Tagged: obama RSS

  • F 6:56 pm on February 3, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , obama, protectionism   

    Dear Davey 

    From the National Post:

    “I want to see what kind of language we can … work on this issue,” [Obama] added. “I think it would be a mistake, though, at a time when worldwide trade is declining for us to start sending a message that somehow we’re just looking after ourselves and not concerned with world trade.”

    Do you disagree with your President? If so, why?

    I’m actually quite interested to know why you—someone who has taken great pains to convince me that Third World corporate factories are wrong—would be in favor of protectionism.

    And calling me “Chicagoan” or “Friedman” isn’t enough. I’m not trying to goad you into an argument; just trying to figure if you’ve written me off just because I sound like Friedman and von Mises. (Because we both know how unfair that would be.)

     
  • D 2:17 pm on January 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , obama,   

    Opening Day 

    It’s opening day. My bright spot in all the inauguration fuss.

     
  • A 11:57 am on January 5, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Karate Kid, obama,   

    Obama: Our Coolest President 

    Continued photographic evidence why Obama is our most coolest president to date:

     
    • F 12:59 pm on January 5, 2009 Permalink

      That second picture is obscene, just like our current design. I’m giving this a negative rating.

  • A 4:57 pm on December 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Alinsky, obama, Rules for Radicals, Uncle Clint   

    Hundredth Sheep: Going Past Their Stop 

    My uncle writes about the outcry over Obama’s centrist appointments: “If half those who voted for Obama had taken time to read Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky’s dreary little treatise on taking power from the establishment, and Obama’s primary handbook for political success, they might have been less surprised by the current turn of events.”

    If you’ve never skimmed through R4R, here’s a nice summary.

     
  • D 9:15 am on November 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: obama,   

    Obama team sweeps news media into Cubs-Sox rivalry 

    After a series of old-school inside-the-beltway cabinet picks, Obama finally delivers on his promise for “change we can believe in.”

    There’s always a media pecking order at a presidential news conference, but on Monday, aides to President-elect Barack Obama introduced a new twist to the seating chart.

    Reporters were assigned seats in one of two sections, one to Obama’s left, designated the “Cubs” section, and the other to his right, designated ” White Sox.” Team assignments appeared to be arbitrary.

    Obama is a die-hard White Sox fan, but when it came time to take questions, he didn’t favor reporters on that side. Instead, his seemingly random selections were pre-determined by aides.

     
  • D 1:07 pm on November 17, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , obama   

    Cotton and Obama 

    This has to be one of the neatest electoral maps I’ve ever seen. The dot density overlay shows cotton production in 1860, which has a remarkable correlation to the counties that went for Obama this election.

    HT: Andrew Sullivan..

     
  • F 10:53 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Bill Clinton, Franklin D Roosevelt, obama, power   

    FDR, Bill Clinton, and Obama (for Chris) 

    Chris,

    Although I’m no expert on either FDR or Clinton, you’re right—I did have particular events in mind when I suggested that Obama might fall in line with their kind of politics.

    When FDR first campaigned against Herbert Hoover in 1932, his campaign pledges looked something like this:

    “immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures,” “abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating bureaus and eliminating extravagances, reductions in bureaucracy,” and … a “sound currency to be maintained at all hazards.” (from Wikipedia)

    Yet, as we all know, FDR ended up doing the exact opposite. He increased public expenditures (including $3.3 million spent through the Public Works Administration) and added more offices and bureaucracies to government (including the invention of Social Security). Obviously, I’m not a big fan of what he did, but that’s beside the point: his campaign simply didn’t match his actions.

    Moving on to Clinton: I don’t know if you can leave aside his lying (particularly when you said you find him a “likable and reasonable guy” – can you really trust those impressions when you know they’re of a pathological liar?), but that wasn’t what I had in mind when I wrote my initial post.

    That event (and unfortunately, I don’t have specific dates or footnotes) was mid-to-late during his second term, when Clinton shuffled some bombs into Iraq for a few days to give the press something to talk about other than his sexual misconduct.

    Both presidents were primarily interested in keeping hold of their power (especially Clinton, since in America, popularity is power). They could say one thing, but what they did was something far different. And it strikes me that Obama has so far (according the voting record and conduct that Freddoso lays out) done much the same. Let’s talk about emotional things like hope and change, but God forbid that we should actually try and tackle the hard issues. Let’s leave things the way they are. Yeah, that’s hope and change alright. Give me four years of that.

     
    • C 12:00 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink

      @F – When I said Bill Clinton “seemed” like a reasonable and likable guy, it was carefully calculated. The similarities I see between Obama and Clinton accommodate my measured distrust of both men.

      As a very cynical aside, the campaign promises that you quoted sound much more like republican talking points over the last decade or so than they do democratic ones. Bush, 9-11, Iraq and the War on Terror could all sit snugly alongside your criticism of Clinton; our most recent and supposedly conservative administration has outspent FDR beyond what he could have ever imagined. American Politics rely on celebrity, and the art of distraction has been a staple of campaign methodology for quite some time now.

      The fact that our politicians almost universally over promise and under deliver isn’t so much a black mark against them as it is a sober reminder that the American People are the noodle-headed amnesiacs that persist in electing them.

    • F 12:04 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink

      Fair points all, except that I am no Republican. Never have been, never will be. If I am arguing for any coherent thesis, it’s that politicians should be universally distrusted. How’s that for cynicism?

    • D 8:58 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink

      @F – So what should be our attitude toward the nation-state, do you think?

    • F 9:11 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink

      I try to think about that as little as possible.

  • D 4:47 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: obama,   

    Switching Sides? 

    Daniel Larison responds to Peter Hitchens’ analysis of an Obama presidency:

    I don’t know how many other people outside Chicago know these things, but I would be willing to bet that if all Obama voters knew his close ties to the Daley machine and his relationship with Tony Rezko they would not be very troubled. That may be more bothersome in its way than mass ignorance, but I think Mr. Hitchens here mistakes their lack of response to Obama’s cues for some cynical acknowledgement of the less glamorous details of the man’s career. It was, I suspect, silence kept out of deference to the President-elect combined with amazement that he had, in fact, won. Mr. Hitchens is falling into the trap of believing the hype about Obama, but interpreting it in a negative way. I suppose I might be inclined to the same interpretation, if I believed it, but I don’t. It is important to bear in mind that Obama’s election may be historic in certain respects, but it is not nearly as significant as his foes fear and his friends hope. As I have been stressing all year, the thing that disturbs me about Obama is not that he represents some dramatic change in American politics, but that he represents depressing, miserable continuity.

    I think I agree with Larison. Comments?

     
    • F 6:11 pm on November 12, 2008 Permalink

      I’d like to disagree with Larison.

      While I may not necessarily agree with all of Mr Hitchens’ comments, I do think he understands American votes better than Larison. Because the Obama supporters I’ve heard speak and talk to around here (average Joes, city councilmen, etc.) all voted for Obama because he reminded them of JFK. Or because they were thrilled by his promise of hope and change: they sincerely believed that he would be a different kind of politician. And when names like Rezko, Axelrod, etc., were brought up, they didn’t ring any bells.

      Also, I don’t think that Peter Hitchens was believing the hype. The man lives in Great Britain and has lived through Tony Blair. He knows more about political crazes than we do. Yet.

  • D 11:54 am on November 12, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: obama, ,   

    Peter Hitchens Miscellany 

    Great piece from Peter Hitchens’ blog on Obama, Palin, and the US media.

    Excerpt:

    How many of my critics have actually read David Freddoso’s measured, forensic ‘The Case Against Barack Obama’? Or, come to that, how many of them have opened David Mendell’s earlier but still telling critical study ‘Obama – from Promise to Power’? Or how many have read the Chicago Tribune’s interesting and revealing pursuit of the vague and partial stories in Mr Obama’s own interesting and engaging but not wholly candid memoir, ‘Dreams from my Father’? Anyone can do this. I do, admittedly, have the slight advantage of having spent some fascinating days in Chicago and elsewhere in Illinois, speaking to individuals (some of whom wished to remain anonymous) who had encountered Mr Obama early in his political career. But I didn’t keep it to myself. The results of this were published in the Mail on Sunday in February and can still be found on the web.

    So, for instance, my views have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, and her (deserved) evisceration by Katie Couric. It’s good to see that an inadequate and ill-prepared candidate can still get herself disembowelled by the US media, but shouldn’t people ask themselves if they’ve ever seen Mr Obama subjected to this sort of treatment? Most Americans don’t even known that Barack Obama smokes cigarettes, so how can they be expected to know what his grasp of foreign policy is like? How would he cope with foreign potentates in the hurly burly of real life? See Freddoso again, for some hints.

     
  • F 5:44 pm on November 7, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , obama   

    Freddoso YouTube Interview 

    For those of you skeptical about Freddoso’s book and claims, this video (and the others after it) are a good introduction. Comments more than welcome.

    (Oh, and the interviewer is a little annoying, but just ignore that.)

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel