Marc Cooper, LA Weekly The author is a typical Lefty loon, but amazingly clear-eyed about a few things.
Hope, says the dictionary, is about our desires. Faith, on the other hand, is about confidence. I've got tons of the former. And damn near none of the latter. So if Obama offers hope, I'll take what I can get.
When Obama is sworn into office, it will officially mark much more than just the election of America's first black president (a minor miracle in itself). More than one more peaceful transition of power between the parties (something we take all too much for granted). And much more than what is shaping up to be an electoral landslide (a much-deserved comeuppance). Obama's hand on the Bible will jump-start an entire new historical epoch, one that is already under way. We just don't know what it is, or what we will call it, much less what it will bring. That's where I start to run a little short on faith. . .We'll skip the long, gratuitous Reagan- and Palin-bashing orgy and get to the fun part.
When the New Deal era collapsed, the Reaganites were fully loaded and ready to boldly step in. But who's ready this time to fill the void? Did I miss something, or have Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid quietly, patiently and methodically been building a movement over the last 20 years that is ready -- from Day One, as has become the cliché -- to reinvent and resurrect American politics on the ashes of the failed conservative movement? Let's face it, the Democrats performed shamefully at the onset of the Bush administration, its congressional leadership more or less meekly folding itself into the president's war cabinet. The 2004 Kerry campaign was a political shambles. And as late as 2006, the Democrats won back Congress almost exclusively because they were not the Republicans. That victory had sweet little to do with any proactive moves by the Dems.
Does anyone seriously think the Democratic establishment is really prepared to govern effectively, as the global economic crisis deepens (as it surely will)? . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
11/01/2008 08:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Democrats have shown us how they lead in the Senate, the House, and the Presidental Primary process over the last two years. Need I say more?
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
11/01/2008 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
democrats don't lead, they steal from the coffers in the name of the children.
#3
However, no matter what happens in the election, the Democrat party is set for a major purge. If Obama wins, he promises to purge the Democrat moderates, namely Hillary and the DLC. If Obama loses, Hillary will be the head of the party, and will purge the Moonbats like Empress Theodora purged the blues.
In either case, the Democrats will be crippled in the next election, so if Obama is elected, he will only have two years to screw things up, and probably less, since the Democrat moderates will join with the Republicans to thwart his schemes.
Being a political novice, Obama has no debts or credits on the hill, so the price for him doing anything will be exorbitant.
#4
I think both parties are probably going to have to scrap off the fat and drive in a new direction. The last few years we've seen the party almost merge into one identity and spend the Heck out of money. The RNC needs to wake up and start back to their conservative roots and the DNC will continue to be the illuminati party of the elities and use the media to attack anyone who stands against them, using double standards whenever possible.
Posted by: Welder Man ||
11/01/2008 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
. . . Even if you're not hung up on white liberal guilt or Bush loathing, there's an urge to get it over with, to say, well, America should have a black president, and the sooner the better i.e., the sooner we do it, the better it speaks of us. They have a point. I look at the roll call of the dead on 9/11: Arestegui, Bolourchi, Carstanjen, Droz, Elseth, Foti, Gronlund, Hannafin, Iskyan, Kuge, Laychak, Mojica, Nguyen, Ong, Pappalardo, Quigley, Retic, Shuyin, Tarrou, Vamsikrishna, Warchola, Yuguang, Zarba. Black, white, Scandinavian, Balkan, Arab, Asian in a word, American. The presidential pantheon has a narrower ring: Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson. Obama has a tedious shtick about how his name sounds odd and he doesn't look like "all those other presidents on the dollar bills". He's not just picking out the drapes for the Oval Office, he's ordering up the new currency and booking the sculptors for Mount Rushmore.
And why not? Obama in the White House, Obama on the dollar bill, Obama on Rushmore would symbolize the possibilities of America more than that narrow list of white-bread protestant presidents to date.
The problem is we're not electing a symbol, a logo, a two-dimensional image. Long before he emerged on the national stage as Barack the Hope-Giver and Bringer of Change, there was a three-dimensional Barack Obama, a real man who lives in the real world. And that's where the problem lies. . . .
. . . He's "hoping" that Obama will buck not just Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the rest of the gang but also his voting record, his personal address book and his entire adult life. Good luck betting the future on that. The "change" we'll get isn't hard to discern: An expansion of government, an increase in taxes, a greater annexation of the dynamic part of the economy by the sclerotic bureaucracy, a reduction in economic liberty oh, and a lot more Chicago machine politics.
On Tuesday many Americans will vote for the two-dimensional Obama - the image, the idea, the "hope." But it will be the three-dimensional Obama the real man with the real record that America will have to live with.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/01/2008 08:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Brilliant, Let's elect a liberal illuminati to ruin our country for 4 years, just to prove that we can. How about just vote for the candidate that is going to do a better job than the other, while maintaing America's interest first. Crazy I know.
Posted by: Pearl ||
11/01/2008 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Illuminati guy. Strike two. Pick one name and stick with it or you're gone. Okay, Georgia Boy?
When it comes to al Qaeda, Syria gets it coming and going. This past Sunday, U.S. helicopters targeted an al Qaeda operative on Syrian territory who shuttled terrorists into Iraq. Syria condemned the strike as a violation of its sovereignty and a "serious aggression." Earlier in October, a massive car bomb detonated in Damascus, killing 17. Even before the smoke cleared, Syria's Assad regime accused Sunni Muslim fundamentalists from abroad-- i.e. al Qaeda -- of perpetrating the attack. Meanwhile, regime spokesmen described Syria as a "victim" of international terrorism.
The characterization of Syria as "victim" was ironic not only because Damascus has been a proactive member of the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979 -- sponsoring Hamas and Hezbollah, among others -- but because just one day before the attack, the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia levied a mammoth civil judgment against Syria for "providing material support and resources to Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq."
The verdict awarded $414 million to the families of two U.S. contractors -- Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley -- beheaded in Iraq in September 2004.
Due to the opaque nature of the authoritarian Assad regime, it will likely never be clear who was actually responsible for the bombing. Syria routinely engages in conspiracies, so it's no surprise that conspiracy theories have proliferated regarding the culprit, with explanations alternately implicating the Iranians, the Israelis, and even the Assad regime itself. Adding to the uncertainty, some Western-based al Qaeda analysts say the assault lacked many of the organization's signature traits.
Notwithstanding the speculation, let's assume for the moment that al Qaeda did sponsor the attack. If so, it should have come as no surprise to Damascus: As the experiences of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan demonstrate, al Qaeda has a track record of attacking its sponsors.
Since 2002, the Assad regime has facilitated the movement through its territory of al Qaeda fighters bound for Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. It has allowed these insurgents to train in Syria and has provided sanctuary to al Qaeda-affiliated killers of Americans. By and large, this policy purchased Syria immunity from attacks. Along the way, however, these terrorists appear to have planted local roots.
In the lead up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that Syria was helping shuttle Islamist insurgents to Iraq, Washington warned Damascus of the folly of this policy. U.S. diplomats in Damascus repeatedly told the Syrian government that Islamists posed a threat to the secular nationalist regime.
Damascus's logic was based on its opposition to the establishment of a pro-Western government in Baghdad. As then Foreign Minister Farouq Shara said in 2003, "Syria's interest is to see the invaders defeated in Iraq." But the Assad regime failed to take into account the dynamic of the al Qaeda's relations with its "friends." In Pakistan, for example, the intelligence service long supported al Qaeda, but the state nonetheless remained a high value target of the organization.
In al Qaeda's evolving strategy, targeting is not contingent on a state's political orientation or on the assistance it receives from governments. Basically, the organization has no qualms about biting the hand that feeds it, whether the patron is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Syria. In this regard, if the Syrians are telling the truth about who perpetrated the attack, it is a clear case of the chickens coming home to roost.
Ultimately, Damascus's newfound problem with al Qaeda may change the Assad regime's permissive attitude toward the group, but it's unlikely to have any impact on Syrian support for Hezbollah and Hamas. These longstanding relationships with Islamist terrorist organizations are closely linked to the 30-year strategic alliance between Damascus and Tehran.
For the next U.S. administration, Syrian support for al Qaeda should prove a cautionary tale about the limits of diplomatic engagement in curtailing Syrian support for terrorism. The Assad regime has trucked with Islamist terrorists for decades, and provides no indication that it would be willing to sever these relationships. Senior Israeli officials -- including likely incoming prime minister Tzipi Livni -- have stated that a peace deal is contingent on Syria's abandoning Tehran, forsaking terror, and joining the Western camp. Syria has responded emphatically and repeatedly that this kind of strategic reorientation is not in the cards.
During the presidential debates, there were sharp disagreements as to how Washington should best treat rogue states. Regardless of whether the next administration is led by Barack Obama or John McCain, however, many observers believe that Washington will look to reengage in high-level diplomacy with Damascus and perhaps even consent to mediate Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations. Indeed, there are some indications that the Bush administration is already pursuing this tack.
Changing Syria's orientation would be of great benefit, but experience suggests it's not a realistic hope. While many excuse Syrian ties to Hamas and Hezbollah as "cards" that will someday be traded during negotiations, the revelations about the ties to al Qaeda highlight just how inimical the Assad regime's worldview is to U.S. interests. Support for terrorism appears to be intrinsic to the regime. Given this dynamic, U.S. diplomacy with Damascus stands little chance of success.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
When it comes to al Qaeda, Syria gets it coming and going. This past Sunday, U.S. helicopters targeted an al Qaeda operative on Syrian territory who shuttled terrorists into Iraq. Syria condemned the strike as a violation of its sovereignty and a "serious aggression." Earlier in October, a massive car bomb detonated in Damascus, killing 17. Even before the smoke cleared, Syria's Assad regime accused Sunni Muslim fundamentalists from abroad-- i.e. al Qaeda -- of perpetrating the attack. Meanwhile, regime spokesmen described Syria as a "victim" of international terrorism.
