Obama and "The Audacity of Vanity", or - Who IS this guy?

Parent Cafe
161

<p>BCeagle:</p>

<p>So is it okay to practically accuse someone of treason because you’re in campaign mode? Obvisouly Joe Klein does not think so. </p>

<p>Yes, SOME people will say anything to get themselves elected. That certainly seems the case for McCain. I just expected better from him. </p>

<p>Oh, and Deval Patrick’s slogan was “Together we can”. Obviously, many members of the State legislature aren’t “together” with him on a range of issues. So, well, we cannot.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Allowed by whom? Who is supposed to dictate to the [free] press? This is not the PRC.</p>

162

<p>marite, some people – including apparently on CC – do find free speech & full coverage frightening. Lots of people – amazingly to me – believe that the press should be “controlled.” They don’t actually say it precisely with those words; they’re just “alarmed,” “bothered,” “perturbed,” “shocked,” etc. that press coverage of any particular person or event is not rationed & regulated & limited. </p>

<p>Hmmm.</p>

163

<p>“So is it okay to practically accuse someone of treason because you’re in campaign mode?”</p>

<p>How is he accusing someone of treason? Did Obama actually do something like order troops out of the region? Or is it “just words?”</p>

<p>“Obvisouly Joe Klein does not think so.”</p>

<p>Who is Joe Klein?</p>

<p>“Yes, SOME people will say anything to get themselves elected. That certainly seems the case for McCain. I just expected better from him.”</p>

<p>Seems like fair game to me.</p>

<p>"Oh, and Deval Patrick’s slogan was “Together we can”.</p>

<p>Yeah I know. I spend a lot of time in Massachusetts and am a half mile from the border right now. Same deal though. A guy with no experience saying anything to get elected. Gets elected and does squat except to propose big spending when people are losing their homes and businesses are not expanding here because of the high cost of housing and the high cost of employment.</p>

<p>“Obviously, many members of the State legislature aren’t “together” with him on a range of issues. So, well, we cannot.”"</p>

<p>Well, he’s a Democrat so he should have been able to work with them. It seems like Weld, Romney and Celluci did a better job working with the legislature than Patrick has been able to muster. It doesn’t help to come into a confrontational legislature with a chip on your shoulder, a cadillac, new drapes and a phone call for your cronies.</p>

164

<p>

</p>

<p>Ok epiph. Whatever you say.</p>

<p>Sorry if I seem to “dominate the thread like I’m some political authority”. I’m just standing up for my candidate among the Obama supporters around here. Maybe, just maybe, I can present enough info or logic to earn McCain a vote or two. In my view, the future of our country depends on it. </p>

<p>Sorry if it bothers you.
And I certainly don’t mean to usurp YOUR authority!</p>

165

<p>I don’t know.</p>

<p>I felt the press gave President Bush a pass on the lead up to the war.
All was glorious. </p>

<p>At the time, sad to say, I did not think of this as the press reveling in “free speech”.</p>

<p>I thought the press was getting in line.
For what I thought was ‘good-reason’ I opposed it then. In retrospect I believe many have now come to share this view. Many, not blinded by partisanship and nationalism, saw it at the time.</p>

<p>The press is not there to bask in the light of celebrity or to get with the program. They are trained to be and are supposed to cast a cynical eye on the governors in the interest of the governed.</p>

<p>I do not find the current situation with Senator Obama and his entourage --I mean ‘press’-- coverage egregious. Just worth noting and considering.</p>

<p>To represent “hope” and ‘change’ to his constituents is a wonderful thing; but the press is trained to rise above this infatuation. Now, it seems fine. Will it continue during an Obama presidency? If they did it for a candidate they had little love for, George Bush, I fear what they will do for a candidate they love.</p>

<p>Worth watching.</p>

166

<p>Re audacity, I’m reminded of the last time a lawyer and noted orator from Illinois with one term in office–in that case the House of Representatives–ran for President. How dare he! He must be an entitled egomaniac!</p>

<p>And all those ridiculously colorful stories about his childhood! WHat a flim-flam man!!</p>

167

<p>“marite, some people – including apparently on CC – do find free speech and full coverage frightening. Lots of people --amazing to me – believe that the press should be “controlled.” They don’t say it precisely with those words, they’re just “alarmed,” “bothered,” “perturbed,” “shocked” etc. that press coverage of any particular person or event is not rationed & regulated & limited”</p>

<p>I think you miss the point. A lot of pundits are taking issue with Obama’s behaving as if he is already Commander in Chief during this trip. They are taking issue with his presumption, if not pomposity. This is supposed to be a “learning” trip for him, and he is meddling in foreign policy as if he already knows all the answers (characteristically). Apparently he had the audacity (characteristically) to even tell Gen. Petraeus that he would not be listening to commanders on the ground, but said, in so many words, that he would be directing the war himself. Yes, even Andrea Mitchell was “shocked” about this. It is not about controlling coverage or the message (although some had questions about BHO’s attempt at control). His attitude that he is somehow already qualified to fix the entire world at this stage of his career is a legitimate concern to many.</p>

168

<p>“Apparently he had the audacity (characteristically) to even tell Gen. Petraeus that he would not be listening to commanders on the ground, but said, in so many words, that he would be directing the war himself. Yes, even Andrea Mitchell was “shocked” about this”</p>

<p>This is the first I have heard of these comments. The title of this thread just keeps getting more applicable as the days go on.</p>

169

<p>**Yes, we need to cut these guys some slack when it comes to gaffes. They’re undoubtedly exhausted half the time and under a lot of pressure. McCain’s gaffes, however, are getting worrisome.</p>

<p>**Yes, Obama is getting more positive press coverage than McCain these days. Is it fair? Probably not. But the media’s pendulum does tend to swing.</p>

<p><strong>Cartera–Oh my G</strong>! A “comfort capsule!” That was a very interesting link.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You are so right! I used to volunteer with a local organization that served the homeless and low-income residents of our community. It was heartbreaking and infuriating(!) to see how many of the men who showed up for food, clothing, or just a safe, clean place to sit down, were Vietnam vets. These were human beings who had gone through the hell of war for their country and were now forgotten, just invisible people on the street, with nothing. What an absolute disgrace, and the fact that we STILL don’t take proper care of our vets is an outrage.</p>

170

<p>

</p>

<p>Ha ha. Well, that’s why the position is called Commander in Chief. How terribly Trumanesque of Obama to say that while he will welcome and listen to input from military people, the buck stops with him, the Commander in Chief. He’d be in charge and take full responsibility.</p>

<p>This would be a welcome change from George Bush who was to much a whimp – and lacking in political capital – to be able to shoulder that responsibility himself. He was always deferring to his underlings.</p>

171

<p>McCain’s trip abroad didn’t garner anywhere near the coverage of Obama’s. The three anchors didn’t travel with him, and there were no gushing articles about the dashing way that McCain wears his jacket. There’s no question of parity here. I wonder if there will be a backlash, though, as Obama is still supposed to be making his case to the American voters, not imposing himself into a position for which he has not been elected.</p>

172

<p>

</p>

<p>I hope you’re wrong. McCain promised that his campaign would be a reasonable discourse on issues, rather than ugly personal attacks, and I took him at his word. I’d rather he steered clear of nasty remarks like “Obama would rather lose a war to win a political campaign.” That does not fall into the category of reasonable discourse on issues, and, in fact, sounds more like a junkyard dog backed into a corner and fighting for its life. I wish he wouldn’t go there.</p>

173

<p>“Ha ha. Well, that’s why the position is called Commander in Chief. How terribly Trumanesque of Obama to say that while he will welcome and listen to input from military people, the buck stops with him, the Commander in Chief. He’d be in charge and take full responsibility.”</p>

<p>I’m glad that you feel comfortable that Obama has the necessary skills to direct this war on his own. Which points out one of his main flaws… he thinks he is so far superior to everyone that he can do no wrong. Very scary.
Even scarier that his groupies are buying it.</p>

174

<p>If Bush had listened to the generals on the ground, we might have finished the job in Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Obama is right that a commander-in-chief has to consider everything, not just the situation in one particular area. That’s why we have a commander-in-chief.</p>

<p>This is from the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, July 22, 2008:

[Adm</a>. Mullen: Iraq War Affects Deployment in Afghanistan | Online NewsHour | July 22, 2008 | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec08/mullen_07-22.html]Adm”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec08/mullen_07-22.html)</p>

175

<p>It’s a little late in the game for McCain to start noticing favorable press coverage. He didn’t seem to mind when it favored him. </p>

<p>“On Sunday afternoon McCain fired up the grill again, inviting nearly 40 reporters to his spread in Page Springs, about 15 minutes outside Sedona, for an on-the-record barbecue… Perhaps this scene gives some insight into why McCain jokingly refers to the media as his base. McCain and his aides had initially hoped to keep the soiree at his cabin off the record, billing it as a strictly social gathering. But they reversed course when some members of the press said they wouldn’t be able to come unless the senator was on the record. To compromise, they allowed reporters to bring their notebooks but banned tape recorders.” [emphasis mine]
[McCain</a> Feeds His ?Base? BBQ | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com](<a href=“McCain Feeds His 'Base' BBQ”>McCain Feeds His 'Base' BBQ)</p>

<p>McCain has always been skillful at currying favor with the press who are supposed to be covering him. Glenn Greenwald at Salon, among a few others (like Frank Rich in this past Sunday’s NYT), has documented McCain gaffes and policy weaknesses that the press has been willing to overlook and excuse, because… well, he’s John McCain–the Patriot, the Hero, the Maverick (“Top Gun” anyone?). Now he’s complaining about his base’s “love affair” with his opponent and starting to sound like a bitter member of the First Wives Club.</p>

<p>On Middle Eastern policy, his supposed area of expertise, he’s still stuck on staying long enough to win a war we’ve already lost. What’s next, peace with honor? </p>

<p>“Above all the Bush administration was determined to put off the day, at least until after the Presidential election in 2008, when it had to admit that the US had failed in Iraq.”
[Journalist</a> Patrick Cockburn on Iraq’s Tenuous Calm : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19202062]Journalist”>Journalist Patrick Cockburn on Iraq's Tenuous Calm : NPR)</p>

<p>Yo, John! What happens when we stop bribing the Sunnis? What happens to the Sunnis when the majority Shiites take over and won’t share power? What happens to the Kurds? Where do we get the troops to send to Afghanistan? By what measure do you judge the surge a success?</p>

<p>“It is true that fewer American soldiers are dying today, but that is not the proper metric for success. Of course less Americans are dying. In 2006 the conflict in Iraq stopped being a war of national liberation against the American occupation and became chiefly a war between Iraqis for control of Iraq. They proper standard for judging Iraq is the quality of life for Iraqis, and sadly, for most Iraqis, life was better under Saddam. There is no reconciliation occurring between the various sects and ethnic groups, the warring communities, and Shiites will not allow the territorial gains they made to be chipped away by Sunnis returning to their homes, and they are determined to keep the Sunni militias out of power. Violence is slightly down in Iraq in large part because the goal of an earlier stage of the conflict—removing Sunnis from Shiite areas and Shiites from Sunni areas—has largely succeeded, and there are fewer people to kill.”
<a href=“http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf[/url]”>http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
(Reporter, April 2008)</p>

<p>As for his opponent…</p>

<p>

If this is true (I didn’t hear or read about it), then Ms. Mitchell needs to return to the classroom. We are a democratic republic with a military that serves at the discretion and direction of civilians. It is up to the President, taking into account expert military advice, to set policy with regard to national security–which is exactly what I heard Obama state yesterday in his brief televised press conference on the ground in Jordan. I was glad to hear him articulate his understanding of that.</p>

176

<p>I believe Mitchell was just commenting on BHO’s “audacity” to speak like this at this point, since he is supposed to be over there “learning” about the situation on the ground. It seems he has nothing to learn.</p>

177

<p>Everyone needs to be realistic…the majority of people who show up at the polls have made up their mind. I do not know one person who is still sitting on the fence. Someone tell me who they know that hasn’t made their decision yet and has voted in the primary.</p>

<p>We can all discuss this until the cows come home, but I have yet to read 1 post that says I see the light…I am now crossing over</p>

178

<p>

</p>

<p>Strange that while lots of Obamatrons want us to go back in time and head towards Socialism, countries like the UK and France have gotten the supply side message by observing the success of those policies here (lower taxes, sound money, promotion of free trade, reduced regulations, and the like). Check out how many foreign countries now have low-rate flat taxes. Supply side/free market shifts are even occurring in places like China and India.</p>

<p>It is common sense to reason that increasing taxes on the most productive members of society will have a dramatic negative effect on output, employment, production, savings and investment. Both Kennedy and Reagan BTW, effectively used supply side policies.</p>

<p>Income disparity is not a US phenomenon. Income disparity could be due to globalization and technology, but it isn’t George Bush’s fault or the result of his “tax breaks for the rich”. It’s a global problem, even in countries with fairly Socialist economies. Furthermore, in the US, it isn’t that the stature of the poor has worsened, it is that the stature of the rich has gotten disproportionately better (in a Democratic, Capitalist society, that’s supposed to be OK). It cannot be ignored that in the process, major indicators of the total American population’s welfare show significant progress over the past quarter century. We are not where we need to be, but much has improved at all ends of the economic spectrum as a result of supply side policies.</p>

<p>The ignorance of promoting class warfare, and standing up in front of crowds and telling them how horrible everything is and how much government can do for them, is that the poor do worse under leftist economic policies. Just because the rich have gotten richer doesn’t mean that the poor have not done better as well. The economy is not a zero sum game. Making the rich poorer does not guarantee that the poor with get richer. Common sense dictates that they will do worse.</p>

<p>While markets, when given time to work, are very efficient, governments’ tax increases are a very inefficient way to increase revenue. Resources go to pay for lawyers, accountants, asset shifts, moves, job changes, cheating, etc. Government compensation budgets swell as bureaucracy increases. Two liberal UC Berkeley economists named Romer found that increasing taxes just 1% of GDP has a very negative short and long-term effect on the economy, which after ten quarters reduces real GDP by 3%.</p>

<p>You do get some short term inflation if you shock the economy on the supply or the demand side, but not a long term inflation problem which is too much money chasing too few goods. The solution is to control money growth and stimulate the production of goods, and inflation clears. As far as deficits go, and the reduction of taxes reducing them, tax cuts will work better than tax increases if given the time to work.</p>

<p>Obama thinks that increasing taxes on those who are productive, and giving more money to those who are unproductive, will increase the volume of work done. Do you?</p>

<p>Obama believes that increasing the capital gains tax rate will increase the level of savings and investment. Do you?</p>

<p>Something like 97% of the taxes are paid by about 3% of the people. Do you believe that the economy will benefit from making the 3% or so pay more? What future will our economy have when the majority of Americans pay little or no taxes at all?</p>

<p>Obama believes that even if you reduce the amount of after tax returns expected by the entrepreneurs and innovators in our society, they will have the same motivation to work their magic on the marketplace. Does this make sense to you?</p>

<p>I think I’d like to change the title of this thread now to, “The Audacity of Calling Yourself A Progressive, When You Are Headed in the Very Opposite Direction of Progress”.</p>

179

<p>Andrea Mitchell was upset by the lack of media access before the news conference Obama held when in Jordan. I don’t remember her being “schocked” by any particular statement. The press was much happier once Obama left Iraq/Afghanistan.</p>

<p>Isn’t it interesting when someone here who dislikes Obama gets riled up they start inserting the Barak Hussein Obama idiom-the veiled reference to being Muslim ? Like thats going to upset an Obama supporter? Having the name Hussein in the Muslim world is like having the name John, or last name Smith here or Rivera,Garcia or Juan if you are of Hispanic origin,or Chu if you are Chinese.</p>

<p>I think everyone should just leave the McCainite Obama bashers to stew in their own juices in these threads they start.They can watch their candidate implode over the next few months.</p>

180

<p>Ilsa,</p>

<p>I believe Andrea Mitchell is just tired of how journalists are not being balanced and she is disappointed in her colleagues. She may or may not support Obama, her point was that he is getting a free pass.
It is interesting that 49% of Americans believe the media is in the tank with Obama according to Rasmussen</p>

<p>

</p>