See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Changing Course (ON OBAMA: PAUL GOTTFRIED)
Source:
Taki's Magazine
URL Source: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/changing_course/
Published: Mar 25, 2008
Author: Paul Gottfried
Post Date: 2008-03-25 15:53:26 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 275
Comments: 19
Changing Course Posted by Paul Gottfried on March 25, 2008 Despite the reactions generated by recent revelations about the sermons of Obama’s pastor, I see no reason to change my comments. The current Republican-neoconservative attacks on Obama have been accompanied by the arduous efforts of “movement conservative” celebrities to persuade Republican voters to change their party registration in order to back Hillary in the primaries. I suspect that what lies behind these efforts is more than the tactic of helping out the Democrat whom McCain is more likely to defeat. As one editor of the Weekly Standard explained to me in a moment of candor this January, Hillary “is simply better on the war.” That in my view is what is driving Republican support for Hillary, who at this point does not seem to be the easier of the two Democratic presidential contenders to defeat. Until quite recently, Obamamania was not something limited to blacks, white yuppies, and left-of-center media personalities. Establishment conservatives and self-described Republicans paid equally fulsome tribute to the junior senator from Illinois. On the evening of Obama’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary, FOX contributor and Weekly Standard-editor Fred Barnes could hardly contain himself talking about the victor: “this man will be president; mark my word he’ll be elected president this year or sometime in the future.” Barnes’s observation was an obvious expression of deep affection. But other Republicans commentators sounded exactly the same way. One view that was not entirely out of line with other opinions from similar sources came from National Review contributor John O’ Sullivan. According to O’Sullivan writing in NRO, an Obama presidency “would be the climax of this long policy of fully integrating blacks and minority Americans into the nation.” “The conservative interest would therefore smile on a vote for Obama.” The fact that the recommended candidate was the “most liberal Senator in the US Senate, and on the extreme Left,” to quote former Bush advisor Karl Rove, seemed to have long escaped Republican notice. There were of course critics of Obama on the right, but these were not the people who counted. They were members of the now isolated Old Right, those whom the centrist GOP establishment and their neoconservative confidants had driven out of public life. These commentators, most of whom supported Ron Paul, were never exactly keen on Obama. They called attention to his association with his Afrocentric minister Jeremiah Wright, who had bestowed an award on anti-white and anti-Semitic bigot Louis Farrakhan. These critics also noted that there was a portrait of Southern American communist revolutionary Che Guevara on the wall of Obama’s Houston headquarters. Finally Obama’s early critics reported certain anti-white remarks attributed to his wife Michelle. But more centrist conservatives stayed clear of such revelations, until everything changed in the twinkling of an eye. Suddenly FOX network, which had formerly celebrated Obama, began to unload on him. The once unmentioned Che Guevara flag in Houston morphed into wall-to-wall paintings of Stalin and Castro; the Afrocentric minister in Chicago has become a stand-in for Farrakhan, whom Wright did indeed claim “epitomized greatness.” Meanwhile the neoconservative and Republican press began to go after Michelle Obama with almost as much fury as they unleashed on her hubby. On March 1, Sean Hannity offered on FOX a detailed evaluation of Mrs. Obama’s senior paper submitted at Princeton University. Although this paper contained the usual PC filler about racism among Princeton students, its descriptions of snobbish undergraduates, for all I know, may be accurate. But, even more relevant, there was nothing in the supposedly ominous remarks quoted by Hannity and shown on my TV screen which seemed especially venomous. All I extracted from the text was the kind of pabulum fed to students in social science courses across the US. It is also the same complaining that I encounter in the neoconservative New York Post, when the editors reach out to black contributors. Does Hannity believe that the senior thesis of Hillary Clinton, on gender discrimination, save for emphasizing a different victim group, is very different from the one submitted by Michelle Obama? Or that a senior paper in the social sciences on discrimination that came from one of President Bush’s daughters would be significantly different from what Hannity was denouncing? These papers tend to run along the same lines, featuring the same platitudes and repetitive wooden language. There are strategic reasons why networks that once drooled over Obama are now his enemies. But here one must qualify: Not all of his onetime Republican fans are denouncing this senator in response to some central command post. But those at the top, directing publications and televised commentary for the GOP and the neoconservative establishment, are dropping bombs on him, and in far more reckless manner than his critics on the old right ever did. One primary consideration here is that it is Obama, not Hillary, who looks like the probable Democratic candidate; and so Republican loyalists are taking off their jackets and getting to work on the Democratic frontrunner. It may also be the case that the same establishment has a Republican candidate it is eager to get behind, someone who would provide continuity with the present administration but who, unlike Bush, would justify his policy with verbal skill. McCain has the further advantage of being a genuine war hero, and his willingness to use force to settle international disputes would therefore appear consistent with his military past. Whatever the reason for the about-face in the treatment of Obama, it is making the GOP look ridiculously opportunistic. While my views are light years away from his, I have begun to sympathize with this presidential candidate as I watch his opponents go after him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Light years? I dont think so Charlie Brown.
I dont think so Charlie Brown. I don't understand your comment. Would you explain why you believe his beliefs are not light years away from Obama's? Paul Gottfried has been fighting against socialism/democratic managed government/central planning/collectivism - whatever name you want to give it, for a long, long time. He's been fighting against everything Obama stands for for many decades. Is there something I'm missing here?
No. The three people now in contention for the presidency are three peas from the same pod. All are members of the "system", all are anointed as acceptable, therefore one cannot be lightyears away from one candidate and not the others.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
And you intend to vote for one of them, Hillary.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Ari... For some reason you cannot quite seem to get this straight in your mind. Really it is quite simple. I will be voting AGAINST Obama in the primary and then in Nov. will write in Paul. Now see how simple that is??? That will be a vote FOR Paul and a vote Against Clinton/Obama. Actually the registrar's office has been swamped with bad people like myself, ind and pub up to mischief. Obama better take a half a loaf now while he can.
And the way you intend to vote AGAINST Obama is to pull the lever FOR Hillary, is it not? I don't think the ballot has any provision for Against votes. And doesn't that mean you have already changed your registration to Democratic? And, if all three are the same, what is the point of voting for one of them, even if it is against another one of them?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Rules require it Ari...
I take that as an admission that you're going ahead and actually voting FOR Hillary. If I end up voting for Obama in November, it will be because I will be voting AGAINST war. Anything wrong with that?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Gee, I thot I explained the strategy and reasons. It is a part of the political process and Ari seems not to understand. The past votes I can recall voting "FOR" were Ike, Carter and Reagan. All others were lesser of evils etc etc. Feel free to vote Obama if you like, your right. Do I get the impression that Ari "believes in the two party system"????????? Is that what is skewing you political thinking process????
You've changed your registration to Democratic, you proclaim your intention to vote for Hillary, and then you accuse me of believing in the two-party system? Huh? I'm registered Independent. The only candidate I've contributed money to this campaign is Ron Paul. The last three elections, I voted for third-party candidates. If I end up voting for Obama this time, it will not be because of any attachment to the two-party system, but because I see it as the course that is likeliest to lead to ending the war.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I'll ask you what I asked lodwick yesterday: Do you think we would be in the same situation right now, if Al Gore had been proven to have won in 2000? Or Kerry in 2004?
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
Same exact situation??? Odds are, yes, either that or a situation on the same level. robin, one needs to look beyond this situation because this government/military is preparing for far bigger events. With that in mind, Congressmen from BOTH sides of the aisle have added and abetted Bush.
The Ohio Republicans who switched their registration just so that they could vote for Hillary in the primary seem to have broken Ohio law, and the matter is currently under investigation. Limbaugh's Lying Voters Under Investigation. Have you considered the possibility that you might be breaking Pennsylvania law if you vote for Hillary?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Don't read his lips, watch his knee. ;-)
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
I contributed more to RP than I have to Obama. But, when reality knocked on my door, I started putting my money where my mouth is.
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
Maybe you have done the right thing, but my record helps to defend myself against the charge that I support the two-party system.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Come and get me. Haven't lost a wink of sleep yet. But then Lamebaugh is not exactly my authority on anything.
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
Unfortunately, it's the only game in town. If my car breaks down, I use my wife's.
The road to perdition .... Bush/Clinton/Bush/McClinton
While my views are light years away from his, I have begun to sympathize with this presidential candidate as I watch his opponents go after him.
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
Light years?
#3. To: Hayek Fan (#2)
. Is there something I'm missing here?
#4. To: Cynicom (#3)
The three people now in contention for the presidency are three peas from the same pod.
#5. To: Cynicom (#3)
The three people now in contention for the presidency are three peas from the same pod.
#6. To: aristeides (#5)
And you intend to vote for one of them, Hillary.
#7. To: Cynicom (#6)
(Edited)
#8. To: aristeides (#7)
And doesn't that mean you have already changed your registration to Democratic?
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)
#10. To: aristeides (#9)
#11. To: Cynicom (#10)
#12. To: Cynicom, aristeides (#10)
#13. To: robin (#12)
Do you think we would be in the same situation right now, if Al Gore had been proven to have won in 2000? Or Kerry in 2004?
#14. To: Cynicom (#13)
#15. To: Hayek Fan, Cynicom (#2)
Would you explain why you believe his beliefs are not light years away from Obama's?
#16. To: aristeides (#11)
The only candidate I've contributed money to this campaign is Ron Paul.
#17. To: iconoclast (#16)
#18. To: aristeides (#14)
The Ohio Republicans who switched their registration just so that they could vote for Hillary in the primary seem to have broken Ohio law, and the matter is currently under investigation.
#19. To: aristeides (#17)
Maybe you have done the right thing, but my record helps to defend myself against the charge that I support the two-party system.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest