amendment. More importantly, we learn, that it “traditions of openness that sustain Universities.” Can I please have a “give me a break” emoticon.

When a University Administrator hides behind the First Amendment to justify a show with public nudity, demonstrations from strippers, and talks by prostitutes and “other sex workers” in order to “dispel the myth that are anything short of artists, innovators, and geniuses,” all I can say is that the Administrator is either (1) a spineless jellyfish who is unable or unwilling to deal with the protests of the few who actually will protest the intolerance of a decision to disallow, or (2) an immoral person willing to push the religion of sexuality onto an ever-weary populace trying to withstand the tide of paganism that never stops rising, or (3) an idiot in the first degree.

Let the reader decide.

Posted in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Kathleen Sebelius, News, Politics, Universities | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »