Friends of Obama (FOOs)
Bookworm on Oct 30 2008 at 7:40 am | Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama
You remember the “Friends of Bill,” right? They were an unsavory bunch. However, I’m beginning to suspect that, if Obama becomes President, the FOBs will look like pussy cats compared to the Friends of Obama. The FOBs were merely corrupt; the FOOs are dangerous (not to mention virulently antisemitic).
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
65 Responses to “Friends of Obama (FOOs)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I suggest we call them “foobars” for Friends of Barack, as in, Obama’s presidency would be totally fubar.
BTW, Bookworm, your observations are brilliant and your prose wonderful.
I totally agree, gpc31.
Meanwhile, back here in Barackupyourtopia, the news just gets better and better:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-30-oct30,0,7407954.column
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-jennifer-hudson-wed-102oct29,0,6994262.column
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-jennifer-hudson-wed-102oct29,0,6994262.column
Soon…coming to a neighborhood near you, more endearing stories of Democrat family values.
I wondered, once, what the Jewish Community in Germany was thinking as the Nazi’s rose to power in the 30′s and why didn’t they acknowledge the handwriting on the wall. Why were so many in denial about their future.
I know longer wonder. The difference now is that it’s not only Jews that are in denial – it’s worse, it’s collective denial.
>>I suggest we call them “foobars” for Friends of Barack, as in, Obama’s presidency would be totally fubar.>>
Heh. Pretty funny.
There may be some unindoctrinated civilians hereabouts who aren’t familiar with the term and its derivation…they may not have the acronym -> idiom process down pat. Care to elucidate?
‘fubar’ means “effed up beyond all recognition”, closely related to ‘snafu’: “situation normal, all effed up”. I think both originated ca WW II by soldiers.
Foobar!!! OMG! I LOVE that!!!!
GPC – you said it first. We are your witness.
Seriously, though, I’ve been thinking along the same lines. If Obama becomes president, we can look forward to four years of a parade of individuals with whom few of us would want to be associated.
One other point: I’m sure everyone has seen the story about Obama’s aunt who lives in a slum in Boston. I can’t help but wonder: did she recognize on her own that she can not talk to the press until after Nov. 4th? Or did someone from the BHO campaign “encourage her” to keep her mouth shut months and months ago?
Whatever. I don’t sit here in judgment of Obama because he does not appear to have helped his aunt live in better circumstances. That is Obama’s business. Not mine.
However, what IS my business is his demand to take the money we earn and use it to spread the wealth to causes HE deems appropriate.
No way.
Deana
One other thought:
I remember right after Clinton left the White House, I was having lunch in D.C. with a friend of mine who worked in the media and was an avid Clinton supporter. (Of course, I had not revealed that I am a conservative because I knew it would just throw a chill into the relationship.)
Anyway, she made a comment that has stuck in my mind. She said, “You know, there is one thing that will be good about the Clintons no longer being in the White House – we won’t have to constantly hold our breath, waiting for the next shoe to drop.”
Something tells me that if Obama wins, those who voted for him are going to be holding their breath more often than not.
Deana
“Something tells me that if Obama wins, those who voted for him are going to be holding their breath more often than not.”- Deana
They may asphixiate themselves to death.
>>They may asphixiate themselves to death.>>
Hmmm.
Maybe it would be worth the 4 years…if they could hold out that long…
Especially if they couldn’t …
gpc31: the variations are endless, limited only by lack of imagination. In the 4 years (possibly only 2 depending on mid-term elections) of an Obama Admin, we’ll a stunning PROFU, Pelosi-Reid-Obama Eff-up.
Why do so many people seem to think that once the Democrats are in power that we will have the ability to remove them? Let’s realize what is truly at stake, here.
Consider all the campaign finance violations, voter fraud, intimidation of the opposition and campaign violence going on today and magnify it several fold once the Democrats have control of all four arms of government (executive, legislative, judiciary, media).
We are going to lose our country, folks!
We are going to lose our country, folks!-Danny
We already did.
We already did.
It’s a good thing for us that we don’t give up on hard projects, like Iraq, as easily as you do.
Well now…think about it. Go read that article by Vieria (sorry – the spelling may be wrong). If Obama is ineligible to be president and is sworn in anyway, we have a non-existent nation. This could be a disaster. On the other hand, maybe it’s a good thing…maybe it’s a way to eliminate Congress and all the top heavy administrative bureaucracy and start over. We know what the problems are…maybe we could start over and avoid them.
Hmmm.
It has been simmering inside me for a while, but I realized it even more listerning to Levin and Bennett in the last day or so…especially Levin…..that the radical Liberals have spent decades trying to slowly, invisibly, creep into the fabric of America. They have sucessfully taken over the education system. Also the media. They have the unions. They have the Black people. et al. and now here they are. Like a virus that there is no cure for. They never give up. And when you have the mainstream media in the tank for Obama, and an uneducated and lazy electorate, then you all of a sudden wake up to find yourself where we are today. Kind of like the radical Islamics who have been breeding like rabbits for centuries, and we never noticed, until they took down the World Trade Center. NOW we notice, and NOW we have to deal with it. Where do we start, trying to undo the damage that is being done?
>> Why do so many people seem to think that once the Democrats are in power that we will have the ability to remove them? Let’s realize what is truly at stake, here. >>
Danny, I don’t think we’d see a jackbooted dictatorship. It would be much more subtle. If they win, they’ll control the Executive and Legislative branches and the mainstream media. We’ll have to watch over the next two years the ways in which dissent is stifled – a la Joe the Plumber assaults and the shutting down of non-mainstream media. Vigilance and fighting back on these fronts; that will be the key. If we fail here, the far-left just might be able to lock up the “independents” on their side via slick and pervasive propaganda, and possibly manufactured crises.
The Judicial Branch is trickier. Four solid conservatives aren’t going *anywhere* anytime soon. Kennedy, as much as we loathe some of his decisions, enjoys being the linchpin very much in 5-4 decisions, and he’s not going anywhere either. The retirements will all be in the liberal wing, won’t they? It would take a “terrorist attack” on the Court to remove the Big Four Conservatives via their deaths. This would be truly radical; were it to happen, I am sure it would indeed spark an armed rebellion.
Could the loss of freedom truly happen here, in America? Of course. But it wouldn’t be easy at all for them.
MikeD, I think jackboots have gone out of style, although fashion does have a way of swinging back.
There are much more sophisticated ways to destroy the opposition today, for example (all tactics already practiced by Democrats): Fairness Doctrine; tax policies (audits); new and selectively enforced taxes and fees applied to opponents; false accusations of criminality (forcing defendants into bankruptcy); disclosure of personal information (think “Joe the Plumber”); job discrimination; voter fraud; physical intimidation; judicial protection for illegal activity (Chicago); corrupted voting processes (e.g. ghost voters, multiple voting, lost “opposition” ballots); voter dependency on corrupt politicians through political/ economic patronage and withheld services; electronic snooping on emails, internet activity, etc.
Conversely, the Democrats (read Rahm Emanuel, who is rather infamous for this kind of thing around these parts) will bring about the full force of the State and its public coffers to bear in support of their own political control.
Bottom-line, I think that there will be very few decent people with the courage, funds and squeeky-clean backgrounds willing to run opposition to these people.
The Obama people will be pros at this as Chicago provided a great training ground for them. Chicago has been a one-party fiefdom for quite some time, now, where you pay to play.
Danny,
If what you suspect does come to pass… well, it certainly is not going to be easy, convenient, nor fun to stand up to them. But integrity (and patriotism!) is going to demand that we stand up and fight anyway.
If what you suspect does come to pass… well, it certainly is not going to be easy, convenient, nor fun to stand up to them. But integrity (and patriotism!) is going to demand that we stand up and fight anyway.
And Iraq will be The Model for success. They don’t have the benefits and tradition America does, yet Iraq is stabilizing and getting better against those that would have brought Iraq to red ruin.
Iraq has always been the model for American success, if a victory could be pulled off there.
The bloggers at Iraq the Model, ITM, were more right than they might have suspected. Iraq wasn’t just a model for the Middle East or for corrupt Shia/Sunnis and tribesmen. It was a model for America as well.
>>Vigilance and fighting back on these fronts; that will be the key.>>
>>But integrity (and patriotism!) is going to demand that we stand up and fight anyway.>>
Right. And just how – if Legislative and Executive branches as well as the media are in their pockets – do you propose to fight back?
Obama kicked Washington Times reporters off their Obamaplane today. Apparently, either the reporters or the newpaper itself endorsed McCain.
>>And Iraq will be The Model for success.>>
I think we need a different model. In Iraq, they used lethal weapons. An enemy killed is one less enemy. In America, we’ll be lucky if we get to keep our weapons – the weapons they’ll use will be the bureaucracy, the courts and the media. It’s pretty hard to kill off any of those.
As Danny says:
>>Chicago has been a one-party fiefdom for quite some time, now, where you pay to play.>>
There’s a reason there aren’t any Repubs there. How would you use the Iraq Model in Chicago?
It’s a good thing for us that we don’t give up on hard projects, like Iraq, as easily as you do.- Ymar
The war in Iraq is just one of the things that will put the final nail in the coffin.
You keep firm to your ideas, though. And by all means, listen to talk radio and don’t read any newspapers.
You might run across a news item like this:
Bailout funds being spent in ways Congress never foresaw
WASHINGTON — After a bruising battle to get it through a doubting Congress, the Bush administration’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan to purchase distressed mortgages and other bad assets has morphed into something else entirely.
Today the Emergency Economic Stabilization Plan, signed by President Bush on Oct. 3, involves the government taking direct equity stakes in banks, and at least one bank used the money to buy a rival. The taxpayer money’s also expected to be used to buy stakes in life insurance companies, and may soon even go to help two struggling Detroit automakers merge.
In short, what once was disparagingly referred to as bailout for Wall Street now looks like a broader bailout of all sorts of troubled businesses. Some lawmakers and outside analysts question whether that’s serving the public interest as intended — or whether it’s becoming a taxpayer-financed giveaway to favored firms.
“I could say I told you so,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who helped lead a revolt against GOP leaders and sunk the $700 billion plan on its first pass. “It was so open-ended and we put so little accountability into it, they can basically do whatever they want to with the money.”. .
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/55036.html
The Founders warned against all the thigns that have occured in recent decades. Democrats think their guys are heroes who will “save” America while a small majority of Republicns still think Bush was a conservative and a great president, and that Sarah Palin is fit for high office, too.
People who listen to talk radio and trust Rupert Murdoch pretty much missed the sweeping highly un-American changes that have occured over the past 10 years.
To watch people become suddenly concerned about fair elections and fascism, while overlooking the realities of what’s beeing occuring for decades (but picked up steam since 1998), would be funny if it werent so scary and sad.
Oh yeah, Oz. And all of here were _so_ in favor of the bailout….
And no…I think that most of us here do _not_ consider Bush a conservative.
Personally, I’ve decided that a “compassionate conservative” is just another name for an old time FDR “chicken in every pot” Democrat.
And of course, Democrat is now just another name for an old time Socialist.
My. How we _have_ progressed.
I guess it’a lot better to be a fool for Obama than it is to be related to him. His brother lives on less than twenty bucks a year in a cardboard hut in Africa (Jeez, Barry, send the poor bastard $20 a year, you’ll have doubled his annual income!), and his sainted auntie occupies a slum in Boston.
The old “redistribution” didn’t get too far, did it?
What happened to that phrase from Matthew that Ayers put into that dopey book he wrote for you? Something about “whatever you do to the least you do to me?” What happened to that wonderful thought he put in there about people having their family to fall back on in tough times? I guess not if their family includes you, eh Barry?
(And yes: I’ve read Ayers, and I’ve read “Dreams From Daddy” – and I’m in little doubt that Ayers wrote ‘em both. Far too many phrases, images, similes and metaphors in common, all of them originating with Ayers – who is seventeen kinds of criminal and why the hell isn’t he in prison? – who has demonstrated he can actually write.)
And no…I think that most of us here do _not_ consider Bush a conservative- suek
And I’m saying that you’ll never see a true conservative in office ever again.
You think the Democrats are going to change America forever and I’m arguing that such a change has already occured.
Were not in a good place, thanks largely to the changes that have occured since 1998
There are real Conservatives making this case, but they only appear on right leaning libertatian sites like antiwar.com, or left-leaning sites like Huffington Post, so chances are, many people who call themselves “conservatives” (but are actually GOP cheerleaders)never consider what they have to say.
For some, demonizing “the left” means that they never read anything with a leftist viewpoint, therefore missing the bigger picture.
Today’s Guardian, for example, contained this simple observation:
“Baker wanted to vent his frustration, but like Cable he chose to let others demand Greenspan’s resignation. He said: “It’s a source of enormous frustration for me that almost all the people responsible for this [crisis] are going to end up richer than 99% of the country.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/30/marketturmoil-banks
>> And I’m saying that you’ll never see a true conservative in office ever again. >>
Too bad PayPal doesn’t sponsor bets. We could each put, oh, $500 on that statement.
Of course *first* we would have to agree on the list of criteria that defines a true conservative. But don’t worry, we’ll be hashing that out beginning Nov 5th!
Of course *first* we would have to agree on the list of criteria that defines a true conservative- Mike
Writing in the American Conservative, one of my new-found heroes, Andrew J. Bacevich put it this way:
My own definition emphasizes the following:
a commitment to individual liberty, tempered by the conviction that genuine freedom entails more than simply an absence of restraint;
a belief in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law;
veneration for our cultural inheritance combined with a sense of stewardship for Creation;
a reluctance to discard or tamper with traditional social arrangements;
respect for the market as the generator of wealth combined with a wariness of the market’s corrosive impact on humane values;
a deep suspicion of utopian promises, rooted in an appreciation of the sinfulness of man and the recalcitrance of history.
Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/24/0002/
Of course not, Ozzie. The Republican party is another batch of politicians. Politicians are venal and mendacious and compromising. That is why they are called politicians. The Republicans do not live up to their stated ideals which are closer to conservatism than the current Democrat party. There is no way the Democrats approach that ideal. Remember the perfect is the enemy of the good. To allow the Democrats to take power and institute Euro-style socialism because the Republicans aren’t perfect is supercilious and self defeating.
Oh, and we exist in a world that is largely an illusion. Buddha said so.
Ozzie #26
That’s a good list for conservative principles, if too vague. (Obama says, “Hey, I have a bracelet, too!” Ooops, wrong quote. Obama says, “Hey, I have respect for the market, too.”)
In the Republican primary, where the crucial votes will be cast in 2010 and 2012 for selecting a true conservative, the list will serve as a guidepost for which of the candidates are best. The quality of the candidate’s responses to questions on each of those principles will determine a great conservative.
Zhombre #27
>> Of course not, Ozzie. The Republican party is another batch of politicians. Politicians are venal and mendacious and compromising. That is why they are called politicians. >>
My Representative (Michael C Burgess, TX-R) is good. I can’t say for sure that he’s great, as I have to examine him more closely for the 2010 primary. “Compromising” is something I’m ready to see done away with, at least as it’s currently understood.
I’m hoping to see that he, and others, are ready to return to Washington D.C. with a fire in their belly for defense of conservatism and a fierce readiness to do battle. Fierce, and uncompromising, and both grim! and joyful! in their absolute and unyielding determination.
>> Remember the perfect is the enemy of the good. >>
Yes. But the appeaser is the enemy of the good, too. There’s got to be a nice balance that we all can find, where we don’t seek perfection but we also don’t accept the weak and collapsing.
Oz -
Just a couple of points:
You seem to believe that you are the only one who had heard that some of the bailout funds are being spent in ways that were not intended. I’m sorry but I heard that several days ago. It isn’t news.
I know you desperately want to believe that conservatives live with blinders on and only listen to talk radio but we don’t.
Also, many people who voted for President Bush the FIRST time KNEW he was not a conservative. He just wasn’t. It wasn’t a secret. As much as I respect that man, he is not a conservative and never has been. That has been my biggest beef with him.
In short, Ozzie, please stop assuming that you are the only one here who is informed. You are not. You obviously spend a lot of time reading and learning and that is wonderful (certainly better than a lot of people who DON’T bother to read the news, books, and other sources of information!) but you are not the only font of knowledge and wisdom.
Deana
Y has referred to Oz as a nihilist. I sometimes think of her as a contrarian.
Then there’s the “concern troll” problem, which still cannot be dismissed.
The Wikipedia definition: The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group’s actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed “concerns”. The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.
That certainly fits most of Ozzie’s posts! Depress the mood; depress the turnout; *and* focus on delivering anti-Palin messages.
Oz puts a lot of effort into comments that contain real conservative commentary – before then *always* swerving into deep pessimism. It’s the fact that she always swerves into deep Eeyore pessimism that raises the “concern troll” issue. Oz, if you *are* in fact working for AxelRod, you’re trying *too hard*, and you’re not being paid enough, trust me! I hear Axelrod wants to keep his troll operation up and running full time. Damn it. I was hoping we could judge your veracity by whether you hung around after Nov 4th or not. The sophistication of the Axelrod machine has taken even that away from me. :-/
>>Then there’s the “concern troll” problem, which still cannot be dismissed.>>
Hmmmmmmm….
If that is Oz’s role, she’s overdoing it.
She hasn’t depressed me so much as made me think it’s time to ignore her entirely. She sometimes raises points that are worth discussing, but almost every time I read her comments, I get to a point where I say to myself…”so what do you suggest we do about it?”. Occasionally, I’ve put that in a comment. The response is always a huge silence…so my conclusion is that there’s a certain amount of “passive aggressive” to her…you know the type…they don’t want to do something, but they don’t want to say so, so they just keep throwing roadblocks in the way until you throw up your hands in disgust and give up. In this case, such people are themselves the roadblocks, and they need to get pushed out of the way or run over so we can move on.
>> If that is Oz’s role, she’s overdoing it.
I get to a point where I say to myself…”so what do you suggest we do about it?”. Occasionally, I’ve put that in a comment. The response is always a huge silence >>
Sue, a concern troll *never* proposes solutions; that would defeat the purpose.
The sole overriding purpose is to demoralize. A concern troll does this by constantly raising issues – and it is in fact far, far better if the issues are real.
My wondering about Oz is based on the extreme pessimism that is constantly expressed. I hadn’t explicitly noticed the lack of proposed solutions the way you have, but it *would* fit perfectly with the purpose of a concern troll. If you propose a solution of any sort yourself, Oz never responds to those either, unless it is with more pessimism and another declaration that “conservatism as we know it is dead”, or some other such.
No one can say if Oz is a concern troll or not, because a concern troll has a *goal* of demoralization and disruption. Oz may simply be Y’s nihilist, a natural pessimist that has lost all hope for conservatism and wants solely to express that.
If Oz *is* a concern troll, I can only doff my hat and say, “Congratulations,” because the script has been followed perfectly while the content of the posts have in fact been very good. Too bad we CANNOT be demoralized around here.
And when we see a true conservative that sticks to her core principles as Palin does, and communicates with such gosh-darn, gee-whiz, say-it-aint-so-Joe brilliance, connecting with audiences with such great charisma the way she does… well, a consistent dose of anti-Palin commentary just gets ya nowhere!!!
Sarah Palin’s speeches and friendly interviews have gotten so very good over the last few weeks. Just wait until she masters the hostile interview!
Couric: “And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this, to stay informed and to understand?”
Palin: “Well, that is an interesting question, Ms. Couric. For one thing, you’ve made an assumption that the way to establish your worldview is to read newspapers and magazines.”
Couric: “No, I was just asking-”
Palin: “No, Katie, let me answer, because your question is really about establishing a worldview. My conservative worldview *is* based on the information I study closely from magazines such as ‘The Economist’ and ‘National Review’, but I leaf through most issues of Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, and I also leaf through major articles in, say, The NY Times and the Chicago Tribune – looking for articles that frankly, don’t have that automatic liberal bias that is *so* irritating, you know? I gotta tell ya, those non-biased articles can be *hard* to find! But they’re there, and I do find them, and they help, too. But getting back to your main question, where does my worldview come from? I spend a lot of time focusing on books, Katie. Books. Not magazine articles, and not newspaper articles. Because this is not really a sound-bite world, and if all you have is a sound-bite worldview, well, yer gonna struggle. Some of the important books I’ve read over the last few years, and I recommend them highly! – are … [ list of books here ]. Books are where the valuable information can be found for your worldview, Katie. I mean, as the main journalist at one of the Big Three networks, your worldview is formed on books too, I’m sure. What were your most important two or three books in forming your worldview?”
In short, Ozzie, please stop assuming that you are the only one here who is informed. You are not. You obviously spend a lot of time reading and learning and that is wonderful (certainly better than a lot of people who DON’T bother to read the news, books, and other sources of information!) but you are not the only font of knowledge and wisdom. – Deana
I’m amazed that people are only now concerned with changes that have occured and believe that somehow Obama is the one who’s going to take away our freedoms and change America forever.
Anyone who’s raised red flags throught the Bush administration, be it from WMD distortions to the end of Posse Comitatus, was depicted as a loon, and/or alarmist.
The laws have been changed to make tryanny more possible, yet nobody said a word as the laws were being changed.
When people dont believe that a brigade has been set out to patrol America’s streets, or see how the law was changed to reverse Posse Comitatus (a law that has been in effect since the Civil War-era) I wonder why are people who are suddenly afraid for what’s happening in America not aware of this?
Dissent has been criminalized, police are surrounding and arresting people for no reason whatsoever and some of the executive orders giving the president the right to seize assets, are also quite scary.
So, yes, I wonder why people are just NOW worried and wondering where they’ve been for the past 8-10 years.
Y has referred to Oz as a nihilist. I sometimes think of her as a contrarian.
Then there’s the “concern troll” problem, which still cannot be dismissed.
- Mike
This is just plain silly
“And when we see a true conservative that sticks to her core principles as Palin does, and communicates with such gosh-darn, gee-whiz, say-it-aint-so-Joe brilliance, connecting with audiences with such great charisma the way she does… well, a consistent dose of anti-Palin commentary just gets ya nowhere!!!
A true Conservative understands the Constitution. Sarah Palin is clueless.
(Pardon my double post, but this one time I’m going to.)
>> This is just plain silly >>
>> A true Conservative understands the Constitution. Sarah Palin is clueless. >>
——
Ha ha ha ha. There she goes again! Ozzie is nothing if not consistent. Did you get a pay raise from the Big Axelrod, Oz?
Ozzie’s latest post above (#13) is a *perfect* example of how a concern troll operates. Raise the issue and support it. Make a few discouraging, depressing statements at the end. Then leave. Offer nothing, absolutely nothing beyond 1 – The Issue; 2 – Supporting commentary for the issue; 3 – The concluding attempt at demoralization.
Remember, everyone : concern trolls are paid to demoralize and disrupt.
Just calling it as I see it, Oz. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may very well be a duck.
——
Actually, this time there’s no supporting commentary. But we do have the obligatory anti-Palin attack at the end. The demoralization part is the focus this time.
The question of whether something actually is silly or not is left for the intelligent reader to determine.
The sole overriding purpose is to demoralize- Mike
My purpose to to get you to see that it goes well beyond Obama and the DNC..
People’s paranoia seems to rise and fall depending on which political party they belong to, and they tend to overlook the un-American changes that have occured when their own team has been in charge.
You say you’re afraid of losing our country? I say where have you been?
From the Sydney Morning Herald, in 2002:
Recent pronouncements from the Bush Administration and national security initiatives put in place in the Reagan era could see internment camps and martial law in the United States.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/27/1027497418339.html
And from World Net Daily, in 1998:
The U.S. Army director of resource management has confirmed the validity of a memorandum relating to the establishment of a civilian inmate labor program under development by the Department of Army. The document states, “Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft Army regulation on civilian inmate labor utilization” and the procedure to “establish civilian prison camps on installations.”
Civilian internment camps or prison camps, often referred to as concentration camps, have been the subject of much rumor and speculation during the past several years in this country. Various publications, Internet threads and some radio talk programs have focused on the issue.
However, I found it significant when Rep. Henry Gonzalez, D-TX, clarified the question of the existence of these civilian detention camps. In an interview Hank said, “the truth is yes — you do have these standby provisions, and the plans are here … whereby you could, in the name of stopping terrorism … evoke the military and arrest Americans and put them in detention camps.” Heck, we did it before (to Americans of Japanese descent), we could do it again.
This is not anything new. This is not a partisan Democrat/Republican, or Conservative/Liberal issue. It may have just recently been actually acknowledged, but it has a history.
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Pl/ConCamp.htm
LBJ’s Operation Garden Plot seems to have been revitalized during the past 8 years and Ronald Reagan’s Rex 84 program has been given new life in Halliburton’ no-bid contracts to build “emergency detention facilities” within the U.S.
None of this is new.
Changes that have occured during the Bush years, however, have made it much easier to clamp down on dissent, seize private property and declare martial law.
This is all the more reason that it is critical that a man who has served his country honorably, who has demonstrated his commitment to his country with sacrifice and valor, and has a good plan to keep America secure and provide for its future prosperity be elected President of the United States!
John McCain is a man of his word and countries around the world will know that America is a country that keeps its word.
John McCain knows what torture is and is deeply committed to humane treatment of our prisoners.
Vote for John McCain if you share these goals.
John McCain is not George Bush. This election is not about George Bush. History will judge the successes and failures of George Bush.
This is an election to decide who will best continue the greatness of America through smaller government, commitment to the unborn, keep health care private and not turn it into another government bureacracy and keep our word to our allies around the world.
John McCain has stood up to the policies he considers not in the best interest of America’s foreign policy. John McCain supports the closing of Guantanamo Bay and opposes waterboarding as an interrogation tactic.
John McCain is an honorable man, a man that keeps his word, who has a plan to move America forward.
Vote for John McCain if you share these goals.
John McCain is a man of his word and countries around the world will know that America is a country that keeps its word.- Brian
If the World Could Vote:
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results
John McCain knows what torture is and is deeply committed to humane treatment of our prisoners- Brian
Except that many say he flip-flopped on this issue, just as he has with SEVERAL others.
On Waterboarding
THEN
2007: “It was used in the Spanish Inquisition, it was used in Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia, and there are reports that it is being used against Buddhist monks today….It is torture.”
NOW
2008: Voted against bill that would prevent waterboarding by requiring all U.S. interrogators to comply with legal standards imposed by the Army Field Manual.
Bush Tax Cuts
THEN
2001: “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans.”
NOW
2007: “I will not let the Democrats roll back the Bush tax cuts.”
2008: “I think that what we need is more tax cuts.”
THEN
2006: Wrote McCain-Kennedy bill, which would have given 11 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
NOW
Jan. 2008: In GOP primary debate, was asked whether he would still vote for his own bill: “No, I would not.”
THEN
March 2008: Told The Wall Street Journal, “I’m always for less regulation.” Called for “removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments” to financial markets.
NOW
Sept. 2008: As Wall Street melted down, declared, “We’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23316955/the_doubletalk_express/
John McCain is not George Bush. This election is not about George Bush. History will judge the successes and failures of George Bush- Brian
American Conservative” Magazine Backs Obama
Friday Oct. 31, 2008 10:25 EDT
Remember the neoconservatives? Three years ago they were a hot topic, as people all over the world tried to understand why the United States had invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Then interest waned. First Paul Wolfowitz, then Doug Feith, then Don Rumsfeld left the administration. George W. Bush, who asked his dad “What’s a neocon?” in the summer of 2004, took their counsel less. Core neocon concepts—a blend of forceful rhetoric about expanding democracy, contempt for most existing democratic countries, and enthusiasm for starting wars—began to seem unhinged from reality. They had dreamed up the Iraq War to transform the Middle East, argued it was pointless for Israel to make peace with the Palestinians, agitated for attacks on Iran. Without repudiating them directly, Robert Gates and Condi Rice eased them from the stage.
John McCain wants to bring them back, in triumph, on horseback. Unlike Bush, McCain is a neocon true believer; Wilsonian bellicosity has visceral appeal for him. A McCain victory would mean, in short order, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Joshua Muravchik, a candid and well-connected neoconservative whom I’ve known for 25 years, affirmed this unequivocally at a Nixon Center debate last month. Iran is now the principal neoconservative obsession—as it is for Israel’s hawks, who ludicrously paint Tehran as Nazi Berlin. McCain jokes about bombing Iran, but the consequences would not be amusing. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs, has warned that an Israeli strike would put American forces in Iraq at grave risk. If America bombs, the consequences would be worse. As Secretary of Defense Gates warned a group of senators recently, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.
That’s not all. Top McCain advisers like Robert Kagan seek to reignite a Cold War with Russia: Kagan recently told a Washington audience he wouldn’t want to live in a world in which Russia had a preponderance of influence over Georgia. Elliott Abrams, son-in-law of Norman “World War IV” Podhoretz, is reportedly in line to head McCain’s National Security Council. As a Bush appointee, he’s worked at stymieing the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Expect a McCain administration to back the Netanyahu policy of turning the West Bank into isolated bantustans instead of a Palestinian state.
For these reasons, I’m voting for Obama. While he doesn’t inspire me, he does impress. His two-year campaign has been disciplined and intelligent. He has surrounded himself with the mainstream liberal types who staffed the Clinton administration. Like countless social democratic leaders before him, he probably was more left-wing when he was younger. Circumstance and ambition have pushed him to the center. If elected, he will inherit an office burdened with massive financial and foreign-policy problems. Unlike John McCain, he won’t try to bomb his way out of the mess.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/nov/03/00011/
“I used to like and admire John McCain.”- Ozzie
Remind me again when that changed?
>>Unlike John McCain, he won’t try to bomb his way out of the mess.>>
You’re right. He’ll give away the keys to the store without a fight.
I think this is McCain’s closing argument video. I call it: “American Exceptionalism”
The actual title: “We The People. Fight With Me!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2XKTfxhRWg
It’s WONDERFUL! Check it out!
I heartily and enthusiastically second BrianE!!! As he said:
John McCain is an honorable man, a man that keeps his word, who has a plan to move America forward.
Vote for John McCain if you share these goals.
“I used to like and admire John McCain.”- Ozzie
Remind me again when that changed?- Brian
He changed his postition on a host of issues.
In 2000, while on the campaign trail, a student asked him if the progressive tax wasn’t “socialism” and he said, in essense, what Obama is saying now, that those who are comfortable should pay more.
In 2000, he stood up to the Religious Right, calling them “Agents of Intolerance,” while in 2008, he invited Gary Bauer to help draft the GOP platform and chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Thoughout the years, he oppossed the Bush tax cuts, until he decided that he needde to be FOR them to win.
In 2005, he took a principled stance against torture but backpeddled in 2007.
In 2006, he appeared in the documentary “Why We Fight,” and was quite impressive in his stance on how misguided U.S. foreign policy had become. “Where the debate and controversy begins is how far does the United States go and when does it go from a force for good to a force of imperialism?” he asked.
He also took a stance against defense spending and corruption, saying,”"President Eisenhower’s concern about the military-industrial complex — his words have unfortunately come true.”
He spoke out against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war and Halliburton’s corrupt ways. “It looks bad. It looks bad. And apparently, Halliburton more than once has overcharged the federal government,” he said “That’s wrong.” .
All of that made him impressive in my eyes, (which is why I was still considering him until he chose Palin) but the other day, when I read Eugene Jereki’s account of what occured aftwards, (that McCain thought he was speaking to the BBC and would have never have said such things for an American audience and that Mark Salter actually threatened Jereki), I felt even more dismayed.
I would have voted for McCain in 2000, based on the candidate he was back then.
But then again, back then, I had no idea what a neocon was or that any contemporay American held a Wilsonian worldview.
American Exceptionalism”- Mike
One of the best essays ever witten on the subject
In describing America’s rise to power Niebuhr does not shrink from using words like “hegemony” and “imperialism.” His point is not to tag the United States with responsibility for the world’s evils. Rather, it is to suggest that we do not differ from other great powers as much as we imagine. On precisely this point he cites John Adams with considerable effect. “Power,” observes Adams, “always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God’s service when it is violating all His laws.”
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2008%20-%20Winter/full-prophets.html
This is to Ozzie first point that McCain has switched positions.
McCains take on income taxes is problematic, and if you look at the income tax proposal comparison of Obama-McCain the differences aren’t that large, other than McCain believes the producer class (since we’ve turned this into class warfare) is left with a little more money to– well produce.
But more important to the economy are capital gains and corporate taxes. America has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, and that is not good for competitive reasons. Raising capital gains taxes right now would be suicidal. If you remember, Obama is committed to raising capital gains taxes as a matter of “fairness” even if the policy results in less revenue to the government.
From Larry Kudlow
The other side of the equation, which one– Obama or McCain is likely to slow the growth of government? I think the answer is obvious to any thinking American– McCain by a large margin.
Brian,
John McCain has changed his stance and many things.
For example, this is John McCain, on taxes and socialism, in 2000:
“THEN
2006: Wrote McCain-Kennedy bill, which would have given 11 million illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
NOW
Jan. 2008: In GOP primary debate, was asked whether he would still vote for his own bill: “No, I would not.””- Ozzie
The following is an excerpt from the January 30, 2008 Republican debate at the Reagan Library in California:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/McCainPres08.htm
This is an area that some conservatives will continue to disagree with McCain, but I accept his statement that we will secure the borders in a real, not political sense.
We may still disagree with him about what to do with the illegals already in the country.
My daughter and son-in-law teach in a school district that may be 85% hispanic, of which a significant percentage are illegal. They are necessary for the type of agriculture in the area. With a few exceptions, they are hard working individuals contributing to America. We will have to come to grip with this. One of my son-in-laws history students expressed real anxiety over her future. She grew up here, has family in Mexico who she does not know, but this is her home. She wants to be an American.
These are difficult issues that need to be addressed. I personally think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship, after they demonstrate a commitment to education, etc. I don’t think their parents should be allowed to become citizens, without returning to Mexico and getting in line. This may mean that the younger children have to return to Mexico with them.
We do need a better guest worker program to meet the needs for agriculture workers.
Brian,
Here’s anther example on McCain’s 2000 stance vs the one he holds today.
How he felt/feels about the Relgious Right:
Ozzie,
Stop. I need a break!
In the interest of fairness, please give me a couple of examples where Obama has substantively changed his position.
In the interest of fairness, please give me a couple of examples where Obama has substantively changed his position.- Brian
I’m sure he has changed his position. All politicians do, though John McCain’s track record appears to be worse than most.
I would never say of ANY politician that “John McCain is a man of his word,” as you did.
They all lie. James Madisan said that all men with power ought to be mistrusted, which is sage advice.
But you then brought up my quote “I used to like and admire John McCain.”- and said “Remind me again when that changed?”
I gave you a couple examples of how he changed though there are several YouTubes which further prove my point.
Buy the way, this group gives John McCain a “D” for his record on immigration.
Pretty bad, except Obama is given a “D-” and Pelosi and Reid and 27% of Democrats in congress received an “F”.
Who is more likely to craft an immigration policy that a modicum of sanity?
As bad as he has been, I accept John McCain’s word that he will secure the borders. That’s at least half of the equation.
As an aside, 66% of democrats receive a “D” or below.
5% of republicans receive a “D” or below.
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/view_all.php3?Flag=DEM
“I would never say of ANY politician that “John McCain is a man of his word,” as you did.
They all lie. James Madisan said that all men with power ought to be mistrusted, which is sage advice.
But you then brought up my quote “I used to like and admire John McCain.”- and said “Remind me again when that changed?””- Ozzie
I know this may be too subtle for you to recognize, but lying and changing your position aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Changing your position and lying are the same thing when you say one thing to one group and another thing to another group within the same time frame.
I’m not sure it would be fair to characterize changing your opinion over a period of say, eight years, qualifies as lying.
Lying would be when you say you would meet with a despot without preconditions and then saying you didn’t say that.
Or saying that a country is small and not a threat and then saying it represents a significant threat.
Within a matter of weeks.
I know this may be too subtle for you to recognize, but lying and changing your position aren’t necessarily the same thing.- Brian
That’s true. I think the Real John McCain thought that the Relgious Right harbored “agents of intolerance,” but the John Mcain who wants to be president realized he can’t get elected without them (Hence the Palin pick)
Other YouTubes feature John MCain lying about what he said about Iraq, however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI
Anyone who holds a politicians up as a paragons of virtue hasn’t been paying attention to polticians.
“I’m sure he (Obama) has changed his position. All politicians do, though John McCain’s track record appears to be worse than most.”-Ozzie
“I used to like and admire John McCain.”- Ozzie
OK, so he started lying in 2000, since that’s when you decided you no longer admired him? Can we agree then, that prior to 2000 he was a man you admired and that as politicians go, he was an honorable man? If we can agree on that, then we can concentrate on his record since then.
Now, we’ve dealt with the immigration thing, the tax thing, the torture thing, and that leaves the regulation thing.
We’ll leave aside the Religious Right thing for now and that last piece of propaganda you linked. Let’s agree, no more youtube hit jobs. Let’s stick to articles where the quotes can be evaluated in context.
Of course, McCain has a record to be evaluated, unlike his opponent whose major achievement is running for President.
