The owner of this gallery posts in a Democratic Underground forum on his interaction with some conservative patrons. The gallery owner's excellent taste in merchandise is more than cancelled out by his incredible ineptitude at marketing and customer relations.
This couple was strolling around the Gallery, picking up things and talking about them.
The woman actually held a blown-glass conch shell to her ear and commented to her husband that it "must not be real, because I can't hear the ocean". That's when I decided that they were idiots and not worth any expenditure of energy on my part.
They finally walked up with a shallow Moroccan bowl, a beautiful piece.
When the woman reached into her purse to retrieve a credit card, I noticed a "Sarah in '08" pin affixed to her purse. So I asked her where she got it and she said she made it on her computer (I was, until today, unaware that one could do that).
So I said, "That's a joke, right?".
And she replied that Sarah Palin is America's only hope for salvation.
I pointed to the doors and said, "The sidewalk is right out there. Enjoy your stay in Tiburon".
The husband said they would just like to take the bowl, please.
I told him that the bowl could surely find a better home, and was - for the time being - not for sale.
He asked me if I was really going to turn down a $1,200 sale because of a difference in political ideology.
I did.
You think that's something? You should see what the other DU-niks are saying in response:
The bowl was "above" them...
I understand how you felt. A beautiful work of art deserves a place of taste to reside. Life should not be about money. Bravo! And don'tchu go callin' us no "elitists," neither!
I think they SHOULD be marginalized and made to feel ashamed.
Right after the '04 election, I refused to hire a designer because she told me she was a Dem who voted for B*sh. And yesterday, I told a man who sells sausage that I didn't want to buy from him because he said he liked how Sarah had banned books and wanted creationism taught in schools.
I'm in the south bay. But next time I'm in Tiburon, I'll come by your shop.
You are my hero, Tom!
This is such an important point. You, for example, refused business with a Nazi.
No, really - anyone who wants to ban books is right on par with the Nazis.
They are DANGEROUS. Their support for republican policies GETS PEOPLE KILLED, and we're supposed to play nice with them and not hurt their feelings?
FUCK THAT!
Right on!
My wife and I took a nice country drive today and I told her I'm realizing I have a deep seated hatred toward the assholes in America who've given us GWB and are going ga-ga over McCain/Palin. I mean I fucking HATE these people, including my own family members. She said I need to let it go. I said maybe you don't realize the danger they pose to our nation if allowed to hold power any longer. They are the red menace. The enemy from within. God I FUCKING HATE THEM! Wouldn't shock me if she started looking for a domestic relations lawyer.
But even in the darkest depths of the left-wing fever swamps, there are little outposts of sanity:
Wow, way to be part of the problem
These people weren't nasty towards you, didn't get up in your face, didn't shove their politics down your throat, yet you see fit to be an asshole and refuse them a sale. Gee, and now they'll go out and spread stories about asshole Dems and such.
Politics isn't life, there's a time to put politics away, do away with the right, left dichotomy, and simply be fellow human beings. Gee, you never know, if you had gotten to know these people, gotten friendly with them, and then gently shown them the error of their ways, you might just have gotten both a sale and a vote. Instead you've sent away a couple of people with a real nasty aftertaste about Dems and liberals, and the rest of us will have to work extra hard to correct your fuck up. Good job, NOT.
I feel sorry for you that you've let politics consume your life to the point where it interferes with normal everyday interactions. You probably also decide your listening and viewing selections by political affiliations also. Perhaps you should take a break from being a political animal and try being human instead.
Unfortunately, these little outposts are under constant seige. Tom the gallery owner and some of his friends replied with civil, well-reasoned discourse:
You are so fucking right. I am an asshole....
an asshole who prefers that the treasures that I have not end up in the houses of my enemy.
For the first time in my long stay here, I am asking that you put me on your "Ignore" list, so you don't have to worry your Beautiful Mind with any of my business.
Because it is MY FUCKING BUSINESS, don't you see?
Tom
And you, on the other hand, would rent to Nazis, since it's just politics?
And it's not just politics. These lunatics have blood on their hands, and more to come.
I know a this is a heated debate and some out there think it's better to make nice with all people of all stripes. Those that want to do that, should. Those of us who don't, shouldn't. For me, personally, in this case, I think there's such a thing as too much tolerance.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 13:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[23 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They said that if Bushitler was elected, people would be persecuted for their political beliefs. Apparently, it is true. I love the bit at the end about "such a thing as too much tolerance".
#4
Blow his brains out? He'd better have a laser scope on that pistol when he inserts it into this mouth ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/08/2008 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Pardon me, but this guy needs a Size-10 cluebat right between the eyes - WE ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING ENEMY, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! We are your fellow citizens and countrymen. We are your brothers, fathers, mothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents. We're your boss, your employee, your customer, your sales rep, your accountant, your secretary, that guy or woman or who sits in the cubicle beside you or across the aisle from you. We're the people in the cars driving on the highway around you to and from work or sitting in that same stop n' go traffic with you.
We're your kids, your kid's teachers, your gardener, your golf buddy, your doctor, your lawyer, the girl or guy across the counter selling you that soda and bag of chips. We're the soldier fighting in Iraq, the seaman on duty on a carrier in the Persian Gulf, the weekend warrior in the National Guard, the security guard at the shopping mall, the policeman cruising through your neighborhood keeping you safe. We're your church pastor or one of the parishioners sitting around you on Sunday morning.
We are all around you and we are everywhere in all walks of life and in all professions. We do not wear our politics on our sleeve and will not wear any symbol we do not desire to. We carry guns, support gun control, choose life, or think that a woman's body and soul are hers to do with what she will. We support the President and our troops and we believe that the President is a few donuts short of a baker's dozen and that the war is a colossal mistake and a huge waste of money. We are rich, we are poor, and we are middle class, and everything else in between.
We spend money in stores where we see something we like to buy and we don't worry about what that shopkeeper's politics might be. We talk with our friends and family and we let them know what we think about situations and other people. We drink, we smoke, we abstain, we laugh, we cry, and we do all the things that you do and are everything that you could ever imagine being.
We are your countrymen and fellow citizens. WE ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING ENEMY, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Don't make us your enemy because, like I pointed out above, we are everywhere and we have guns. You wouldn't like the result.
#8
Folks, there are a lot of things to notice in this piece. One I'd like to point out is that the incidence of the F word is much, much higher on these moonbat blogs than it is here in Rantburg. Also, a lot of the times when it is used here at Rantburg it is altered or partially self-censored with asterisks or other special characters by the posters so as to at least water it down a bit. Now, I admit that I have used this word from time to time in my life. But I don't allow it's use in my home and I feel a tiny twinge of conscience when I use it in other places. I also feel slightly threatened when I hear it in public places because I'm afraid someone with such blatant disregard for what polite society thinks might be so antisocial as to become violent. So, congratulations Rantburgers. By this measure you are less antisocial, more tolerant, more civil, more polite and just plain nicer to be around than Democrats.
#9
We are your countrymen and fellow citizens. WE ARE NOT YOUR FUCKING ENEMY, YOU FUCKING IDIOT! Don't make us your enemy because, like I pointed out above, we are everywhere and we have guns. You wouldn't like the result.
Excellent! (Not just that paragraph, but the whole comment--but that paragraph gave me a laugh.)
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I live in Tiburon. I have no idea if I've ever been in this gallery. Doubt it. But I might make a point of it now, just to tell the owner/clerk what a jerk they are.
I suspect that he made up this entire event just so he could be a hero for The Cause and hopefully generate some sympathetic buzz for himself.
The dialog sounds absolutely fake. The client supposedly said, "Sarah Palin is our only hope for salvation" which sounds like something that a moonbat would imagine a conservative to say in an imaginary exchange.
And then after tough boy kicks them out - the $1200 bowl (snicker) is just SOOOO beautiful that the husband begged to buy it anyway. Yeah right. Sure.
Smart guy. I have no doubt that the moonbats will flock to his store to show their solidarity and support.
#15
Who knows? It may be fact, based upon fiction. What if a fellow traveler accidentally bumped the bowl, and it landed on the floor and it became highly disorganized? What would the owner do? Would he resort to the F-word? Would he call the Po-Leese? What if the customer used all the fellow traveler buzzwords, would he/she/it/them get a pass?
So many questions, so few working neurons.....it's a zen thang.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/08/2008 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Bright Pebbles, My fellow countrymen and citizens are not my enemy until they show themselves to be by taking up arms against me. We may disagree on any number of things and I may dislike them intensely, but until they take up arms against me I will not consider them my enemy.
That doesn't mean I trust them in all things, however, and I will keep my own arms close at hand when dealing (or not dealing) with some of them.
I just prefer to think that my fellow countrymen and citizens deserve the benefit of doubt until they prove otherwise.
I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
Or the relentless attacks against Palin have sort of caused a backlash that favors the Republicans. Six of one half dozen of the other I guess. Shame all of his movies are gonna be tainted in my mind now that I know he's a raving moonbat. - rjschwarz
#2
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate.
And that, kind sir, is what is not right. In the immortal words of the Firesign Theater, you have gone to the Church of the Presumptious Assumption, and have drunk the Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/08/2008 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No they have a communist plant and a career bullsh*t artist. People are wising up, they don't want to learn arabic at the end of a bayonet. And they dont want to give up meat and ride a bike 20 miles to work because they want to be carbon neutral and stymie the republicans on drilling.
#4
Okay... on that huffington post site they had a poll "who do you want to vote for?"
I clicked McCain.
Then they wanted my zip...
Entered it
Then my name
M. Occupant
Then I hit enter...
REJECTED - NO ADDRESS.
Hmm if I select McCain there is no way to enter an address. Talk about self-delusion!
The glummest face Wednesday night might have been, if only we could have seen it, that of Hillary Clinton.
Imagine watching Sarah Palin, the gun-toting, lifelong member of the NRA, the PTA mom with teased hair and hips half the size of Hillary's, who went ... omigod ... to the University of Idaho and studied journalism. Mrs. Palin with her five kids and one of them still virtually suckling age, going wham through that cement ceiling put there exclusively for good-looking right-wing/populist conservative females by not-so-good-looking left-wing ones (Gloria Steinem excepting). There, pending some terrible goof or revelation, stood the woman most likely to get into the Oval Office as its official occupant rather than as an intern.
Imagine Hillary's fury. The gnashing of teeth after all the years of sacrifice and hard worka life of itand then the endless nuisance of stylists, makeovers and fittings for Oscar de la Renta gowns for Vogue covers. And surely that gimmicky holding of the baby papoose style by Todd Palin after his wife's acceptance speech is sacrosanct left-wing territory! If only Chelsea had been younger of course, Bill could have done it and then, well, who knows what might have been forgiven him?
American feminists have always had a tough sell to make. To the rest of the world, no females on earth have ever had it as easy as middle-class American women. Cosseted, surrounded by labor-saving devices, easily available contraception and supermarkets groaning with food, their complaints have always seemed to have no relationship to reality.
Education was there for the taking. Marriages were not arranged. Going against social mores had no serious consequences. Postwar American women (excluding those mired in poverty or the odious restrictions of race) have always had the choice of what they wanted to be. They simply didn't decide to exercise it until it became more fashionable to get out of the home than to run it.
Sarah Palin has put the flim-flam nature of America feminism sharply into focus, revealing the not-so-secret hypocrisy of its code and, whatever her future, this alone is an accomplishment. As she emerged into the nation's consciousness, a shudder went through the feminist lefta political movement not restricted to females. She is a mother refusing to stay at home (good) who had made a success out in the workplace (excellent) whose marriage nevertheless is a rip-roaring success and whose views are unspeakablethose of a red-blooded, right-wing principled pragmatist.
The metaphorical hair stood up on the back of every licensed member of the feminist movement who could immediately see she was a monster out of a nightmare landscape by Hieronymus Bosch. Pro-life. Pro-oil exploration in Alaska, home of the nation's polar bears for heaven's sake. Smaller government. Lower taxes. And that family of hers: Next to the Clintons with their dysfunctional marriage, her fertility and sexually robust life could only emphasize the shriveled nature of the one-child family of the former Queen Bee of political female accomplishment.
Mrs. Palin's emergence caused a spasm in American feminism. Caste and class have always been ammunition in the very Eastern seaboard women's movement, and now they were (so to speak) loading for bear. Sally Quinn felt a mother of five had no business being vice president. Andrea Mitchell remarked that "only the uneducated" would vote for Mrs. Palin. "Choose a woman but this woman?" wrote Baltimore Sun columnist Susan Reimer, accusing Sen. McCain of using a Down's syndrome child as qualification for the VP spot.
The hypocrisy was breathtaking. Only nanoseconds before the choice of Mrs. Palin as VP put her a geriatric heartbeat away from the presidency, a woman's right to have a career and children was a shibboleth of feminism. One always knew that women with views that opposed those of official feminism were to be treated as nonwomen. To see it now out in the open was the real shocker.
The fact that this mom had been governor of a state was dismissed because it was a "small state," as was the city of which she had been mayor. Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.
Had she been a man with similar political views, the left's opposition would have been strong but less personally vicious: It would have focused neither on a daughter's pregnancy, nor on the candidate's inability to be a good parent if the job was landed. In its panic, the left was indicating that to be a female running for office these days is no hindrance but an advantage, and admitting that there is indeed a difference between mothers and fathers that cannot necessarily be resolved by having daddy doing the diaper run.
All the shrapnel has so far been counterproductive. The mudslinging tabloid journalismis Mrs. Palin the mother or grandmother of her Down's baby?only raised her profile to a point where viewers who would never dream of watching a Republican vice-presidential acceptance speech tuned in.
Watching the frenzied reaction was déjà vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher's Britain. Modern history's titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of "them"a member of the old boys' club of the Tory establishmentplayed a significant role in bringing her down.
She was bound to be disliked vehemently by the left once she began to reveal her agenda of deregulation, sensible industrial relations, and tax reduction. Still among most of her enemies this had to do more with her ideas than her ovaries at the beginning. It was the aristocracy of her own Conservative Party that could not bear the notion of being led by "that woman." "Until she became leader," says Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph and authorized biographer of Mrs. Thatcher, "it was assumed she could not be it because of her sex."
Mrs. Thatcher was originally given the education portfolio by Prime Minister Edward Heath, though she wanted to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent of the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Education was considered a woman's job, and regarded as far less important than it would be today. In the education portfolio she was excluded from higher counsels and out of the way. When she challenged Heath for the party leadership in February 1974, at age 49, she turned the tables and used her gender to appeal to the gallantry of disaffected Tory backbenchers. "She's a very brave girl," they would say.
Mrs. Thatcher, a good-looking woman, used her sexual attractiveness to its legitimate hilt. She was known to flirt both with caucus members and the opposition, her face tilted girlishly in conversation. She succeeded politically with those leaders with whom she could flirtincluding Ronald Reagan, Francois Mitterrand and most unlikely of all, Mikhail Gorbachev. Her stylish, hint-of-Dr. Zhivago wardrobe for a 1987 visit to the Soviet Union became something of a national obsession.
Such attractiveness had the opposite effect on the Tory grandees. Books have been written on what it was that nurtured their contempt. After all, they were in the same political party, and their fortunes rested on her popularity.
No doubt part of the animosity arose from her origins as the daughter of a Grantham grocer, a woman whose home address was a street number rather than an estate with simply the house name. Lord Ian Gilmour of Craigmillar dismissed Mrs. Thatcher as "a Daily Telegraph woman"code language for some ghastly suburban creature wearing a tasteless flowered hat. Winston Churchill's son-in-law, Christopher Soames, a man of much genuine intelligence, allegedly called her "Heath with tits"an inaccurate and inelegant description, but one that captured exquisitely the contempt his class had for her. Both Gilmour and Soames were fired by Mrs. Thatcher in the housecleaning that took place during the late '70s and early '80s. But the core of High Tories remained active in the party waiting to bring her down.
The British feminist movement at that time was of little import. "I owe nothing to women's lib," Mrs. Thatcher remarked, thus assuring herself of a permanent place in their pantheon of evil. During her years in power, Mrs. Thatcher could and did use the rhetoric of home economics in a way a prudent male politician no longer dared do. Metaphors of kitchen and gender abounded in her speeches: "it is the cock that crows," she would say, "but the hen that lays the eggs."
Mrs. Thatcher would have recognized the guns aimed at Sarah Palin as the weapons of the left with feminist trigger-pullers. She also would have known that Mrs. Palin has less to fear from East-Coast intellectual snobs in egalitarian America than she had to fear from her own Tory base in class-prejudiced Britain. She would have told her to stand her ground and do her homework. Read your briefs, choose advisers with care, and, as she once said to me, my arm in her grip and her eyes fixed firmly on mine, "Just be yourself, don't ever give in and they can't harm you."
It wasn't quite true, of course. She did read her briefs, did stand her ground, and in the end they pulled her down, those grandees. But she made history. If a grocer's daughter can do it, a self-described hockey mom cannot be dismissed.
#1
Imagine Hillary's fury. The gnashing of teeth after all the years of sacrifice and hard work...
...not to mention the public humiliation of the Lewinsky affair, and having to make a fool of herself sticking up for Bill. The woman's put herself through an incredible amount of grief, only to have her dream stolen away from her. There's a part of me that can't help but feel for her.
The rest of me wants to text-message her "SUX 2BU!!" But that would be tacky.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Her acceptance speech, which knowledgeable left-wing critics feared would be effective, was dismissed before being delivered. She would be reading from a teleprompter. The speech would be good, no doubt, but written for her.
Here's an idea. Ms Palin will give all future speeches without aid of TelePrompTer if 0bama will do the same.
#4
American feminists won. I believe large majorities of Americans believe in equality of opportunity. After they won they were hijacked by the left to the point that a lot of women don't consider themselves feminists anymore. Perhaps a new term is in order (and I don't mean feminazi's).
Same thing happened with the environmental movement. Madd convinced us drunk driving was bad then they when the mission was accomplished they decided to go after all booze. Makes me wonder if that's the natural progression of things.
#5
Ditto civil rights morphing into a mandate for collectivism, rjs.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/08/2008 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Governor Palin's friend, the Governor of Hawaii
(Linda Lingle) was also impressive at the Republican convention. Both women belie the shrill rancorous message of the flim flam feminist left.
The One: (Looking askance at Don Clinton, who has gone dreamy-eyed) Well, this one sure surprised me.
Don Clinton: (laughing and smoking) Son, when youve lived longer, youll know theres a surprise in every one of em. And a shiv. And no matter what, the shiv always comes.
Don Clinton: Oh, get yourself a hankie, Candace, and stop bleedin all over my rug. The more you whine and cry the more that lil Alaskan hootchi-goo is gonna laugh while she grinds the stiletto heel of those cute little size sevens straight through your pericardium and into your heart before you even know whats happened!
The One: (falls to the floor in contrite supplication) Help me, Godfather, help me! What do I do? How do I get this mean girl to stop beating me up, and reclaim my glamor, my it factor? My minions in the press have been going after her with everything they have, and theyre getting booed! Next I might get booed, oh, what do I do -
Don Clinton: (leaps from his chair and smacks The One twice on the face, smack! smack!) You can be man! Be a man!
The One: (pathetic) I dont know how. I just dont know how.
That's just a sample. Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 08:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jay Leno - Obama got beat up by a girl - that statement alone will do more damage.....
Rudy Giuliani had me in stitches during his red-meat keynote address at the GOP convention. I laughed out loud when Giuliani laughed out loud while noting Barack Obama's deep experience as a "community organizer."
I laughed again when VP nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cracked: "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."
Team Obama was not amused. (Neither were the snarky left-wingers on cable TV who are now allergic to sarcasm.) They don't get why we snicker when Obama dons his Community Organizer cape.
Apparently, the jibes rendered Obama's advisers sleepless. In a crack-of-dawn e-mail to Obama's followers hours after Giuliani and Palin spoke, campaign manager David Plouffe
"Plouffe"? Is that even a word? It doesn't resonate with my schoolboy French. It brings to mind the second from the left in Finocchio's chorus line...
attempted to gin up faux outrage (and, more importantly, donations) by claiming grave offense on the part of community organizers everywhere. Fumed Plouffe: "Plouffe" and "fumed" just sound funny together in the same sentence. Can we change that to "pouted"?..
"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."
Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors' lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama's brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.
What deserves derision is "community organizing" that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.
Obama's community organizing days involved training grievance-mongers from the far-left ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). The ACORN mob is infamous for its bully tactics (which they dub "direct actions"); Obama supporters have recounted his role in organizing an ambush on a government planning meeting about a landfill project opposed by Chicago's minority lobbies.
With benefactors like Obama in office, ACORN has milked nearly four decades of government subsidies to prop up chapters that promote the welfare state and undermine the free market, as well as some that have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and voter fraud.
The group continues to garner scrutiny from law enforcement. Last week, Milwaukee's top election official announced plans to seek criminal investigations of 37 ACORN employees accused of offering gifts to sign up voters (including prepaid gas cards and restaurant cards) or falsifying driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards.
Last month, a New Mexico TV station reported on the child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts on ACORN's payroll. In July, Pennsylvania investigators asked the public for help in locating a fugitive named Luis R. Torres-Serrano, who is accused "of submitting more than 100 fraudulent voter registration forms he collected on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now to county election officials." Also in July, a massive, nearly $1 million embezzlement scheme by top ACORN officials was exposed.
ACORN's political arm endorsed Obama in February and has ramped up efforts to register the dead voters across the country. Meantime, completely ignored by the mainstream commentariat and clean-election crusaders, the Obama campaign admitted failing to report $800,000 in campaign payments to ACORN. They were disguised as payments to a front group called "Citizen Services Inc." for "advance work."
Jim Terry, an official from the Consumer Rights League, a watchdog group that monitors ACORN, noted: "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain. "Now it looks like ACORN is using the same type of convoluted accounting scheme for Obama's political gain." With a wave of his magic wand, Obama amended his Federal Election Commission forms to change the "advance work" to "get-out-the-vote" work.
Now, don't you dare challenge his commitment to following tax and election laws. And don't you even think of entertaining the possibility that The One exploited a nonprofit supposedly focused on helping low-income people for political gain. He was just "organizing" his "community." Guffaw.
#1
too funny. I know that we shouldn't get too cocky as it will soon become a negative. But after putting up with the left doing it for the last 20 years, I think I will just enjoy the moment.
Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.
Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama. "Just from what little I've seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.
Asked to clarify that he used the word "uppity," Westmoreland said, "Uppity, yeah."
Other Democrats have charged that the Republican campaign to paint the Illinois senator as an "elitist" is racially charged, and accused them of using code words for "uppity" without using the word itself.
In August, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) told reporters, "When I hear the word 'elitist' linked with Barack Obama, to me, that is a code word for 'uppity.' I find it extremely offensive and John McCain should know better."
"Elitist" is a fine old code word for "liberal" and "progressive", and entirely accurate ...
Political consultant David Gergen, who has worked in both Republican and Democratic White Houses, said on ABC's "This Week" that "As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'He's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a Southern background."
The Obama campaign, asked about the quote, did not note any racial context. "Sounds like Rep. Westmoreland should be careful throwing stones from his candidate's eight glass houses," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Campaigning against the first black major-party nominee has already created some problems for Republicans. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that Obama's middle name -- Hussein -- is relevant to the public discourse surrounding his candidacy, saying in March that if Obama were elected, "Then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on Sept. 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror."
At an April 12 event in his district, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said of Obama: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."
Davis sent a letter of apology to Obama in which he described his remark as a "poor choice of words."
Westmoreland originally supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. He now supports McCain, but missed an August fundraiser for the nominee because he was vacationing with his family.
#2
Westmoreland is conservative, pro-Life second term Congressman. In the State of Georgia when referring to the Obama's, the word "uppity" might be described as a .... charitable term of endearment. At least anywhere outside of Fulton County. Westmoreland's got a considerable amount in common with the Palin family as far as his beliefs, upbringing and background.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2008 6:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't know about you guys but I'm damned sick of the double standard. Here's a quote from three days ago taken from a 'Burg story about Mexico undergoing a "legal revolution."
Judges not juries of peers will still determine guilt or innocence. "This is not a copy of the gringo system," Gonzalez told the class.
It's fine for whites to be called gringos, is it? Let's change that sentence and its attribution and see how it sounds:
"Judges not juries of peers will still determine guilt or innocence. "This is not a copy of the spick system," Buchanan told the class."
Think that still would have flown by without comment on Yahoo!?
If this Westmoreland guy wants to call Obama not just "uppity" but an "uppity nigger," he certainly can. Would doing so be helpful, clarifying or beneficial to anyone involved in the debate? No. Nor was Gonzales' remark about gringos. It was a flippant, off the cuff, racial insult by someone used to insulting whites without any repercussions. Seems like there's a lot of that these days.
The difference is that if Westmoreland actually did call Obama an uppity nigger there would be hell to pay in the press while cracks about "gringos" simply go totally unremarked. The double standard couldn't be more blatant.
That's a crock. If racial epithets are going to be taboo, then they damned well need to be taboo for EVERYBODY, not just those favored by the left. If the "rules" aren't going to be enforced evenhandedly, or enforced only against whites, no one has any cause for being surprised when whites decline to play patsy for racists from other ethnic groups. Either ALL of the epithets are out of bounds, or none of them are.
It's long past time the nonwhite racists got a taste of their own, politically correct medicine.
#6
Yeah, there's a double standard, but this was still a stupid thing to say. He could have said, "they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're better than the rest of us" and it would've gotten the point across better.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
My late father used to say why is it bad when I say nigger and and it's not bad when black say nigger.
I said: It sounds better when they say it.
Posted by: Ebbinter the Rasher of Bacon4084 ||
09/08/2008 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#8
foolish thing to say, and we need to stay out of the race card debate. There's so many many many other valid things to despise Obama over. Elitist? Yes. Uppity? Ixnay
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/08/2008 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I would've said he's a lightweight empty suit that can give a good speech with a teleprompter - far more on point...but that's just me.
The "uppity" thing is a double-standard I've witnessed blacks saying that to or about each other. Race and gender politics make me nausious.
The whole presidential race of today is nothing more then a twisted popularity/beauty contest. I respect Palin and McCain. I strongly dislike a lot of McCain's policies and stances in the past. The sad thing is almost none of these people honestly should be anywhere near the white house. The fact that Obama has made it this far is proof positive that there are a scary amount of Americans that are morons.
Did you vote in the ptimeries? No? At this point I could tall you to put up but I would tell you that you should consider yourself fortunate to live in America instead of Europe: our candidates are still worse than yours and in adition they are selected by a few tens of thousands (at best), memebers of politrical parties in a process who
is anythoing but transparent and then we are told to go to vote for teh guy our betters (the Party memebers) have selected.
#11
Not quite so many, Broadhead6. Obama is the candidate of the Democratic party because he gamed the primary system -- not because he actually carried the states that are will be in play in November. It will be interesting to see whether the party muckety-mucks decide to change that for next time.
#16
Regarding Broadhead6's post: Can anyone tell me the qualifications to be POTUS other than acquiring the age of 35 and be a natural born citizen? They are all in the eye of the voter, nowhere else. So, it is opinion that makes the man or woman qualified to be POTUS, nothing else.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
09/08/2008 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#17
So Sarah calls a spade a spade last week and everybody comments on her plain talk, but when A Southern Male Republican does the same he is getting pilloried...
doesn't add up to me.
You could make a case that 'since he is from the south he just HAS to be a rasict and 'uppity' is only half a word.'
Says something about your upbringings, don't it?
agre with previous posts, double standard crap has to end, and maybe that will be a side effect of Sarahcuda's explosion on the scene.
#18
Uppity is uppity. I have heard this term used to describe someone who is putting on airs. Whites or blacks don't have a corner on this term. Jee whiz, this election is enough to make my head spin. The count down for the end of the silly season is on.
#19
JFM - Wow, America is better than Europe in this situation? How comforting....(sarcasm/off)
Your populous is getting the gov'ts they deserve or will put up with. Unfortunately, so are we.
TW - there are roughly 225 million Americans of legal voting age now. Kerry got 55 million votes in '04. If Obama gets near that number - and I have no clue if he will - that's approx 25% of the entire U.S. adult pop. I know only a fraction of these voted for him in the primaries, doesn't matter, if 50 mil are willing to pull the lever to put this assclown in the white house w/a dem congress afoot - my assertion stands - a scary amount of morons.
Jack - the opinion of the voters based on what was offered from the two parties (country club rinos vs marxist dems) have given us McCain vs Obama...golf clap. The founders of the constitution were brilliant men, when they put together Article 2, Section 1 I'm not sure they foresaw a complete two party system taking hold of the gov't...or a MSM parroting crap to the people who know more about American Idol or think that since some guy can use a teleprompter - he's articulate (though he does have good teeth) then they do about the constitution that sets up the system in the first place. That's why I call it a twisted beauty pageant/popularity contest.
I do like Palin, I think she's good person & way better then the dems by a long shot. Doesn't mean I think she's the best qualified person in the U.S. to lead the country at this time.
Douglas and Lincoln used to debate for four hours.
As I said before, I hold my bile and put on my gas mask and vote for Sen Mccain.
#20
They are going to be reaching far and making mountains out of mole hills from here on out. It's gonna get ridiculous, they haven't even started yet. And for all the trunks out there: quit buying Sara Palin glasses frames and Palin superhero-ette dolls, that's just as creepy as the Obama-worship stuff.
#21
Bell curve, Broadhead6 dear. Twenty-five percent being morons isn't as bad as it might be. Although yes, it is an awful lot of them. One wonders what they think of us.
Lincoln and Douglas, sadly, were an anomaly for their time. Look at the several men who held the office before and after. We must hope, as we do each election, that not only the best man won, but that he will rise to the occasion. I know that probably isn't helpful.
This article is not the first to note the cultural contradiction in American liberalism, but just now the point bears restating. The election may turn on it.
Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable. The trouble is, they lack respect for the objects of their solicitude. Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.
It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.
Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.
Because it was so unexpected, Sarah Palins nomination for the vice-presidency jolted these attitudes to the surface. Ms Palin is a small-town American. It is said that she has only recently acquired a passport. Her husband is a fisherman and production worker. She represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.
For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that this woman might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible. The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCains case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen this stewardess to take over. This joke was not or not only a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust. I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.
Little was known about Ms Palin, but it sufficed for her nomination to be regarded as a kind of insult. Even after her triumph at the Republican convention in St Paul last week, the put-downs continued. Yes, the delivery was all right, but the speech was written by somebody else as though that is unusual, as though the speechwriter is not the junior partner in the preparation of a speech, and as though just anybody could have raised the roof with that text. Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain. Every four years, many take their revenge.
The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling. Mrs Palin (and others) found it irresistible to skewer him in St Paul for saying one thing about [working Americans] in Scranton, and another in San Francisco. Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances: he was speaking to his own political tribe in the native idiom.
The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obamas distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be easier and Republicans would have to address themselves more seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through ones own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that made the United States what it is.
#1
To avoid endlessly repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
When the scorpion changes its behavior. The whole article smells of of self importance and arrogance and basically says we just need to project a better image.
Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes.
So how has that work in selling out the kids in the public school system for the money and resources of the teachers' union? How has that delivered cheap domestically produced energy for the average joe rather than Gaia worshiping special interest groups? [rhetorical questions]
#4
2U, they haven't yet, after how many election cycles?
The fact of the matter is that these are people not driven by facts, but ideology - not capable of adapting ideas and values to reality, but bent on forcing reality to change to their desired narrative (an impossibility).
P2K is onto somthing with his comment about repackaging. It's another variant on Lakoff's "framing" argument. It allows the left to continue, deep in what passes for their hearts, their smugness and notions of superiority while at the same time posing just long enough to get in power.
It is the mechanism for distracting the public from Gramscianism.
Rush my be a blowhard most of the time, but he's right when he says that the left cannot get elected by being frank with the voters about what they actually will try to do once elected. They are obliged to lie about their motives and intent. Nothing's the matter with Kansas, but they'll never figure that out.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/08/2008 6:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
How about some empathy (which shouldn't be confused with sympathy)?
#7
is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him
This shows the authors blind sycophancy for Zero. Obama's attitudes are exactly the same as the attitudes of his claque BECAUSE HE IS HEART, BODY AND SOUL part of that claque.
#8
Procopius2k, my thoughts exactly. Apparently they think we are stupid enough to fall for it.
Was it my imagination or did the title combined with the cartoon also gave an ever so faint whiff of racial overtones? With Barack in the rural setting and a title of "Learn Some Respect", I just had to wonder if there was intent in that or if I was just being oversensitive.
This was passed to me by one of our MOAA members, Col. Russ Wiley, who is a straight shooter:
Charlie
From an old Air America buddy in Alaska - actually sent to someone else but Cc'ed to me.
And from a Alaska man who is a very serious cynic about all things political here is my take on Sarah.
I met and spoke with Sarah Palin about two years ago at our downtown Park Strip. It is a place for walking, carnivals, political outdoor things and such. She was cooking hotdogs at a fund raiser and introducing herself to the public as a Governor hopeful.
She came by and said the usual "Hi, I'm Sarah Palin and I am running for Governor"...and I expected her to keep on to the next person but she asked me who I was and what I did in Alaska and we ended up talking for 15 minutes about me, Air America (she was all agog!) and my career in the Army and AAM. She is a pilot (Super Cub) I'm told although all she told me about that was that she loved flying.
As I watched her over the next six months as she successfully ran for Governor I was really impressed. I was impressed greatly even before that after she resigned a good position (Alaska Gas and Oil Regulatory Commission) because a fellow Commission member (Chair of the Alaska Republican Party) misused their office and position. He was using the FAX, computers, printing room and all to promote the Republican endeavors while in a State job. That is a huge no-no in any government employment position.
She resigned and made her point and within weeks Randy Ruderich (the above bad guy) found his ass out on the street and a subsequent investigation found him guilty and he was fined $12,000. Small change actually but a giant point was made.
Next she went after our most horrible Governor ever, Governor Murkowski, and damned if she didn't beat him! All of us here in Alaska , except the Democrats, are sick of our State's corruption. That fact was shouted to the heavens after she was elected with an overwhelming point spread.
After she got into office she started after corrupt legislators and with the FBI's help we've put four of them in prison, indicted six more and the "Corrupt Bastard's Club" as they arrogantly called themselves (even had hats made with CBC on the front!) suddenly found it no fun anymore. Club membership is now in the toilet!!
The current flap which has cost her a ten point loss of popularity (she's still 82%!) was over firing a popular Commissioner of Public Safety who is responsible for our Alaska State Troopers. She fired him for no STATED reason which was her prerogative as the Gov. He served entirely at her option. She and her whole family had a bad, bad experience with a rogue Trooper who was married to Sarah's sister. His name is Trooper Wooten. This dimwit Trooper had threatened Sarah's father (death threat!), threatened Sarah ("I'll get you too"), tasered his 12 year old stepson, drove drunk in his AST cruiser, got a pass by a fellow Trooper who stopped him for erratic driving a second time while in civvies and just a host of other things not yet released to the public. He got away with it and got another pass by the Commissioner's appointed AST Trooper Internal Affairs investigator with a tiny slap on the wrist. Five days off without pay to be exact!!
This maverick Trooper is still on the payroll but only just. The Union intervening saved his malcontent ass. He'll yet get his I'm sure. Incredible heat is being heaped on the Troopers. Public heat, not the Governors office.
The Democrats had the audacity to appoint a obviously biased investigator, Rep. "Gunny" French (so called because he lied about being in the USMC while running for the Legislature) is a staunch liberal and under the orders of Senate President Lyda Green who hates Sara. She hates Sarah because after being elected Governor Sarah told the whole Legislature in one of her first meetings with them that, quote; "All of you here need some Adult Supervision!!!". Sarah was seriously pissed and not afraid of anyone there.That played wonderfully well with Alaskan's after all of our corruption and after all of her successful battles against a seriously entrenched corrupt government here in Alaska . It pissed off the whole Legislature though! They have stayed pissed but also afraid of her because of her popularity.
She reminds me personally of our Alaska wolverine which will fight anything in it's path if it see's fit to do so. No respect at all for size or position. Wife Cindy is in this category too. Unfortunately.
In closing I must tell you that she is the best, most moral and most focused leader I've seen since President Reagan. I feel, really strongly, that like Alaska the rest of our country will love her within a few weeks. Put simply, she represents middle America like NO leader we've ever had. I think McCain made a totally brilliant move in choosing her. She's a maverick who is probably tougher and more focused than McCain himself....and she won't be a total "Yes Man" or more appropriately, woman. McCain will love her.
In 2012 she will be President.
My best to all of you in the hurricane belt. I hope you are all OK. We just had another mini Air America reunion here in beautiful Soldotna , Alaska along the Kenai river. We'll be doing this every year now I guess. Like our Flying Tiger pal's before us there are not that many Air America guys left. I'm 71 myself this September 16. Where the hell did the years go so fast?
Interesting read, though long; GWB comes out looking pretty good as a CIC of this report IMHO.
By Bob Woodward
At the Joint Chiefs of Staff in late November 2006, Gen. Peter Pace was facing every chairman's nightmare: a potential revolt of the other chiefs. Two months earlier, the JCS had convened a special team of colonels to recommend options for reversing the deteriorating situation in Iraq. Now, it appeared that the chiefs' and colonels' advice was being marginalized, if not ignored, by the White House.
During a JCS meeting with the colonels Nov. 20, Chairman Pace dropped a bomb: The White House was considering a "surge" of additional troops to quell the violence in Iraq. "Would it be a good idea?" Pace asked the group. "If so, what would you do with five more brigades?" That amounted to 20,000 to 30,000 more troops, depending on the number of support personnel.
Pace's question caught the chiefs and colonels off guard. The JCS hadn't recommended a surge, and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, was opposed to one of that magnitude. Where had this come from? Was it a serious option? Was it already a done deal?
Pace said he had another White House meeting in two days. "I want to be able to give the president a recommendation on what's doable," he said.
A rift had been growing between the country's military and civilian leadership, and in several JCS meetings that November, the chiefs' frustrations burst into the open. They had all but dismissed the surge option, worried that the armed forces were already stretched to the breaking point. They favored a renewed effort to train and build up the Iraqi security forces so that U.S. troops could begin to leave.
"Why isn't this getting any traction over there, Pete?" Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief, asked at one session inside the "tank," the military's secure conference room for candid and secret debates. Was the president being briefed?
"I can only get part of it before him," Pace said, "and I'm not getting any feedback."
Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank.
"When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?" Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs' meeting.
Pace, normally given to concealing his opinions, let down the veil slightly and gave a little sigh. But he didn't answer. Schoomaker thought Pace was too much of a gentleman to be effective in a business where forcefulness and a willingness to get in people's faces were survival skills. "They weren't listening to what Pete [Pace] was saying," Schoomaker said later in private. "Or Pete wasn't carrying the mail, or he was carrying it incompletely."
In several tank meetings, Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, voiced concern that the politicians were going to find a way to place the blame for Iraq on the military. "They're orchestrating this to dump in our laps," Mullen said. He raised the point so many times that Schoomaker thought the Navy leader sounded "almost paranoid."
* * *
The atmosphere in the tank was tense Monday, Nov. 27, 2006, as Pace briefed the chiefs and the colonels on a White House meeting about Iraq the day before. J.D. Crouch, a deputy to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, had presented the results of a secret strategy review on how to respond to the escalating violence. "I walked out happy because I got my views on the table," Pace said, making it clear that this was not always the case.
The president, Pace told the group, is "leaning into announcing a new phase in the war that will help us achieve our original end state. . . . By April 1, 2007, we would have five more brigades in Iraq."
Schoomaker was dismayed. Suppose the surge didn't work? "What is our fallback plan?" he asked.
There was no fallback, Pace replied.
"Are people engaged on this," Schoomaker asked almost defiantly of the surge proponents, "or is this politics?"
"They are engaged," Pace replied. But if progress is still lacking "after we surge five brigades," Pace said, "then you are forced to conscription, which no one wants to talk about." To mention a draft was to invite the ghosts of Vietnam into the tank.
"Folks keep talking about the readiness of U.S. forces. Ready to do what?" Schoomaker growled. "We need to look at our strategic depth for handling other threats. How do we get bigger? And how do we make what we have today more ready? This is not just about Iraq!"
Part of the chiefs' job was to figure out how to accelerate the military's overall global readiness and capacity, Schoomaker said. "I sometimes feel like it is hope against hope," he said. "I feel like Nero did when Rome was burning. It just worries the hell out of me."
Several colonels wanted to applaud. It worried them, too. Others disagreed, feeling it was more important to focus on the current war. But they all maintained their poker faces.
"Look, no one is whistling 'Dixie' here," Pace told the group. "The president and the White House understand the resource constraints."
It was not clear that anyone believed what the chairman was saying, or whether even Pace believed it.
"We need to position ourselves properly for the decision likely to come," Pace said. "The sense of urgency is over Iraq, but not over the other issues."
Mullen said the all-volunteer force might break under the strain of extended and repeated deployments. "I am still searching for the grand strategy here," Mullen said. "How does a five-brigade surge over the next few months fit into the larger picture? We have so many other issues and challenges: Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and places we are not even thinking about today."
* * *
In Baghdad, Gen. Casey realized that he had lost a basic, necessary ingredient for a commanding general in wartime. He had lost the confidence of the president, a stunning and devastating realization.
He wasn't alone. The president was not listening to Casey's boss, Gen. John P. Abizaid at Central Command, anymore, either.
"Yeah, I know," the president said to Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December, "you're going to tell me you're against the surge."
Yes, Abizaid replied, and then presented his argument that U.S. forces needed to get out of Iraq in order to win.
"The U.S. presence helps to keep a lid on," Bush responded. There were other benefits. A surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence," Bush said. "And it'll help [Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki to get control of the situation. A heavier presence will buy time for his government."
The rest of Iraq wasn't as tenuous as Baghdad, Abizaid said. "But it's the capital city that looks chaotic," Bush said. "And when your capital city looks chaotic, it's hard to sustain your position, whether at home or abroad."
* * *
The chiefs' frustration grew so intense that Pace told Bush, "You need to sit down with them, Mr. President, and hear from them directly."
Hadley saw it as an opportunity. He arranged for Bush and Vice President Cheney to visit the JCS in the tank Dec. 13, 2006. The president would come armed with what Hadley called "sweeteners" -- more budget money and a promise to increase the size of the active-duty Army and Marine Corps. It would also be a symbolic visit, important to the chiefs because the president would be on their territory.
"Mr. President," Schoomaker began, "you know that five brigades is really 15."
Schoomaker was in charge of generating the force for the Army. Sending five new brigades to Iraq meant another five would have to take their place in line, and to sustain the surge, another five behind them. This could not be done, Schoomaker said, without either calling up the National Guard and Reserves or extending the 12-month tours in Iraq. The Army had hoped to go in the other direction and cut tours to nine months.
Would a surge transform the situation? Schoomaker asked. If not, why do it? "I don't think that you have the time to surge and generate enough forces for this thing to continue to go," he said.
"Pete, I'm the president," Bush said. "And I've got the time."
"Fine, Mr. President," Schoomaker said. "You're the president."
Several of the chiefs noted that the five brigades were effectively the strategic reserve of the U.S. military, the forces on hand in case of flare-ups elsewhere in the world. Surprise was a way of international life, the chiefs were saying. For years, Bush had been making the point that it was a dangerous world. Did he want to leave the United States in the position of not being able to deal with the next manifestation of that danger?
Bush told the chiefs that they had to win the war at hand. He turned again to Schoomaker. "Pete, you don't agree with me, do you?"
"No," Schoomaker said. "I just don't see it. I just don't. But I know right now that it's going to be 15 brigades. And how we're going to get those 15 brigades, I don't know. This is going to require more than we can generate. You're stressing the force, Mr. President, and these kids just see deployments to Iraq or Afghanistan for the indefinite future."
* * *
"The tank meeting was a very important meeting," Bush told me during a May 2008 interview. "In my own mind, I'm sure I didn't want to walk in with my mind made up and not give these military leaders the benefit of a discussion about a big decision."
The president said that if he were just pretending to be open-minded, "you get sniffed out. . . . I might have been leaning, but my mind was open enough to be able to absorb their advice."
I told him that, based on my reporting, some of the chiefs thought he had already decided, that they had sniffed him out.
"They may have thought I was leaning, and I probably was," Bush said, noting that the chiefs had felt free to express themselves. "But the door wasn't shut."
Still, Bush fully understood the power of his office.
"Generally," he said, "when the commander-in-chief walks in and says, done deal, they say, 'Yes sir, Mr. President.' "
* * *
Just after Christmas, while in the United States, Casey got an e-mail from one of his contacts. "Hey, you need to know that the White House is throwing you under the bus," it read.
A couple of days later, Abizaid phoned Casey with a warning. "Look," Abizaid said, "the surge is coming. Get out of the way." Casey was soon offered a promotion to Army chief of staff, and in February 2007, he left Iraq, replaced by Gen. David H. Petraeus.
The president said later in an interview, "The military, I can remember well, said, 'Okay, fine. More troops. Two brigades.' And I turned to Steve [Hadley] and said, 'Steve, from your analysis, what do you think?' He, being the cautious and thorough man he is, went back, checked, came back to me and said, 'Mr. President, I would recommend that you consider five. Not two.' And I said, 'Why?' He said, 'Because it is the considered judgment of people who I trust and you trust that we need five in order to be able to clear, hold and build.' "
The views of those trusted people came largely through back channels, rather than through the president's established set of military advisers -- Casey's deputy saying that a surge wouldn't work with fewer than five brigades and Jack Keane making the same case to Hadley and Vice President Cheney.
Hadley maintained that the number "comes out of my discussions with Pete Pace."
"Okay, I don't know this," Bush said, interrupting. "I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."
So the president did not know what his principal military adviser, Gen. Pace, had recommended. Pace, however, had told the chiefs Nov. 20, 2006, that the White House had asked what could be done with five extra brigades.
* * *
The president announced the surge decision Jan. 10, 2007. Five more brigades would go to Baghdad; 4,000 Marines would head to Anbar province.
The next morning, he went to Fort Benning, Ga., to address military personnel and their families. His decision had been opposed by Casey and Abizaid, his military commanders in Iraq. Pace and the Joint Chiefs, his top military advisers, had suggested a smaller increase, if any at all. Schoomaker, the Army chief, had made it clear that the five brigades didn't really exist under the Army's current policy of 12-month rotations. But on this morning, the president delivered his own version of history.
"The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your commander-in-chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics or focus groups or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. They analyzed the plan, and they said to me and to the Iraqi government: 'This won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.' "
Bush went on, "And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, 'Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops.' "
Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.
#4
It will be interesting to see how the liberals handle this, since the alternative to do things the President's way is to do things according to the Chiefs.
In other words, goodbye civilian control of the military.
Presidents should listen to their military chiefs. But presidents aren't obligated to do everything they're advised to do.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/08/2008 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The sage comments of Procopius2k are spot on. "Hope is not a method." What "W" was desperately seeking was a plan, a method which would lead to success. Let me say that Generals Pace and Schoomaker are very fine officers. Unfortunately, while the Tiger Team of colonels were Rangering up PPT Course of Action (COA) slides, the Joint Staff was out maneuvered or deep throated by the AEI and Big Army generals. Not favorably disposed to surgical, Special Operations solutions, these generals and were still stinging from Rumsfeld's appointments, attitudes, and directives. POTUS already had the answer along with the implementor, LTG David Petreaus. My heartburn in all of this is the release of confidential and sensitive historical communications and strategies btwn POTUS and his Joint Staff. The war continues. There will be plenty of time for lessons learned and books when the dying ends. I have no reason to challenge Woodward's veracity. I will however challenge the loyalty to POTUS that some officers appear to have in releasing all of this. Very disappointing on the eve of a presidential election. Just my two cents worth.
#6
Not saying Bush is Lincoln-like, but isn't this how Lincoln eventually won the civil war - trhwoing away overly cautious generals, and going with fighters Grant & Sherman and and thier proteges like Phil Sheridan?
#7
Yep, OS. A lot were worked through till Lincoln found a few that could deliver. They all weren't overly cautious. Some were definitely out generaled.
#4
Those poor trees! They must have been terrified by those people!! I have a nightmare like that: frightening experience and, try as I may, I can't run away.
#5
I don't want them out in the woods. That's where I go to get away from nutballs like this. I do doubt that they were very far out in the woods, though. Probably at some roadside park where it's not scary.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/08/2008 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Horticultural Psychoanalysts around the world today expressed alarm at the damage being caused by groups such as these expressing themselves in the forest. "The trees simply don't understand. They 'hear' the screaming and it simply stunts their growth. In essence, these groups are, in fact, killing the very trees to which they are grieving. Yes, we promote 'talking to nature' to stimulate growth, but this is pure herbicide"
And so new light is shed on the cause of the mysterious blight in forests around the world.
#7
'Nother form of idolatry. Tree and rock worshipers. Interrestingly many of the peoples in Asia that were idolatry worshippers a thousand years ago were wiped out by invading legions of... Islamists, the greatest antagonists of idol worshipers.
#8
Their screams of pain sear my soul... I have always choked up not over trees, but of little John Barleycorn.. If it wasn't mid morning on a Monday, I'd go and grab a beer:
Lyrics to John Barleycorn (Must Die) :
There were three men came out of the west, their fortunes for to try
And these three men made a solemn vow
John Barleycorn must die
They've plowed, they've sown, they've harrowed him in
Threw clods upon his head
And these three men made a solemn vow
John Barleycorn was dead
They've let him lie for a very long time, 'til the rains from heaven did fall
And little Sir John sprung up his head and so amazed them all
They've let him stand 'til Midsummer's Day 'til he looked both pale and wan
And little Sir John's grown a long long beard and so become a man
They've hired men with their scythes so sharp to cut him off at the knee
They've rolled him and tied him by the way, serving him most barbarously
They've hired men with their sharp pitchforks who've pricked him to the heart
And the loader he has served him worse than that
For he's bound him to the cart
They've wheeled him around and around a field 'til they came onto a pond
And there they made a solemn oath on poor John Barleycorn
They've hired men with their crabtree sticks to cut him skin from bone
And the miller he has served him worse than that
For he's ground him between two stones
And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl and his brandy in the glass
And little Sir John and the nut brown bowl proved the strongest man at last
The huntsman he can't hunt the fox nor so loudly to blow his horn
And the tinker he can't mend kettle or pots without a little barleycorn
#9
Nature Worship is the earths oldest religion. Maybe these people are just 'old skool and keepin it real'.
Reminds of the movie with the guy that took video of bears in Alaska until one ate him and his girlfriend. There's a scene in that movie where the guy actually cries over a dead bee. Says something like "I love you little bee" while crying like it was his favorite puppy.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/08/2008 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Nature Worship is the earths oldest religion. Maybe these people are just 'old skool and keepin it real'.
Reminds of the movie with the guy that took video of bears in Alaska until one ate him and his girlfriend. There's a scene in that movie where the guy actually cries over a dead bee. Says something like "I love you little bee" while crying like it was his favorite puppy.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/08/2008 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Ima do that twice more and get triple double, then I wins the game.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
09/08/2008 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
With this and the WTC Memorial outrages, America's internal enemies are extremely persistent and well funded.
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Alec Rawls, the author of Crescent of Betrayal, a soon-to-be published book about the giant Mecca-oriented crescent that the Park Service is planning to plant at the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania . Given the urgent public need to know, WND books has allowed Mr. Rawls to make a preliminary draft of his book available for free download until the print edition comes out in 2009. Mr. Rawls is working with Tom Burnett Sr., father of Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr., to stop the planting of the crescent. Helping them are about a hundred bloggers who post a weekly Stop the Crescent Memorial blogburst, usually written by Mr. Rawls. Interview at link
Posted by: ed ||
09/08/2008 13:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
this is so crazy it just leaves me speechless. It is amazing that this is still an issue.
A very fair, and very detailed, account of what Obama actually did on the South Side of Chicago. By all accounts, he came in with the best of intentions and did accomplish some tangible good for the people in the Altgeld housing project. I would encourage you to click through and read it all.
I'm going to jump ahead to the key point:
We look to formative experiences to help us understand presidential candidates. Visit an aircraft carrier in wartime and youll learn something about John McCain. Pilots fly off the deck, and sometimes they come back, and sometimes they dont. One day, McCain didnt, and began the time as a prisoner of war that both revealed his character and launched his political career. No matter what he has done since, the U.S. Navy is the culture that made McCain, with his heavy emphasis on duty, honor, and country.
Community organizing is just as essential in understanding Obama. But what does it say about him?
The first thing is that he has a talent for, well, organizing. Everyone who worked with Obama says he was good at the job. And he has used the techniques he learned in Chicago to organize his own presidential campaign, going so far as to enlist Mike Kruglik to help start a Camp Obama program to instill organizing principles into Obama supporters. The result is a campaign that even Obamas opponents admit is a very impressive operation.
But Obamas time in Chicago also revealed the conventionality of his approach to the underlying problems of the South Side. Is the area crippled by a culture of dysfunction? Demand summer jobs. Push for an after-school program. Convince the city to spend more on this or that. It was the same old stuff; Obama could think outside the box on ways to organize people, but not on what he was organizing them for.
Certainly no one should live in an apartment contaminated by asbestos, but Obama did not seem to question, or at least question very strongly, the notion that the people he wanted to organize should be living in Altgeld at all. The place was, after all, one of the nations capitals of dysfunction. . . . No doubt Obama would agree that that is a bad thing, but when a real attempt to break through that culture of dysfunction the landmark 1996 welfare-reform bill, now widely accepted as one of the most successful domestic-policy initiatives in a generation came up, Obama vowed to use all the resources at his disposal to undo it. I made sure our new welfare system didnt punish people by kicking them off the rolls, he said in 1999. Two years earlier, he had declared: We want to make sure that there is health care, child care, job training, and transportation vouchers everything that is needed to ensure that those who need it will have support. Obama applied his considerable organizational skills to perpetuating the old, failed way of doing things.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/08/2008 09:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
When he left for law school, Obama wondered what he had accomplished as an organizer. He certainly had some achievements, but he did not perhaps could not concede that there might be something wrong with his approach to Chicagos problems. Instead of questioning his own premises, he concluded that he simply needed more power to get the job done. So he made plans to run for political office. And in each successive office, he has concluded that he did not have enough power to get the job done, so now he is running for the most powerful office in the land.
And what if he gets it? Hell be the biggest, strongest organizer in the world. Hell dazzle the country with his message of hope and possibility. But we shouldnt expect much to actually get done.
#3
Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.
Change like winning the Cold War and defeating the Soviet Union without ever firing a shot?
Or like securing the release of the Iran hostages?
How about getting this country's economy back on its feet after the four years of Jimmuh Carter malaise?
Or reestablishing our country's pride and sense of purpose after the hopped up, divisive years of Vietnam and Watergate?
That kind of change?
Sorry. That's about as far as I could get with this article. That and wondering why these poor, oppressed people can't seem to get off their butts and do anything at all for themselves.
#4
Just in case you think this article is biased, here's last week's New Republic:
But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him "to make major changes in poverty or discrimination." To do that, he said, "you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials." In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. Personally, he might end up like his father; politically, he would fail to improve the lot of those he was trying to help.
And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school. Kellman, who was already thinking of leaving organizing himself, found no reason to argue with him. "Organizing," Kellman tells me, as we sit in a Chicago restaurant down the street from the Catholic church where he now works as a lay minister, "is always a lost cause." Obama, circa late 1987, might or might not have put it quite that strongly. But he had clearly developed serious doubts about the career he was pursuing.
...
Indeed, during his three years in South Chicago, Obama was constantly having to scale back his objectives as one project after another faltered. First, he got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute. Then, he tried to create what he called a "second-level consumer economy" in Roseland consisting of shops, restaurants, and theaters. This, too, went nowhere. At that point, Kellman advised Obama to move elsewhere. "Stay here, and you are bound to fail," he told him.
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.
The glummest face Wednesday night might have been, if only we could have seen it, that of Hillary Clinton.
Watching the frenzied reaction was déjà vu from my years as a political columnist in Margaret Thatcher's Britain. Modern history's titan of female political life suffered a similar hatred, fuelled to a large extent by her gender. Mrs. Thatcher overcame it magnificently, but in the end, the fact was that she was female and not one of "them"a member of the old boys' club of the Tory establishmentplayed a significant role in bringing her down.
Don Clinton: Oh, get yourself a hankie, Candace, and stop bleedin all over my rug. The more you whine and cry the more that lil Alaskan hootchi-goo is gonna laugh while she grinds the stiletto heel of those cute little size sevens straight through your pericardium and into your heart before you even know whats happened!
