Since my last post, Barack Obama has had some time to choose many of his inner circle of advisors and cabinet secretaries. During that time, I suffered through and have nearly fully recovered from a sinus infection that kept me from blogging. So I thought now would be a good time to analyze what Obama means by "Change" at least in the context of his selections.
Remember immediately after the election, he chose Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff--not exactly "Change". But have things changed? Or, has "Change" now changed to real change after a couple of weeks? The answer, in short, is not even close. Now, look, I understand that Obama will need Democrats with experience in politics and "how things work" in DC to help him. But apparently "Change" still means recycling old Clintonistas, prehistoric big-government liberals, or thuggish partisans.
Don't believe me? Here's a list of just some of Obama's choices for top posts:
Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff: View my earlier post just after the election for some info on this unstable, Mafia-like partisan.
John Podesta, Head of the Transition Team: Podesta is former Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, and former head of the "progressive" (read: big-government liberal) Center for American Progress.
Eric Holder, Attorney General: Holder was the Deputy AG under Janet Reno in, you guessed it, the Clinton Administration. He was acting AG under Clinton who approved Clinton's infamous 11-th hour pardons of notorious criminals like: tax cheat and fugitive Mark Rich who also conducted illegal oil deals with Iran; members of the FALN terrorist group responsible for numerous acts of terror in American soil and against American interests; the commutation of the sentence of former Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds who was convicted of bank fraud, wire fraud, sexual assault of a 16 year old and solicitation of kiddie porn; and the communitation of cocaine trafficker Carlos Vignali, son of a long time Democratic fund raiser. Holder doled out these and other similar gifts to dregs like these. Holder also was a point man in the Justice Department's armed seizure of Elian Gonzalez.
Greg Craig, White House Counsel: Craig served as Bill Clinton's counsel during the impeachment, and has a checkered history of questionable representations, including Ronald Reagan's would-be assassin John Hinkley, Jr., Marxists like the Nicaraguan Sandanistas, and Fidel Castro through his surrogate, the father of Elian Gonzalez.
Tom Daschle, Sec'y of HHS: Daschle, the former Senate Leader ousted in 2005 by Sen. John Thune and famous for his unreasonably partisan blocking of federal court nominees, is also affiliated with the Center for American Progress (see Podesta, John above), and will be in charge of the massive governmental expansion into health care Obama plans to push.
These are but 5 examples. And that's before we get to Hillary. There are many more top Obama officials who have extensive Clinton ties.
Where is the new blood? Where are the new ideas? What happened to bringing "Change" to Washington?
I suppose that's all yesterday's news and something Obama hopes we'll all forget. Like my sinus infection.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Obama's Historic Victory, Part III
There is no question that Obama's victory is "transformational" in one sense, to wit: he is the first president-elect who is black, at least partially. I say "partially" because in his first presser, Obama referred to himself as a "mutt" when comparing his diverse heritage to dogs in a pound. This begs several questions (no pun intended).
What does it mean to be the first "black" president? How do we define this? Is it purely due to the color of one's skin? If so, then Obama qualifies as he will have the darkest skin of any president in our nation's history. However, he is black/African on one side only. Isn't he the type of person we hear some in the "black community" vilify as "not black enough"? His experiences and upbringing also defy being described as "black American". How many black Americans spend formative years in a Muslim nation and attend exclusive private schools? He and his wife are millionaires. How much in common does Obama have with the average "black American"? What is the average "black American" anyway? Is it someone living in a stereotypically poor, predominantly black neighborhood overrun with gangs and drugs? Is it the increasingly growing black middle and professional classes? What about so-called "oreos", i.e. those that are "black on the outside, white on the inside"? Can we finally do away with that racist term? Can't a black man or woman hold conservative economic and social views without being viewed as an "oreo", or an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his/her race?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's election raises several questions about the existence of racial classifications. Have we finally reached a point where we can say there is little to no racism left in the nation, except perhaps on the very narrow fringes? Obama received the votes of well over 60 million Americans. If Americans can elect a black man to its highest office--their leader--then can we finally stick a fork in this racism bugaboo? Where was the "Bradley effect" we heard the media wringing their hands about? And why did/does the media continue to attempt to stereotype and pigeon-hole entire groups of people based on skin color, neighborhood, class, etc.? Can we now end support for racial preference policies? Can we end political correctness? Can we now cease having our racial sensitivities so heightened? Can Democrats now stop labeling Republicans as "racist" simply because they disagree with liberal policy positions?
This shouldn't apply to just the "enlightened" blue states. Even states and counties that stayed "red" should be given respect and honor. Isn't it possible that a majority in those areas voted for McCain simply because they believed he would have been a better president? Or was even the lesser of two bad choices? I live in Idaho and many who has never been to Idaho think there is nothing here but rednecks, Klansmen, and Mormon fundamentalists. That perception is very far from the truth. While not as diverse as many places, we have some of the friendliest and safest communities anywhere. Yet most of us hold conservative positions on taxes, economics and social issues. Now that we as a nation have risen above our perceived racial prejudices, can we also rise above the ignorance that colors how we view all of the components of our nation?
Will Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the black "leadership", while understandably basking in the glow of the election of the first "black" president, come forward and loudly proclaim these things? I hope so. We must recognize that this nation has moved past race. Even if Obama's election does nothing else, I hope it will serve as the final nail in the coffin of this nation's long past racial wrongs and those who seek to continue to exploit them today.
What does it mean to be the first "black" president? How do we define this? Is it purely due to the color of one's skin? If so, then Obama qualifies as he will have the darkest skin of any president in our nation's history. However, he is black/African on one side only. Isn't he the type of person we hear some in the "black community" vilify as "not black enough"? His experiences and upbringing also defy being described as "black American". How many black Americans spend formative years in a Muslim nation and attend exclusive private schools? He and his wife are millionaires. How much in common does Obama have with the average "black American"? What is the average "black American" anyway? Is it someone living in a stereotypically poor, predominantly black neighborhood overrun with gangs and drugs? Is it the increasingly growing black middle and professional classes? What about so-called "oreos", i.e. those that are "black on the outside, white on the inside"? Can we finally do away with that racist term? Can't a black man or woman hold conservative economic and social views without being viewed as an "oreo", or an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his/her race?
Perhaps most importantly, Obama's election raises several questions about the existence of racial classifications. Have we finally reached a point where we can say there is little to no racism left in the nation, except perhaps on the very narrow fringes? Obama received the votes of well over 60 million Americans. If Americans can elect a black man to its highest office--their leader--then can we finally stick a fork in this racism bugaboo? Where was the "Bradley effect" we heard the media wringing their hands about? And why did/does the media continue to attempt to stereotype and pigeon-hole entire groups of people based on skin color, neighborhood, class, etc.? Can we now end support for racial preference policies? Can we end political correctness? Can we now cease having our racial sensitivities so heightened? Can Democrats now stop labeling Republicans as "racist" simply because they disagree with liberal policy positions?
This shouldn't apply to just the "enlightened" blue states. Even states and counties that stayed "red" should be given respect and honor. Isn't it possible that a majority in those areas voted for McCain simply because they believed he would have been a better president? Or was even the lesser of two bad choices? I live in Idaho and many who has never been to Idaho think there is nothing here but rednecks, Klansmen, and Mormon fundamentalists. That perception is very far from the truth. While not as diverse as many places, we have some of the friendliest and safest communities anywhere. Yet most of us hold conservative positions on taxes, economics and social issues. Now that we as a nation have risen above our perceived racial prejudices, can we also rise above the ignorance that colors how we view all of the components of our nation?
Will Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the rest of the black "leadership", while understandably basking in the glow of the election of the first "black" president, come forward and loudly proclaim these things? I hope so. We must recognize that this nation has moved past race. Even if Obama's election does nothing else, I hope it will serve as the final nail in the coffin of this nation's long past racial wrongs and those who seek to continue to exploit them today.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama's Historic Victory, Part II
"In two days, you can put an end to the politics that would divide a nation just to win an election; that tries to pit region against region, city against town, Republican against Democrat; that asks us to fear at a time when we need hope."
~Barack Obama, speaking to a rally in Columbus, OH on November 2, 2008.
"And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, [Rahm] Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you.'
~Joshua Green, "The Enforcer", Rolling Stone, Oct. 25, 2005.
OK, honestly, when I wrote my first entry yesterday, I expected Barack Obama to at least begin by doing something that would cause me to reevaluate my skepticism. Fat chance. "Change" was supposed to mean reaching across the aisle in a new spirit of bipartisanship to meet America's challenges together, and do things differently. Now, apparently "change" means bringing in the same, tired old Clintonistas famous for marginalizing, investigating and threatening their "enemies".
Not 24 hours after winning the election on this "change" platform, Obama picked Rahm Emanual as his Chief of Staff--the chief liaison between the President and the entire rest of government, including the Congress. Emanual has a well earned reputation as one of the most partisan, ill tempered, foul mouthed politicians in recent memory. Once while serving under President Clinton with scandals abounding, Emanual told British PM Tony Blair not to "f*** up" the meeting Blair was about to have with Clinton. In 2006, Paul Begala (Emanual's fellow Clintonista and no friend of the right) remarked that Emanuel's style is "a cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache." Is this the change we need?
Expect more of the same as new appointments are announced. All in the name of "change", "hope" and "bipartisanship".
~Barack Obama, speaking to a rally in Columbus, OH on November 2, 2008.
"And there's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, [Rahm] Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather. But that's Rahm for you.'
~Joshua Green, "The Enforcer", Rolling Stone, Oct. 25, 2005.
OK, honestly, when I wrote my first entry yesterday, I expected Barack Obama to at least begin by doing something that would cause me to reevaluate my skepticism. Fat chance. "Change" was supposed to mean reaching across the aisle in a new spirit of bipartisanship to meet America's challenges together, and do things differently. Now, apparently "change" means bringing in the same, tired old Clintonistas famous for marginalizing, investigating and threatening their "enemies".
Not 24 hours after winning the election on this "change" platform, Obama picked Rahm Emanual as his Chief of Staff--the chief liaison between the President and the entire rest of government, including the Congress. Emanual has a well earned reputation as one of the most partisan, ill tempered, foul mouthed politicians in recent memory. Once while serving under President Clinton with scandals abounding, Emanual told British PM Tony Blair not to "f*** up" the meeting Blair was about to have with Clinton. In 2006, Paul Begala (Emanual's fellow Clintonista and no friend of the right) remarked that Emanuel's style is "a cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache." Is this the change we need?
Expect more of the same as new appointments are announced. All in the name of "change", "hope" and "bipartisanship".
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Barack Obama's Historic Win
In light of Election Day 2008, I decided to start a new blog to express my views and reach out to others. I hope you will enjoy and take the time to add your comments.
First, I did not support Barack Obama for President. I believe his associations, his policies and, most significantly, his complete lack of experience and lack of accomplishment militated strongly against him. I am sure my future posts will explore these issues more as Obama fills cabinet positions, makes decisions and proposes budgets and legislation. Nevertheless, the people have spoken, Obama will be our next President, and America will continue to survive and, hopefully, thrive.
However, let's be clear: John McCain's loss is not a loss that can be pinned on conservatives. From the very beginning of the campaign, we conservatives were wary of McCain for his various legislative stands and willingness to sell us out. At the same time we respected his service. His loss is at least in part due to his failures to be consistently conservative a la Ronald Reagan. Conservative Republicans should view this election as a clarion call to stop electing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and start putting up strong candidates with principled and demonstrative conservative views, because these views win the day when advocated. Look at Prop. 8 winning in California as well as the passing of similar measures in Florida and Arizona.
Obama ran a better, more organized, better funded campaign, and appealed to a new, starry-eyed generation of voters who were taken by his soaring rhetoric. We'll see whether his governing will match. I, for one, am highly skeptical.
First, I did not support Barack Obama for President. I believe his associations, his policies and, most significantly, his complete lack of experience and lack of accomplishment militated strongly against him. I am sure my future posts will explore these issues more as Obama fills cabinet positions, makes decisions and proposes budgets and legislation. Nevertheless, the people have spoken, Obama will be our next President, and America will continue to survive and, hopefully, thrive.
However, let's be clear: John McCain's loss is not a loss that can be pinned on conservatives. From the very beginning of the campaign, we conservatives were wary of McCain for his various legislative stands and willingness to sell us out. At the same time we respected his service. His loss is at least in part due to his failures to be consistently conservative a la Ronald Reagan. Conservative Republicans should view this election as a clarion call to stop electing RINOs (Republicans in name only) and start putting up strong candidates with principled and demonstrative conservative views, because these views win the day when advocated. Look at Prop. 8 winning in California as well as the passing of similar measures in Florida and Arizona.
Obama ran a better, more organized, better funded campaign, and appealed to a new, starry-eyed generation of voters who were taken by his soaring rhetoric. We'll see whether his governing will match. I, for one, am highly skeptical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
