More reason to fear Obama
Bookworm on Feb 13 2008 at 12:37 pm | Filed under: Anti-war, Barack Obama
Here’s the Wall Street Journal on yesterday’s overwhelming bipartisan vote to protect from lawsuits telecommunications companies that, in good faith, cooperated with the government to help apprehend terrorists:
Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters.
“We lost every single battle we had on this bill,” conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment — to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 — didn’t even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.)
It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had “acted in good faith.” Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told “no way” when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.
Email This Post To A Friend
13 Responses to “More reason to fear Obama”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] [Discuss this post with Bookworm over at Bookworm Room…] Share Article Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
Well, Obama may not be telling us much about himself – and he hasn’t, really – but the way he votes is solid Leftist Loon.
You might want to wander the blog archives of Steve Sailer who has been trying to learn who Barack Obama is. Interesting reading!
I just registered, so next I’ll have to add you to the RSS feed.
I’m logged in. If Obama is the Democrat nominee, as appears likely now, I hope those voters disaffected with McCain, and many are disaffected with good reason, reconsider the agenda of an Obama Administration. One hopes Obama follows in the footsteps of another professorial liberal from Illinois who ran against a war hero, named Adlai. Of course, Stevenson didn’t have a father from Kenya or charisma.
Obama is the devil we don’t know while HIllary is the devil we do know. So it all depends on whether we want to be risky and throw the dice, or if we want to deal with known variables.
Y, McCain is a roll of the dice. With Hill & Bill you know you get grifters. With Obama you better hope for a miracle. And a lot of his Obasm-gorged adherents seems to be in just that frame of mind. His campaign seems to have been struck by lightning just like that statute of Christ in Brazil.
It’s a long way to Nov and we have much to learn. I love a good communicator (one of the reasons I supported Rudy — he had a radio show, had no fear of the NY press corps and was literally on the air 24/7 after 9/11) and with a good support staff I could see myself voting for Obama. I, too, even as an aging boomer, believe in hope and optimism.
If Bush II had been a great communicator (with a great supporting staff aka the thinkers) we’d be in a much different place in the world.
I’m sorry but I WANT a preacher/cheerleader as President. It remains to be seen who is the best (bully)-pulpit pounder! I vote for ExP.
e.
Barack Obama is as wrong as leftist can be.
But the Clintons are monstrously corrupt.
Given the choice, who should I vote for? In the Texas primary, I’m going to vote for the best Democrat, because I fear the Dems are going to win this year.
So… who do I vote for, Hillary or Barack? Complete and monstrous corruption or absolute collectivism?
It would be as easy to vote for Scylla or Charybdis, Rock or Hard Place, or Frying Pan or Fire. I don’t like this election season.
Solution. Pick two conservatives you know who refuse to vote because McCain is too liberal and change their minds by November. BarrHill give us all the info we need.
Al
I spent time thinking of pulling the lever for Clinton and it was simply impossible.
Corruption never changes, once corrupt. The Clintons are called Nixonian, in describing their level of partisanship and paranoi and desire to harm anyone who threatens their absolute control, and I am sure that is true. I simply could never vote for her, even though Obama is a harder challenge in November.
So, since I believe a Democrat is going to win this year, either way, I have to do my part to stop the Clinton Corruption Machine. I have three weeks to change my mind, but I’ll vote for Obama.
Have you noticed that the Democrats are consistently turning out the vote at 2-1 levels over Republicans in the primary? That looks like a complete disaster to me. Can anyone explain how that can be overcome?
Obama *might* not turn out to be another Jimmy Carter. There is every sign that he will be another Dhimmi Carter, though, and that’s very worrisome. But the Clinton Corruption Machine must be stopped.
Come what may, in November I’ll be 100% behind McCain, and hoping for a miracle.
I concur, Mike. Obama over Clinton and vote for McCain in November with the clear and astringent acceptance that the Democrats may be ascendant. Let it come down.
But, on the other hand, I’m gratified that a beagle won the Westminster Dog Show.