“THEN: March 2008: Told The Wall Street Journal, “I’m always for less regulation.” Called for “removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments” to financial markets.
NOW: Sept. 2008: As Wall Street melted down, declared, “We’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.””- Ozzie
As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee McCain has championed deregulation that has benefited consumers.
As it relates to the financial markets, this is by far the most complicated policy to explain, since it encompasses events over the last 10 years. When liberals criticize McCain’s regulatory postions on financial institutions, they usually start with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks and investment houses to merge. Actually, Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin were also championing this. In fact, Travelers and Citibank and already merged, providing the final push to advance the legislation.
In 2000, new options legislation, which exempted Credit Default Swaps, was passed. At the time Credit Default Swaps had a market of about $100 billion dollars.
At this point deregulation was doing its thing, markets were expanding after the recession and dot.com bubble of 2000. In 1999 Franklin Raines, Clinton’s former budget director and head of Fannie Mae, announced they were going to write $2 trillion dollars in subprime loans by 2010. Interest rates were low, investor’s looking for safety were sold ABS, with a layer of CDS to hedge the risk. In fact, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, economic advisors to Obama said that Gramm-Leach-Bliley had no impact on the current credit crisis.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/32011?cp=3
So what’s to regulate? There was a connection between ACORN, Countrywide and the GSE’s that needs to be addressed. And there is this:
By then the market was already declining, and Freddie already held enough of these loans to cause the meltdown.
What does need to be addressed is the proper equity requirements of writers of CDS. CDS are a two-edged sword. They were meant to provide a hedge for the subprime loans, and without them fewer of these loans would have been written. But then, wasn’t that the goal– to increase home ownership? Once again, it’s a balancing act. Increasing capital requirements of writers of CDS would be appropriate, in fact, leverage ratios are likely to be lower across the board for the forseeable future.
So, in this case, deregulation wasn’t the culprit, the lack of oversight of GSE’s, which democrats and some republicans are responsible for, since it is unlikely that in 2000 the proper regulations on CDS would have been implemented anyway. But all of this could have been corrected as late as 2004, and no one had the foresight to do that., including the Federal Reserve, Congress or the Executive Branch, with the exception of a few congressmen, including John McCain.
Let me remind you, if you think that de-regulation caused the credit crisis, remember that the future Treasury Secretary under an Obama administration disagrees with you.
John McCain who has served his country honorably, has demonstrated his commitment to his country with sacrifice and valor, and has a good plan to keep America secure and provide for its future prosperity.
John McCain is a man of his word and countries around the world will know that America is a country that keeps its word.
John McCain is committed to humane treatment of prisoners, without compromising the safety and integrity of our military and others.
Vote for John McCain if you share these goals.
I need to make a clarification to post #56:
“Or saying that a country is small and not a threat and then saying it represents a significant threat.
Within a matter of weeks.”- Me
I revisited that quote and Obama said Iran was a small country and not a threat when compared to the threat Russia posed during the cold war.
I certainly don’t want to accuse Obama of something he didn’t say.
In one sense he is correct. Russia had (and has) a nuclear arsenal that could have devastated life in America and elsewhere. So if you compare the few nuclear weapons Iran is likely to possess in the next few years (depending on who you believe), they certainly don’t seem to pose an Armageddon level of threat. But what would be the effect of one nuclear bomb set off in the middle east?
I guess it’s the difference of a world facing a nuclear winter and fighting extinction, and a world in global depression facing a slower, in some sense, more brutal extinction through regional wars as the world starves.
I don’t think this was unintentional on Obama’s part. What Obama has perfected is the ability to say what his audience wants to hear.
On May 18 in Oregon to a partisan crowd he said this:
In June at an AIPAC meeting he said this:
This was not a lie, merely Obama being cunning.
>>”The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”>>
Good luck with that…!
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/01/iranian-scientist-claims-earthquake-is-second-iranian-nuke-test/
OK, so he started lying in 2000, since that’s when you decided you no longer admired him? Can we agree then, that prior to 2000 he was a man you admired and that as politicians go, he was an honorable man? If we can agree on that, then we can concentrate on his record since then.- Brian
I dont know when he started lying, but I imagine it was well before 2000. I think to get elected to high office, most politicians have to have a loose relationship with the truth.
In 2000, however, John McCain supported policies and held a philosphy I could agree with. And as far as politicians go, he seemed better than most. I didnt realize at the time, that he was suported by the neocons (and admittedly, did not even know what a neocon was).
John McCain 2008 is not someone I could vote for for two reasons: He’s surrounded and supported by neocons whose philosphies have turned out to be both dangerous and wrong and he chose a Vice President whose main purpose is to appeal to the Religious Right.
I realize it must be frustrating that few people seem to care about William Ayers or the LA Times tape or claims of Socialism, Communism, etc. but to me, the Religious Right and the neocons have already proven how dangerous they are.
At this point, the only thing that might change my mind is if we discovered Obama is a vampire with a taste for small children.
And even then, (because I believe that a President Palin would be an even bigger disaster than President George W. Bush) I would not vote for McCain/Palin.
I’d do what a lot of Republicans I know have decided to do: I’d sit this election out.
Ozzie –
I don’t know where you live but I don’t know a single Republican who is sitting this out. Nor do I know a Republican who knows a Republican who is sitting this out.
It could be a location thing, I don’t know. But that is not what I’m seeing.
Deana
In Marin, “out” Republicans are tremendously engaged in this election and, more significantly, “closeted” Republicans are slowly coming out.