See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: An Old Newness - Obama is a hit with the media, but electing him would be a grave error. [Thomas Sowell]
Source:
National Review
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 29, 2008
Author: Thomas Sowell
Post Date: 2008-05-15 13:12:05 by mirage
Keywords: None
Views: 1371
Comments: 26
Many years ago, a great hitter named Paul Waner was nearing the end of his long career. He entered a ballgame with 2,999 hits — one hit away from the 3,000-hit landmark — which so many hitters want to reach, but which relatively few actually do reach. Waner hit a ball that the fielder did not handle cleanly but the official scorer called it a hit, making it Waner’s 3,000th. Paul Waner then sent word to the official scorer that he did not want that questionable hit to be the one that put him over the top. The official scorer reversed himself and called it an error. Later Paul Waner got a clean hit for number 3,000. What reminded me of this is the great fervor that many seem to feel over the prospect of the first black president of the United States. No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president, just as it was only a matter of time before Paul Waner got his 3,000th hit. The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached. Paul Waner had too much pride to accept a scratch hit. Choosing a president of the United States is a lot more momentous than a baseball record. We the voters need to have far more concern about who we put in that office that holds the destiny of a nation and of generations yet unborn. There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever, and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans. Many people seem to regard elections as occasions for venting emotions, like cheering for your favorite team or choosing a homecoming queen. The three leading candidates for their party’s nomination are being discussed in terms of their demographics — race, sex, and age — as if that is what the job is about. One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries. Just the power to nominate federal judges to trial courts and appellate courts across the country, including the Supreme Court, can have an enormous impact for decades to come. There is no point feeling outraged by things done by federal judges, if you vote on the basis of emotion for those who appoint them. Barack Obama has already indicated that he wants judges who make social policy instead of just applying the law. He has already tried to stop young violent criminals from being tried as adults. Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s. Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive, and subsidizing those who are not — all this is a re-run of the 1960s. We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day. The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances, and hamstringing the police. Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history. Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: mirage (#0)
Obama buys the MIC scam....
Amen.
Nobody's perfect.
let overwrite, let override
While I agree with his opinion of Obama, it is dissappointing to see that Sowell has been neoconned.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
God is always good!
It takes NeoCommies to make NeoCons possible...welcome to the CFR matrix !!
Sowell got the first part right. Obama will be LBJ on steroids on domestic social and economic policy. But 1930's foreign policy would be a big improvement over 2000's foreign policy (if only Obama WERE of that mold).
Why does Barack Obama suck? I’ll give you 10 good reasons…
Exactly. He's Kosher...
Sometimes I wonder if that's cover.
let overwrite, let override
Sowell lost me as soon as he started talking about "terrorist threats." Of problems and threats to worry about, terrorism is waaaaay down on my list.
Exactamundo. I consider the United States government to be a much bigger threat than any terrorist. for that matter, the United States government ARE the terrorists. Financial and regulatory terrorists who are intent upon enslaving me and my family.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Obama buys into the War On Terror too.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
Of course he does. He's a made member of the two-party fraud.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
Obama is a mass media creation. Out of nowhere, the MSM skyrocketted him into the Senate and now (possibly) into the Presidency. Anyone who falls for the "outsider" bunk is a fool and then some, if Obama wasn't somebody's willing tool, we would never have heard about him to begin with.
When I compare BHO to LBJ, I had the "Great Society" social experiment in mind, not the Vietnam war.
All one has to do is look at the campaign of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich to see the truth in your statement.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
I wonder if Sowell wrote Bush's speech to the Knesset today, in which he accused the unnamed Obama of being like the appeasers of the Nazis: Dana Perino of the White House now denies that the remarks were aimed at Obama, but we know better than to believe the White House on that one.
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.
It's obvious somebody wrote it. The dim GWB can't come up with anything halfway convincing or eloquent, even when what's being said is nonsense and doublespeak. I heard an excerpt of Bush's speech where he talks about how Israel and the US share common values, among them a committment to peace. If there are two less peaceful nations on Earth today than Israel and the US under Bush, I'd like to see them.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
yep..as soon as i read that paragraph i did an ugh and read no further.
Finding people who blow up buildings is a good thing. Using the military is the wrong way to go about it. Its a police issue, not a military one. That's where most politicians get it wrong.
McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.
#2. To: mirage (#0)
Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it.
#3. To: mirage (#0)
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
#4. To: Tauzero (#3)
LOLOL
#5. To: mirage (#0)
There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever, and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president — especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.
#6. To: FOH (#4)
#7. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
While I agree with his opinion of Obama, it is dissappointing to see that Sowell has been neoconned.
#8. To: mirage (#0)
(Edited)
Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things — using the mantra of “change” endlessly — the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.
#9. To: RickyJ (#6)
#10. To: mirage (#0)
#11. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#8)
But 1930's foreign policy would be a big improvement over 2000's foreign policy (if only Obama WERE of that mold).
#12. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
#13. To: FOH (#9)
#14. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
(Edited)
#15. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#14)
Of problems and threats to worry about, terrorism is waaaaay down on my list.
#16. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
While I agree with his opinion of Obama, it is dissappointing to see that Sowell has been neoconned.
#17. To: mirage (#16)
Obama buys into the War On Terror too.
#18. To: mirage (#0)
#19. To: Hayek Fan (#17)
#20. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
There are reasons not to like Obama, many of them valid. The fear that he won't be another crusading Woodrow Wilson, tyrannical Lincoln, statist FDR, provocative Winston Churchill or warmad LBJ isn't one of them
#21. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#19)
Obama is a mass media creation. Out of nowhere, the MSM skyrocketted him into the Senate and now (possibly) into the Presidency. Anyone who falls for the "outsider" bunk is a fool and then some, if Obama wasn't somebody's willing tool, we would never have heard about him to begin with.
#22. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes — including the media magic of meetings between heads of state — was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
#23. To: aristeides (#22)
#24. To: aristeides (#22)
#25. To: Hayek Fan (#5)
While I agree with his opinion of Obama, it is dissappointing to see that Sowell has been neoconned.
#26. To: ghostdogtxn (#18)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest