Thursday, January 22, 2009

My Greatest Confession, Is Barack Obama My President?


The Supreme Court made the final decision on which the President was….. George W. Bush was declared the winner and so he moved into the White House. As he moved in half the country checked out. They proclaimed ‘He is not my President.’ And hatred against the man has ensued ever since and call me a skeptic but I doubt it will end. It was this discourse that I believe more than anything else hurt this country


By Leette Eaton- White

First I must give my confession. I cried watching Barack Obama during the DNC. I wept. I saw my country change in way that I could not have really grasped before. I saw a relatively young man of color accept his party’s nomination to run on the head of the ticket for President of the United States. And it touched my heart. Now I would love to tell you I became happy and hopeful for B.H.O’s brand of change and decided to vote for him because he is black and I am black and for emotional reasons I choose to support him. But that crazy business just didn’t happen. My cries and tears increased. New emotions of fear and despair for what awaited this nation took over now that I knew in my heart, even then, that he would win the election. I suddenly became despondent and angry that we had let this happen. And I said I wouldn’t accept him.

So the time has now past and Barack Obama is President of the United States. Now stands a man, leader of the free world, whose politics I have disdain for, and who I do not trust. So the question remains: Is Barack Obama my President? To answer that question I have to look back. Back to a time when I was still no more than a child. Barely a teenager. The year 2000. The Supreme Court made the final decision on who the President was"….. George W. Bush was declared the winner and so he moved into the White House. As he moved in half the country checked out. They proclaimed ‘He is not my President.’ And hatred against the man has ensued ever since and call me a skeptic but I doubt it will end.

It was this discourse that I believe more than anything else hurt this country. My country was hurt. My country which I love, which I have always loved and been proud of. But on this Inauguration Day for the first time in my life I was truly disappointed with, not my country, but with the choice so many within it made. And with every media outlet for their blind devotion in supporting such a choice. I was not only disappointed, I was angry, yet again. But even with my anger I love my country. I love my country more than I hate the politics of anyone leading it.

So is Barack Obama my President…. He was elected by the people who make this nation so, regrettably, yes. He is my President. Do I support my President…. I support my country, so yes, by extension of supporting my country, I support my President. Am I rooting for my President? NO. I am not. I will not give Barack anymore than this county needs me to. I will not be enthusiastic about anything he does, and readers, you can bet I will be the first to sound the alarm and complain the second he places a toe out of line. Remember, he works for us, not the other way around. So America be the boss…. Don’t give your employees too much power, or you shall find yourself out of it.

Leette Eaton- White is a native New Yorker and college student seeking an Associate’s Degree in Criminal Justice and a Bachelor’s Degree in Forensic Psychology and has been a Republican since the age of 15.”

44 comments:

Deana said...

Ms. Eaton-White -

This is a wonderful, wonderful piece!

I share many of the sentiments you expressed in your essay. However, as I am not black, I realize that your thoughts and feelings on certain issues with regard to President Obama are probably even more profound.

I am absolutely terrified what is in store for America. Beyond the fact that he strikes me as being almost socialist and does not appear to value a strong national defense, I strongly suspect that before all of this is over, race relations will worse than they have been in years.

I feel like I'm just waiting . . . waiting for the disaster to come upon us.

In my heart, I KNEW we were ready for a black president. I thought we had been ready for it for some time. But what we NEEDED was a black Republican, one with a strong record who had impeccable national defense credentials. That way, when things got tough (as they always do), no reasonable person on either side of the political spectrum could claim that he was putting our country at risk. It would likely just be an issue of not agreeing with his policies.

I hope beyond all hope that I am wrong about this. I would be thrilled to announce to everyone I know that I was wrong.

Time will tell.

In the meantime, take care and keep writing!

The Rude Dog said...

As early as '95 I remember Republicans looking for Colin Powell to run.

This last election, when it was still supposed to be Hillary, people wanted Condi Rice to run on the ticket.

Now there is the discussion on Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele, and none of the above has to do with Barack Obama.

rmrd said...

As I recall a group of GOP Conservatives appeared on camera to challenge a Powell candidacy.

From the NYT
Powell Record Is Criticized By Conservatives in G.O.P.



By RICHARD L. BERKE
Published: November 3, 1995

The fledging drive to stop Gen. Colin L. Powell from seeking the Republican Presidential nomination escalated today as a parade of conservatives vilified General Powell as having a flawed military record, as being too liberal on social issues and as posing a grave threat to their party's future.

One speaker, Morton Blackwell, the Republican national committeeman from Virginia, went as far as to suggest that some conservatives were promoting the general only because he is black.

The handful of conservatives who are booming the Powell candidacy have taken leave of their senses," Mr. Blackwell said. "If General Powell were a white general holding these views, they would not consider for a moment supporting him for our party's nomination. He is wrong on the major public policy issues. If he claims to shift to the right, he'll sound like Bill Clinton."

Though Mr. Blackwell did not cite them by name, prominent conservatives who have praised General Powell include former Vice President Dan Quayle, former Housing Secretary Jack F. Kemp and former Education Secretary William J. Bennett.

But in a show of unity before reporters at the National Press Club, several other, less prominent, conservatives warned that the popularity of General Powell was fleeting, and that he was too closely aligned with the party's fading Rockefeller wing of moderates to capture the nomination. They also vowed to thwart any effort to put him on the national ticket as Vice President.

"We know from his record that General Powell is risk averse," said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress political action committee. "He may not want to run after this press conference."

Even so, the spectacle of a dozen conservatives standing side-by-side determined to block the candidacy of someone who has not even announced his intentions belied their contention that General Powell was unelectable. Despite their rough oratory, most speakers, mindful of the general's popularity, were careful not to get too personal.

"I cannot find any reason why any conservative would want to sacrifice the work of decades on the altar of political celebrity," said David A. Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union who is an adviser to Senator Bob Dole's campaign.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a Pentagon official in the Reagan Administration, said he had been reluctant to speak because he had been "privileged to consider Colin a friend for over a decade." But Mr. Gaffney went on to criticize the general as "too cautious to be Commander in Chief."

And he said General Powell's hesitation about combat in the Persian Gulf and destroying the Iraqi Republican Guard demonstrated that he was "a risk averse and politically hypersensitive military officer."

In one of the baldest threats, Carol Long, director of the National Right to Life political action committee, said that if General Powell ran, "our top priority during the primaries will be his defeat."

A few other speakers raised their hands when asked who would not back General Powell if he won the party's nomination. The speakers brushed aside polls showing that for now, General Powell remains very popular among Republican primary voters. They also dismissed the notion that they represent only a narrow spectrum of conservatives in Washington.

"Colin Powell's place on the Republican ticket, at either end, guarantees a third-party candidate, the loss of the House by the Republicans and the re-election of Bill Clinton," said Gordon S. Jones of the Association of Concerned Taxpayers.

Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Christian Coalition, who has shied from attacking General Powell, issued a statement that he "regrets being unable to attend" the news conference. The statement included a list of previous quotations in which Mr. Reed questioned General Powell's prospects.

General Powell's spokesman, Col. F. William Smullen, said he and the general spent the day at their office, did not see the news conference and therefore had no comment on it.

"We had so many things back to back that we didn't have an opportunity to hear what they had to say," Colonel Smullen said.

Deana said...

Hi rdmd -

I note your point and appreciate reading the article. However, the "problem" with Colin Powell is that many people have felt that he was not truly conservative. (And after his recent support of President Obama, it appears that are right.)

I know that many at DOD and in the military had concerns about him, believing he was not aggressive enough. That may be - I cannot comment on that.

But your average American felt comfortable with him. I certainly did. And to be honest, I'd sleep better knowing if he were in the White House.

Deana

rmrd said...

Deana
Appreciate the response.

Powell felt comfortable with Obama. Average Americans felt comfortable with Powell.

Frank Gaffney and the neocons were uncomfortable with Powell. Apparently they are also uncomfortable with Michael Steele.

Given the after effect Bush style Conservatism, the GOP's base will make the party a minority in DC for a long time.

Deana said...

rmrd -

Hmmm. I strongly suspect that Powell's comfort with Obama is due (in part) to race. Many, many average Americans who would be comfortable with Mr. Powell are quite terrified with President Obama and NOT because of race.

As for Mr. Steele - again, I'd be delighted if he were more conservative but every single time I see him on TV, I can't help but like him. Genuinely like him. He exudes warmth and credibility. And integrity. Again, he's not a conservative's conservative but . . .

As for President Bush, I do not believe that he ever ran as a conservative. Mark Steyn said it best, I believe: George Bush was Tony Blair with a ranch.

As much as I admire President Bush, he was and always will be a republican and a leftist one at that.

I guess I'm not being very subtle here am I? My disgust with Republicans and their willingness to go along with leftist ideology and initiatives is showing.

Remind me not to play poker!

Deana

rmrd said...

Deana

Blacks have voted for Whites. Al Sharpton got only 1% of the vote from Blacks in NYC. Hillary Clinton had 70% of the Black vote early in the Primaries. Blacks voted for O'Malley as mayor of Baltimore, a majority Black city.

The idea that Colin Powell, Ken Duberstein, Christopher Buckley etc voted for Obama because of race is an outrageous concept. The votes were cast on the basis of economic and national security issues.

Blacks who vote for Democratic Party members are on a plantation. Voters saw the GOP POTUS, House and Senate, and rejected their policies by voting for the other party.

Deana said...

rmrd -

I realize that blacks have voted for whites for many, many years. But this time, it was different. This was THE top office in the land and for the first time, a black man had an excellent chance of winning.

I'm not saying that race is the only reason Mr. Powell voted for Obama. As I indicated earlier, Powell has been known to lean to the left before (which is why many conservatives were not comfortable with him) so there may have been SOME overlap in his beliefs and what he thinks Obama believes.

But rmrd, anyone who did not rely on the MSM during the campaign and is familiar with Obama's past and his stated beliefs over the years knows that he is one step away from being socialist. I simply do not believe that Mr. Powell is a socialist.

Obama had THE MOST LEFTIST record in the senate . . .way beyond Clinton and other presidential candidates in this election and beyond the leftist candidates that ran in previous presidential elections. Did Powell vote for Clinton? Gore? Kerry? I may be wrong but I don't think so.

So how do you explain his jump from supporting and working in republican circles for years and years to all of a sudden voting for President Obama? I personally suspect it was due to the racial issue.

Deana

rmrd said...

Deana

Jim Leach, Ken Duberstein, William Weld, Bill Ruckelshaus, Susan Eisenhower, etc voted for Obama. All had voted for the GOP previously.

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3341

The country lost confidence in McCain/Palin on the economic and security front. More than 70% of the country agrees with the moves Obama is making.

Just as those suggesting that Obama could not win because of the Bradley effect were in error, casting African-American votes as somehow racist is not fact-based either. People rejected McCain/Palin and the GOP.

The GOP's public face is becoming
Rush "barack The Magic Negro" Limbaugh. Limbaugh openly states that he wants Obama to fail.

sbm said...

NO...Rush is not the Face of the GOP..... Like the left would love it to be.... if that’s the case then Moore, Mahr and Nader are the face of the left.

RUSH is a performer who makes money by outraging folks.

When anyone votes for anyone (or not) based simply on the color of there skin it is racism.
How else would you explain California and the Gay marriage vote?

Don't get me wrong every American has the right to vote for whomever they wish based on whatever they wish.

Oh and by the way if Obama's ultimate goal is to socialize America then I also want him to fail.

rmrd said...

sbm

could you explain this in more detail?

.......When anyone votes for anyone (or not) based simply on the color of their skin it is racism.
How else would you explain California and the Gay marriage vote?

Are you saying that the vote on Prop 8 was racist? If so could you explain?

Michael Moore is defined as a part of the left. When Sanjay Gupta was floated as a possible Surgeon General, the on air disagreement between Gupta and Moore on Universal Health immediately arose as one reason to reject Gupta. Moore said Gupta was a part of the pharmaceutical industry.

Mahr, an outspoken critic of GW Bush is also identified with the left. Nader is considered by most as a nutjob. Nader criticized Obama for "talking White". Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are also identified with the left.

Limbaugh, Ann Coulter et al are associated with the right and the GOP.

Deana said...

Hi rmrd:

I did not say that black Americans voted for Obama because of his race (how would we know? Black Americans have been voting Democrat for decades so who is to say whether each black American voted for Obama because he is black or because he is a Democrat?).

What I said was that I strongly suspect that Mr. Powell voted for Obama because he is black. Again, here is a man who (as far as we know) never voted Democrat for a national office in the past and then, pouf! all of a sudden, here comes the MOST LEFTIST senator in the senate with NO executive experience and a very suspect past and Powell votes for him and we are supposed to believe it's not about race?

I'm sorry, I may be wrong on this but it just doesn't add up.

I also would echo what SBM said: if Obama plans to socialize America, then I want him to fail as well. That does not mean that I want him to fail as a person - that would be awful of me to want another person to fail as a person.

But rmrd, we KNOW that socialism fails. We know this because we have decades and decades of evidence from a multitude of other countries that went down this route. When we know that going down a certain road inevitably leads us to a place that does not lead to freedom and prosperity for the greatest amount of people, why would I want someone advocating that we go down that road to be successful? I want anyone to fail who wants to do things that will bring harm to our country and our people.

Deana

P.S. And of course 70% of Americans say they agree with the moves Obama is making. He hasn't even been President for a week yet!

Look, rmrd, I would love, love, love to be wrong about this. I'd be thrilled if four years from now, I could sing with joy that I was wrong. But I am feeling this in my heart - this is NOT going to end well. And I'm scared. For me, my family, and my fellow Americans. I love "us" as a people and I think we are going to suffer.

Again, I pray that I am wrong. Why don't we make a date to come back here four years from now? If I'm wrong, it would bring me joy to take you out to a nice steak dinner. Okay? ;-)

rmrd said...

See you in four years.

I think the reason that the door has been opened for more regulation of business is that business leaders are seen as unethical.

Corporate heads feeling that deserve bonuses as their companies stock price fell and workers were laid off demonstes that business ethics have become a figment of the imagination.

The fear that you have of "socialism" equals the fear the I had of unrestricted government surveillance, fighting an unwise war in the Middle East etc under GW Bush.

I saw political appointments turn agencies like the Department of Justice into punch lines. I lived through the horrors of GW Bush. A change was need. An elderly McCain and inarticulate Palin seemed to offer another GW Bush term.

I hope that in fours years we will be in the process of climbing out of an abyss ushered in by GW Bush.

Deana said...

rmrd -

Out of curiosity, would you please identify the horrors you personally lived through under President Bush?

I mean, when I hear someone say a sentence like "I lived through the horrors of ...", I typically think of regimes like Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Amin, Khomeini, Hussein, Assad, and so forth. If Bush were truly like these individuals, you and I would not be having this conversation. If we did, you would die for having said something negative about Bush and I would die for having even talked to you. In fact, we'd be fortunate if our innocent little discussion didn't result in our families being sent to prison. Or worse.

Please - tell me what evidence you have that there was "unrestricted" government surveillance.

And if you think that agencies only became the butt of jokes during the Bush administration, than your knowledge of the federal government is limited. (And there is no reason to be ashamed of that at all! It's GOOD that not everyone is familiar with government - it means that they are out working hard in the private sector and being productive! Ha!) The disdain that is held by people for federal agencies or by one federal agency for another is normal.

Besides, I would be very, very cautious making a claim that President Bush's appointments were jokes.

Recall that President Obama has appointed a man to head Treasury (and therefore the IRS) - a brilliant man, we are roundly assured - who clearly cheated on his taxes and yet is trying to make us feel better about his appointment by saying that he simply made "careless, avoidable mistakes."

Really? I mean, really?? OK, great. So we are supposed to overlook the careless, avoidable mistakes he made on his taxes year after year after year in spite of multiple reminders by his employer to pay those taxes AND being reimbursed BY his employer for the cost of those taxes oh, and yeah, hand over the reins of the Treasury Department to him, which I think we can all agree might be slightly more difficult to manage than his personal income taxes and yet not worry because with this bigger, more important responsibility, he surely won’t make similar mistakes, right? Right, rmrd?

Talk about a punch line . . .

Deana

OutOfTheBlu said...

wow this is a great piece and i so appreciate this site. i wrote something a few days ago as well and i think we largely share the same views.
i'd be honored if you checked it out sometime.
peace

http://outoftheblu.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/ive-never-felt-like-this-about-someone/

rmrd said...

Deana

I was using US metrics. I would refer to a wreck with mangled metal and bodies as horrible. I realize that it would not be as horrible as missiles flying in Israel or Gaza. I would refer to poverty in urban areas, the Delta or Appalachia as horrible. Of course that would not compare to the bloated bellies from poverty stricken areas in the third world.
I guess I now realize that using your metric, Obama cannot have anything close to a horrible administration.

Regarding the Justice Dept Freddo, as GW referred to Gonzales had the poorest memory in history. The DOJ was stacked with politically biased Liberty University graduates. The Civil Rights Division included a hierarchy that referred to a cum laude graduate from an elite law school as an Affirmative Action hire. The general consensus is that the DOJ needs to be cleansed.

Regarding domestic surveillance, Even Bob Barr has warned against the dangers of the Bush program. Private recordings between Americans calling spouses have been collected.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/we-told-you-so-government_b_133493.html

On hearing the charges of a NSA whistle-blower named Tice, Sen Rockefeller replied that he wouldn't be surprise if the program had captured data from his conversations. We really don't know the full extent of surveillance.

From that dead White guy, who opposed slavery, Ben Franklin:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

shauna said...

Read My American Journey by Colin Powell. In his book he states that he voted for Kennedy, LBJ, and Carter. Powell repeatedly says he doesn't associate himself with any political party.

shauna said...

also, this use of socialism as a fear tactic is annoying.

when you pick up the phone and dial 911 for the police or fire dept...how do you think these people get paid?

when you send your kids to school...how do the teachers, principal, etc. get paid?

when you loose your job (whether you are a republican or democrat) and you go to the unemployment office...where does the money from your unemployment check come from?

when you retire you file for social security. or when you spouse dies your child receives their social security. or when you become disabled you file for disability.

when someone gets hit by a car and is knocked unconscious...that person gets medical treatment whether that person has insurance or not. no one waits for the unconscious person to become conscious and then asks if the person has medical insurance and lets say that person doesn't. no one just lets that person die on the side of the road.

we use socialism all the time but no one complains about this aspect of socialism. does socialism always FAIL? what would your life be like if these aspects of socialism were taken away?

rmrd said...

shauna good point. Actually the Powell discussion began with a post stating that Republicans were looking for Powell to run for President.

Anonymous said...

Powell got the memo.

White conservatives don't vote for black folks.

Period.

When are these black Republicans going to wake up and recognize the 800 lb gorilla in their living rooms?

A black democrat is in the White House and a black republican can't even get elected to Congress.

The problem ain't US, it's YOU.

uptownsteve said...

Anonymous was me.

Deana said...

Rmrd -

Hmmm. I guess I was expecting a link to actual analysis and not an opinion piece on the Huffington Post. But that’s ok – Barr is a libertarian and I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas.

Many people on both sides of the aisle had and continue to have concerns about where we draw the line between liberty and security. Perhaps you have forgotten but I distinctly recall the Bush administration being damned for not having “connected the dots.” And yet, we don’t want to give them the tools necessary to connect the dots. Reviewing certain large, suspicious financial transactions in which one party is overseas? No – we aren’t supposed to do that because it smacks of government surveillance. Monitoring telephone conversations in which one party is overseas and the other one here in the U.S. who is known to have traveled to Afghanistan prior to the fall of the Taliban and is suspected to have attended a terrorist training camp? No – that is government interference. They could be talking to family members you know.

Look – I’m not going to sit here and argue that it is completely ok to establish limitless government monitoring efforts in order to prevent any and all security problems. It isn’t. As a nation, we have to figure out where our comfort level is between security and liberty. But leftists want it both ways: Bush was roundly blamed for not having prevented 9/11. If we as a people choose not to have systems in place to help catch people who want to do us harm, then when something massive DOES happen (and just FYI, 3,000 people dying in one day is bad but it pales in comparison to what could happen), no one can complain. We will just bury our dead, hope that we won’t get hit again, and get up and go to work the next day. No more of these investigations or hearings or claims by anyone that government should have known or, as the left liked to say, “should have connected the dots.”

I do want to say that I am heartened, however, to see that you are familiar with at least one of the sayings of one our founding fathers. I realize that studying them and what they created is no longer in fashion so I’m always encouraged when people DO remember and realize that they might have something to say about where we are today.

Take, for example, socialism. What do you think Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and others might have to say about the ceaseless insertion of government into every aspect of our lives? I suspect they might have something quite interesting to say were they to be informed that our current president supports (and is going to get) tax payer funding of abortions and contraception, bailouts of private businesses, socialized medicine, and (my new favorite) an $820 billion “stimulus” package in which only 7% of the funds will be sent in this year. (And isn't that kind of weird? I mean, Obama keeps telling us we are in this crisis and he clearly believes that the "stimulus" package will help so why not spend it all right now? Oh, that's right. There are important elections coming up in 2010.)

Now. Shauna finds it “annoying“ all this worry about more and more socialist tendencies creeping into our lives. Shauna, do NOT take my word for it. PLEASE. Go and find this stuff out for yourself. Ask yourself – why is it that European and other countries that have strong socialist practices tend to have consistently higher unemployment? Why do small businesses have more difficulty starting in those countries? Why are their workers considerably and consistently less productive than American workers? (Hint: it is not because people in these other countries are stupid.) Why is America home to the greatest amount of innovations year after year after year? Again – don’t take my word for it: go check out Nobel and other international award recipients, particularly the sciences, and tally up how many are American in comparison to other countires.

Shauna – when it comes to identifying what government should and should not be in the business of doing ask yourself this simple question: Who typically does it better?

National defense? Government does it better. Hands down.

Education? Well, that is up for debate. I am not against public education at all (I went to public school as a kid) but in many urban areas, if money were no object, where would you want YOUR kids to go to school? Here’s an even better question: why do you think the Obamas chose to send their children to private school? (And don’t say “security.” They sent their kids to private school in Chicago back when he was a nobody and busy writing his two autobiographies.)

Social security? Again, I’m not violently against it but I think we can all agree that it is in terrible condition right now and if you are younger than 40, even though you have faithfully paid your taxes while you have worked (unlike Geithner, Obama’s pick for treasurer), you are unlikely to see any of it. Meanwhile, if you have been investing in a good 401k, you have every chance of earning a 10% return on your investment over the long haul. That adds up to serious money over a lifetime.

I agree that there are LIMITED circumstances in which government assistance is necessary but it should be limited and only in absolute emergencies. We are in the process of setting up a situation in which government is responsible for everything and that is not in our best interest in terms of prosperity or freedom.

What leftists never seem to remember is that EVERY SINGLE TIME GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN SOMETHING (regardless of the millions of good intentions they use to justify it), GOVERNMENT WINDS UP DICTATING AND CONTROLLING EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF IT. This is not a left vs. right opinion on government interference – this is just the way it is. It is the nature of government. So think about that when you claim to want freedom and liberty.

Back to rmrd. I completely agree with you: Obama is NOT on the level of Pol Pot. That is ludicrous and an insult to those who suffered under the likes of Pol Pot. (Note: Isn’t it funny that no one on the left every noted that? They never hesitated to compare Bush to Hitler, never stopping to think that Hitler stripped freedom away from millions and directly caused the horrible deaths of millions and millions of people, civilians and military alike.) But we Americans have always aimed for greater and greater freedom and prosperity and what Obama is proposing does not lead to freedom and prosperity. It leads instead to poverty and enslavement to the government.

Again – I want to be wrong on this but I don’t think I am. Obama’s presidency is not going to end well.

One other thing, rmrd. I note that you have not commented on Geithner. I take it that it doesn’t bother you that Obama knew what Geithner did when he appointed him. Or does it? Are you comfortable with the fact that you and your family are expected to get up every day, go to work and pay your taxes without so much of a “thank you” but Obama thinks it is fine to hire a bona fide tax cheat to head Treasury, a position that will be responsible for ensuring that other people (you know, like you and me) are penalized for not paying our taxes?

I mean, it is just so funny! During the campaign, the Obama Team assured us it was our patriotic duty to pay taxes. (And what with all the spending Obama wants to do, it is most certainly in his interest that we all pay our taxes. We have to pay for his initiatives somehow!) His team is the one that mocked others for complaining about equating paying taxes with patriotism, saying that those who don't agree with him are making a "virtue out of selfishness." And then, he goes and appoints a serious tax cheat to make SURE we pay him our taxes!

It would be hilarious if it weren't so disgusting.

Deana

rmrd said...

Deana

For much of the discussion, I have been providing links and you have supplied opinion (....I think Powell voted that way because). Now you want detailed analysis on a secret program that we can only gain brief glimpses of the totality. Typical conservative double standard.

Regarding Geithner, he's wasn't my first choice. The tax issue, is disconcerting. I don't know the legal aspects of the case to determine why Wesley Snipes apparently paid his back taxes, and still faced jail time, while Geithner faces the monetary penalties alone. It may have to do with the discretion of the particular IRS agent or Attorney General involved. I suspect that in many cases the IRS goes for penalties rather than jail time.
Here's a link that supports that point of view.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139692/

Regarding "everyone" on the left comparing GW to Hitler. Obama said that he thought Bush was a "good guy". Bill Clinton voiced similar words when GW went to Little Rock for the opening of the Clinton Library.

Just as you have doubts about Obama, many patriotic Americans disagreed with Bush and his policies. Many of us are happy to see science restored to its rightful place.

You worry about Socialism, others worry about Fascism. How could Haliburton lose money without penalty. How could Blackwater have a better legal position than patriotic US soldiers in Iraq if Bush was not bowing to corporate power?

Rove wanted an everlasting GOP dominated government. The patriotism of those who disagreed with GW's policies was questioned.

Throwing around terms like Socialist and Fascist only serve to inflame, rather than enlighten. Political discussions can be better than that.

Deana said...

rmrd -

I'm not asking for detailed analysis. I'm simply asking for ANY analysis, not an opinion piece (even though I don't discredit Barr).

With regard to comparing Bush to Hitler - you are correct. I have never heard Obama say that Bush is like Hitler. But the overwhelming majority of those who voted for Obama do. You seem to be familiar with Huffington Post - surely you have read the comments. Or Daily Kos? I could go on.

And I'm delighted to read that you have concerns about fascism but am troubled that you associate it with conservatives. Surely you know that the fascist governments in world history involved HEAVY government intervention in people's lives - somewhat similar to what democrats are angling to do. IN fascist societies, people can't do anything that is not controlled by the government - look at Germany, Italy, Spain.

In fascist societies, you tend to see one party completely dominating government. Private freedoms are subordinated for the public good. Also in fascist societies, you see an effort to nationalize private industries and a bizarre, unhealthy adoring focus on the leader. Hmmm - does any of that sound familiar to you?

Look: the problem is government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Government programs are always dressed up as necessary to "care for the children" or "care for the poor or the elderly." And government employees often have the best of motives. But it doesn't change the fact that when government funds and is made responsible for something, it will control it and our liberties slowly whither away.

And yes, I did and DO question people's patriotism, NOT because they don't always agree with GWB but because of their utter inability to discuss the U.S. without starting off with "I'm just SO embarrassed being an American!" or "Americans are just so stupid."

Now, oddly enough, all of this seemed to have come to an end last Tuesday! Magically, these people who were so embarrassed about being American are now comfortable flying those horrible symbols of American nationalism in their front yard. They don't hesitate to travel overseas and tell people with pride where they are from.

And it is all just so perfect given that we have a First Lady who only became proud of America once America voted for her husband. I guess all of our past battles, achievements, culture, technological achievements, arts, music, all of it meant nothing to these people until Tuesday when the occupants in one house in Washington changed.

Let me tell you something rmrd, I have always and will always be proud of this country, regardless of who is in the White House.

And no, throwing around terms like socialist and fascist do not inflame. Words are necessary for discussions and if we aren't allowed to define things accurately, then discussions become meaningless.

Deana

P.S. It is utterly irrelevant whether the IRS prefers to go for penalties versus jail time. Geithner DID pay penalties but that is not the point. What he did was deliberate and Obama and the Senate should not have rewarded him for it, regardless of the fact that (once he got caught) he paid the penalties.

Too bad Snipes didn't know Obama beforehand. Perhaps Obama could have appointed him for something . . .

Deana said...

rmrd -

I realize that many in our country are truly in love with Obama right now. Talking to someone who voted for and supports Obama's intiatives is exactly like trying to get a teenage girl to realize that the boy she is in love with really isn't going to be good to her. The rose colored glasses are firmly on the eyes of a lot of Americans.

I think this is not to be unexpected given the lack of curiosity the media showed in Obama and his past during the campaign and Obama's legitimate talent in portraying himself as someone who could be everything to everyone. He is smooth, he's sexy (if I only got a dime each time I've heard a woman mention his eyes, his voice, his sensitivity!) and his family is truly adorable. And who didn't want to be "part of history?"

Still, sooner or later, reality is going to set in. Honestly, it is setting in faster than I had suspected. Obama worked very hard for two years to build up people's expectations. He did this purposely. You must have read what many Americans have said they expect to happen now that he is in office.

Well, no one likes to be made the sucker, no one likes to appear naive, and that is exactly what is going to happen as the Obama administration wears on. This man actually can't walk on water and he can't achieve what he so blithely said was possible. And remember: the Democrats own everything so he cannot say that Republicans are standing in his way and preventing him from turning water into wine.

Look - I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. And that's ok! That is part of a political discussion and the only thing we can do is sit and watch and wait.

And I truly hope you are right because if you are, America will be a better place and I can't argue against that. It is what I want too!

rmrd said...

Deana

Quoting another dead White guy..."There you go again". You point to comments on HuffPost and Daily Kos and conclude "most" of the left compared Bush to Hitler. I don't frequent Daily Kos, but on HuffPost I know that many outrageous comments are removed by the webmasters. Calling those outrageous posts as representative of the left is ridiculous.

Have you wandered by RedState or other Conservative sites said about dark hued people? Unlike you. I don't consider those folks to be "most" of the Right, do you?

Blacks have served in the military in numbers higher than their presence in the population. Blacks served during slavery and Jim Crow. True patriots do question the actions of their government. At times patriots are saddened by the actions of their government, see Katrina. At other times they become unified and ready to unite in struggle, see 9/11. Bush divided rather than united the country after 9/11. That was why there were cheers when he took of in Executive One. Bush is a President, not a king. Look, even Santa Claus gets booed in Philadelphia sporting events, as did Sarah Palin. Welcome to free speech and the US.

I note that you did not response to the racist behavior that went on in the Civil rights Division of the DOJ, but that is what we have come to expect from Black Republicans. Ken Blackwell has no problem with a "Barack the Magic Negro" CD being sent out by another RNC chair candidate.

Finally, the only ones who elevate Obama to deity status the Right. If you spent time on HuffPost or Talking Points Memo, you would have read objections to Obama's stance on issues including FISA and Timothy Geithner. You must have just read the Cliff Notes version of these sites.

I appreciate hearing your opinions.

Deana said...

Haa-haa-haa! Being accused of not being overly familiar with the Huffington Post is high praise indeed! Unfortunately, I do review it every day - it's like watching a train wreck - you know you shouldn't be looking but you JUST CAN'T LOOK AWAY!!!

OK. Now you say that it is the right that elevated Obama to deity status. Really, rmrd? OK. Well, grab a paper and pencil – it’s quiz time!!!!

Who said the following?

"I am asking you to believe."

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Who is being talked about here? "Lord, we have again come to you in prayer, and you have heard our cries from heaven, and you have sent us again from the state called Illinois, a man called ________ (fill in the blank, rmrd) to heal our land," said Younginer, a 62-year-old retired information systems worker at Coca Cola in Atlanta.
Cite: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-godsend_glantonnov29,0,7660180.story

OK. Halle Berry said this about whom? "I'll do whatever he says to do. I'll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear."

Who said this about Obama? "It's going to be before Obama, 'B.B.,' and after Obama—'A.B." (Hint: think movie producer)

What religious leader said "Barack Obama is the hope of the entire world?"
Cite: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-is-hope-of-entire-world.html

And this is my personal favorite: what famous politician who is the son of another famous politician said this about Obama on Nov. 5th? “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

Stumped? Check out this site:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=55D13D94-3048-5C12-00E851454E822F1E

OK. Now go to google, click on "Images" and type in "Obama" and "art." Note the endless number of images of Obama in which he has sunbeams crowing his head. Few historical figures are EVER portrayed with sunbeams radiating from their head. In fact, in the Western world, that image is reserved for one figure alone: Jesus. But no longer. Jesus just needs to move over. Obama has arrived. I'm sure Jesus doesn't mind.

Now - this is just a smattering of examples show that those who deified Obama were on the left. Did every single person who voted for Obama elevate him to the status of a god? No. I'm sure that here and there, some have maintained their composure. But not many.

As for patriotism, did it not strike you as . . . odd . . . that Michelle Obama couldn't find anything to be proud of in this country before her husband was honored? I mean, even if she couldn't be proud of what non-black Americans have achieved over the years, she couldn't find ANYTHING that black Americans have achieved to be proud of before her husband won an election????

Please. Thousands of books have been written that have documented black American achievement alone.

Again, I do not believe that those who did not agree with some of Bush's policies are unpatriotic. But I do question the patriotism of many on the left because they were utterly unable to acknowledge a SINGLE POSITIVE THING about Bush, or any of his initiatives, or even America in general for eight years. The actual, measurable achievements of his PEPFAR initiative alone would have guaranteed him the Nobel Peace Prize if there were any legitimacy to how that prize is awarded every year.

I'm sorry, rmrd, but I lived in D.C. for most of Bush's administration and I recall endless numbers of leftists protesting right outside Walter Reed. Of course, we heard ad nauseum that they loved the country too and "supported the troops" and yet they spent days and days screaming and causing a ruckus that was so loud that the injured soldiers who were healing inside Walter Reed could hear them.

That is disgusting.

If I heard it once, I heard it a million times: "I support the troops but not the war." That is fine and I support a person's right to hold that view. But then, when soldiers would say, "Well, you aren't really supporting me if you don't support my mission," the left didn't have kind words to say.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard a leftist talk about how stupid soldiers are. They say it carefully, you know: "they just aren't very . . . educated." rmrd, I've spent 15 years in academia and I know what that means.

So, yeah, I do question their patriotism. And remember, we on the right were told every day of President Bush's presidency that "Thomas Jefferson said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism." (It doesn't matter that there is absolutely no record of Thomas Jefferson ever saying anything like that - it fit the narrative of the left so they went with it. Historical accuracy isn’t the left’s strong point.)

So when I see Obama advocating something that I know, based on evidence, that it will harm the country, I plan on being very, very patriotic.

Cheers. And see you in four years.

rmrd said...

Deana

You are free to question the patriotism of whomever you choose. People will no longer meekly buy in to the "fact" that Conservatives are more patriotic than everyone else.

You present an argument where people who disagree with a civilian administration says that a war is necessary, are unpatriotic. You quote a fictional soldier who says how can you support me if you don't support the war? How would that argument not be one heard from a Fascist government. Free societies have dissent. Quoting another dead White guy, Dr Samuel Johnson," Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

If I Google Obama + Satan and click "Images", I get a plethora of satanic depictions of Obama. Are all right-wingers to blame?

McCain lost because of the souring economy, not because of a Church of Obama.

Regarding HuffPost, since you get the Cliif notes version, you missed
"How Citigroup Unraveled Under Geithner's Watch" 01/14/09 and "Geithner Pick Mystifies Some traditional Democratic Constituencies on 11/22/08 among other critical articles posted on or linked to on the site. Read the complete comments. Stop cherry-picking

You have again avoided addressing the racism at DOJ and Ken Blackwell's statement on Saltzman.
Typical.

Deana said...

Fictional soldier?

Here you go, sweetheart:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,105282,00.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/30/if-theyre-going-to-support-us-support-us-all-the-way/
(video)

As for those individuals who say they “support the troops, but not the war”, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) responded with a letter he received from a deployed soldier who heard that rhetoric in CNN. The soldier wrote, “You can’t be against the war and for me -- because I am the damn war.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25928


As for racism at the DOJ, rmrd, there are ALWAYS claims about racism at every single federal agency (at least the ones I'm familiar with and worked at). What's different about the DOJ?

As for "Barack the Magic Negro," it was a parody of an op-ed that was written by a bi-racial man in the LA Times in which he expresses concern about how Obama portrays himself.

But I guess that now that The One is president, parody and satire are dead. We must speak about Him in reverential tones only. Nothing else. Well, maybe in a while, black Americans will be permitted to parody him . . but no one else!!!

I assume you mean Saltsman. And I assume you are upset that Blackwell defended him. Look, it never would have crossed my mind to send that song out to people - it's a weird gift. But free speech still exists in this country and what Blackwell said:

"Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. This is in large measure due to President-Elect Obama being the first African-American elected president . . ."

is that not true? I mean Michelle Obama is getting lambasted for not choosing black designers on her first day as First Lady. I'm not crazy about the woman but good Lord, give it a rest! Everyone is super-sensitive about race right now and making a big deal out of normal stuff . . . like a little song.

Besides, where was the outrage when the op-ed was published in the LA Times?

And here is the link to that op-ed:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

rmrd said...

Deana

Given your response to the DOJ and Blackwell, I see why you fit in well with the GOP.

The soldier's statement results in the point that you cannot object to any war that involves US troops. That sweetie, is not democracy. It's that free speech thing.

I appreciated the exchange. Have a great day.

rmrd said...

Oh and Deana if someone makes an outrageous quote, I am not obligated to repeat the quote. If Snoop Dogg calls African-American males and females a slave name and female dogs, respcetively, I don't have to use the same term for African-Americans.

Snoop has free speech, so do I. Snoop does not hold a gun to my head to force the use what I consider offensive terms. If I use the terms it is because I made a conscious decision to use the words. Saltsman has no excuse.

As why the delayed outrage, I suppose that an LAT op-ed is not widely read. Rush took the editorial out of context, put words to song, Saltsman sent out the CD and here we are.

Deana said...

rmrd -

You did not answer my question. Where was the outrage on the left when the op-ed titled "Obama the 'Magic Negro'" was published?

Where was it, rmrd? Again, here is the cite:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Also rmrd, when Congress and the President have committed our troops to war, I expect there to be a spirited and honest debate, which includes the pros AND cons of the war.

But tell me - how many leftists do you know who were against the war and did something TANGIBLE for the troops? How many leftists actually spent their own money sending them care packages? Writing them letters of support? How many leftists visited the wounded soldiers in the hospitals or donated their time helping out the USO? How many helped support the families of those who were serving? How many leftists do you know who think that the military is a good and honorable endeavor?

How many leftists do you know who have defended the military when there are outrageous claims made by so many on the left? You know, like when John Kerry said, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

Wow. That still just amazes me.

And then there was Obama's comment, that we should have a "surge" in Afghanistan so that we would have " . . . enough troops that we're not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

I'm ALL FOR helping Afghanistan (and unlike the left, I've always been for that - not just when Obama showed up) but is that really ALL that the troops have been doing over there?

rmrd, if you believe that, it would behoove you to stop getting your "news" at the Huffington Post and check out some other sources of information. Here are some great sites:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
http://www.blackfive.net/

Anyway, most of what the left has for military members is just words, words, words and often, those words are not very . . . uh . . . supportive.

And that is completely ok - nothing wrong with that. But why don't more on the left just come right out and be honest about it? Just say, "Hey, I don't support the war AND I don't support the troops?"

Is it that hard to say? I do recall one leftist writing an essay about that a couple of years ago - the honesty was refreshing!

Do you ever wonder, rmrd, why an overwhelming majority of the military tend to be conservative? That's all right - I already know the leftist's answer to that one: they are brainwashed and/or not too bright. Believe me - I got the memo.

Deana said...

rmrd, the LA Times is a major, major newspaper - right up there with the Washington Post, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, etc.

And sorry, but there was no "delayed" response to his op-ed. There was NO response. None. No one raised a single objection to what that man said.

Until the song was made. And then holy-hell broke lose.

And I completely agree with you - just because someone else says something outrageous does NOT mean it is ok for you and I to repeat it.

But it is fascinating to observe who in our society gets a free pass to say things and who doesn't.

Now. What was it you were saying about free speech?

Deana said...

I'm out of here.

Besides, I need to check out the Huffington Post. It may be a train wreck but my goodness, the comedy value is just out of this world!

And I admit, I'm dying to know how Obama voters are justifying his latest waiver for lobbyists . . .

sbm said...

Deana… well said.....
but I have to disagree with the “magic negro” comment.

Because the lefties do not condemn bad behavior doesn’t mean we have to do the same.

Michael Moore appeared along side Ralph Nader on Real time with Bill Mahr in 2004. Moore and Mahr knelt in front of Nader begging him not to run. The show was a typical GOP bashing party and all three were very chummy. Along comes 2008 and Nader calls Obama an Uncle Tom and no one condemns Nader. He is simply dismissed as a loon that is not part of the Democratic Party. Bovine feces Only Democrats vote for Nader. Bill Mahr best showed the lefts sentiments when he called our troops “COWARDS” I know he’s a performer and gets paid to do what he does but so is Limbaugh.


Katrina destroyed N.O. and no one on the left condemned the democrat mayor or Governor but that doesn’t give us the right to give GWB a pass.

We have to start holding ourselves to a higher standard and stop excusing bad behavior

rmrd said...

Deana

I guess leftists like Joe Biden who has a son in the military thinks military service is of value. Charles Rangel has suggested universal service to the country.

Again regarding the "magic Negro" op-ed in LAT, there is less public knowledge of a LAT op-ed than a controversial song played on Limbaugh or a CD sent out by someone who wants to be a major GOP spokesman. Ask random folks if they have read the last Krauthammer or Dowd columns, for verification of the relatively lesser impact of newspaper columns on the public.

Regarding the military and Obama. A shift in voting pattern has been noted. One author on the American Conservative Magazine website suggests that Donnie Rumsfeld's comment about the "military you have" may have played a role.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/11/04/the-shifting-military-vote/

Regarding "lefties" supporting the troops.
There are community groups like:

http://etnpronet.org/cgi/calendar.pl?view=Event&event_id=339

There is also the progressive Truman National Security Project's Strong Miliry Program. the program was mentioned on the HuffPost in October 2008, you must have (deliberately) missed it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankie-sturm/progressives-and-national_b_136783.html?view=print

And debate about the perceptions of Democrats by the military is ongoing within the Progressive community.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=democrats_and_the_military#110214

Have a nice day, hon.

rmrd said...

sbm

Appreciate your comments, but the Nader argument could be made against Republicans voting for Pat Buchanan who has made some outrageous statements about African-Americans. in fact Buchanan carried more GOP votes than Nader got from the Democratic Party.

Nader was told to leave the scene by many on the left including Debara Mathis at Black America Web on 06/30/2008 and RJ Eskow on HuffPost 06/25/2008.

sbm said...

Pat Buchanan is on MSNBC. (obamaville)

Make the argument, I wouldn't disagree. Nader has been the darling of the far left for many years. When did Nader get fewer votes?

2000 Buchanan 448,895 Nader 2,882,955 http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

Didn’t run in 2004, are we talking about primary runs in the 90’s? Almost 3M democrats voted for Nader in 2000 and 500k in 2004 and not one went on CNN to condemn his words.

rmrd said...

sbm

You said that Nader called Obama an Uncle Tom, that happened in 2008. the links I provided were 2008 response to Nader's comment. Did Nader call Obama an Uncle Tom in 2000 or 2004 to lead to people needing to go to CNN to condemn his not yet spoken words?

I was focusing on Nader in 2008, so I was comparing Nader's 2008 vote count to those Buchanan got in the past.

rmrd said...

sbm

Also I think the contention that Democrats voted for Nader in 2008 is faulty. I think that on the right, their were people who voted for Ron Paul or Bob Barr who would have just stayed home because they were disappointed in the GOP. Those Barr or Paul voters that the GOP was not "pure". Buchanan got about 0.4% of the vote in 2000 as a Reform Party candidate. I had forgotten he ran with Ezola Foster as his VP. Thanks for jogging my memory.

Similarly, Nader voters felt that Obama and Clinton were too Centrist for their tastes. Percentage wise Nader got about 1% of the vote in 2008. Nader ran as an Independent.

sbm said...

Please understand the frustration we feel on the right. Similarly outrageous events receive very different coverage in the press. Not only is it unfair but very dangerous to the fabric of our country. The Nader incident is one example of many.

rmrd said...

sbm

We on the left are somewhat tired of your anger. You had the Presidency for eight years. GW had the House and Senate for 6 of thise eight years. The complaint is then that you were mistreated and didn't have enough power.

The truth is the Right will always be angry. The Left will be "lefties" and "unpatriotic". People who questioned supression of scoience, Political bias in the DOJ, and questioned GW actions in Iraq were ridiculed. Talk about frustration.

rmrd said...

rmrd

The right always laments media being "leftist". When GW was POTUS, the Right dominated guest shots on news opinion shows. The Right still dominates on opinion shows since the election.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28/cable-news-stimulus/>

The NYT carried water for the GOP in the lead up to the war. The media reported an incomplete CBO analysis of the Stimulus plan spoon fed to them by the Right as fact.

http://thinkporgress.org/2009/01/26/report-cbo-tv

The Right has brow beaten the media so much that they bend over backwards to please the GOP.

Chris Mathews sat silently yesterday as Dick Armey displayed his ranting misogyny against a female guestion Mathew's show.

Armey's lack of civility reminded me of Jimmy Walker, "JJ" of "Good Times" who always contorts his face and spews out his anger during political discussions. I feel free to use JJ since someone here used a Halle Berry quote to support a Conservative political position.

The thing that has changed is that given the dire straights that the country was led into by GW and the GOP, we are less tolerant of the incivility we note from the Right.

sbm said...

That is your opinion and I respect it.