93 Comments

1. NahnCee:

See, the thing about Bela Ambati is that he *believes* what Obama says.

I don’t.

So it’s a matter of voting into office a person that a great many people instinctively consider to be a sociopath, and then once he is there watching to see if indeed he is … or not.

Bela doesn’t think there’s a risk because he believes.

I do think there’s a risk because I don’t.

Therefore, all the logical lists he draws up are superfluous because – for me – I don’t believe a word Obama says.

(And I sort of think that Bela is stupid to allow himself to believe such bounteous malarkey.)

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:26 pm 2. Eggplant:

My suspicion is that Dr. Ambati has liberal friends or family who wore him down through peer pressure into supporting the Messiah (he was correct concerning the Iraq War). I reviewed his arguments for the Messiah and they appear to be invalid. I suspect if someone gave Dr. Ambati a good talking to, he could be brought back to McCain. I’ll leave it to other commentators to go through a point-by-point analysis.

My compliments to Wretchard: This is a good exercise.

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:28 pm 3. fred:

I just read his comments and suggestions. The guy is thoughtful and he covers a lot of ground. It’s just that I think he underestimates Palin and seems smitten with the MSM caricature of the woman.

He does not prioritize the issues. You cannot solve everything or have everything you want. A leader has to be able to prioritize. However bright Dr. Ambati is, he seem unaware of the true skills of leadership. An American president is not a policy wonk. His first duty is to be Commander in Chief. Dr. Ambati seems to underestimate the threat from Iran and he erroneously thinks that stabilizing Iraq has made Iran more dangerous. Seems unaware of military strategic and tactical thinking that it is a good position to be in to have Iran surrounded. We actually would be in less advantageous a position to do something about Iran if the Baathists were still in power in Baghdad. THINK AIRSPACE.

Dr. Ambati seems oblivious to Obama’s socialist template, that has been carefully covered up by his campaign and by the media. I doubt he would be happy about the things Obama and Pelosi would do to the American taxpayer, small business person, and to over all capital formation and risk-taking.

Finally, I tend to not rely on debates to make up my mind about a candidate. It is far better to spend as much time as one can doing research months ahead of the election. Candidates make mistakes in debates. They leave out things, or they tailor their answers to what they think people want to hear. You have to look at a candidate over a longer time horizon.

I just don’t think Dr. Ambati understands the threat from Islamic jihad in the world right now. Is he from Pakistan originally? If so, is he a Muslim? If a Muslim, where does he stand with respect a whole host of issues deriving from the Qur’an and ahadith?

He really dislikes Sarah Palin. Yet, seems strangely silent on the 36 year history of Joe Biden in the Senate – a man who has been wrong on every major foreign policy and defense issue during that time. How can anyone as rational as Dr. Ambati would have us believe he is overlook this?

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:28 pm 4. Dave:

Correct. They are worth reading.

His errors center on two things: One is Pakistan. A problem to be sure. However, the Obama proposals will have the same effect as the overthrow of the Diem government of Vietnam in 1963. Said government was a pain in the posterior. Nonetheless it qualified as legitimate and as an ally. Things went downhill real fast after that Oct 63 coup. We were guaranteed a land war in SE Asia by that blunder.

Try to make “feelgood” with Pakistan and equally bad results are virtually sure to follow.

The other blunder he makes concerns Sarah P.
The MSM leaves no stone unturned to try to paint her as an airhead. Noonan, Savage, and others join in the chorus simply because they were not consulted beforehand.

The good Doctor swallows the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Once he has made these two false assumptions, his reasoning pushes him into the Obama camp on all fronts.

Every populist surge has a backlash or undertow. He got caught up in one.

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:31 pm 5. Leo Linbeck III:

Interesting.

It all seemed pretty thoughtful except for the Palin piece. He seems to have made up his mind based upon left-wing blogosphere talking points. How does he know she is not bright? How does he know she is not curious? He asserts she believes that “the Iraq war is ‘God’s plan’” even though it is pretty clear from the her quote that is not what she said. He also throws her daughter’s pregnancy into the mix.

The other weird thing is that he says McCain only accomplished “delay.” But below he says he is glad the Republicans blocked some of the Democrats dumb ideas. We don’t know for sure, but it is plausible (and there are reports) that McCain’s presence enabled that blocking.

Finally, it is interesting is that all of his assessments of Obama are based upon what he says, without any reference to what he has done (more precisely, what he says now, since much or what he has said in the past does not comport with what he says now). As NahnCee points out, this requires a level of trust that, normally, skeptics require be earned – especially when it comes to politicians running for office.

Regardless, his vote won’t count, since McCain leads in Georgia by 12 points per RCP.

In any event, he seems pretty sure of his judgments. Like a lot of doctors. And a lot of young people.

L3

Sep 28, 2008 - 10:52 pm 6. Leo Linbeck III:

Oops – I said Georgia. Should have said Utah. Same difference (it’s so solidly McCain RCP doesn’t even show a poll). His vote still will not matter.

Oh, and one more thing. In my experience, physician researchers at university-affiliated medical schools are big supporters of two things:

1. Government run health care. Since they’re staff physicians, not private practice docs, they don’t really care who is paying the bills. They are insulated from the market already; reimbursement levels are someone else’s problem. Plus, almost all of their colleagues outside the US practice in nationalized systems, so they figure it can’t be all that bad, right?

2. Increased research funding. Makes it more likely that their RO1s will get funded, which allows them to pay for more postdocs and RAs, which allows them to publish more papers, which allows them to get more prestige, which allows them to get more funding, etc.

Dr. Ambati may be different – I didn’t read any more of his blog – but his position on health care and research are certainly consistent with my experience.

FWIW.

L3

Sep 28, 2008 - 11:03 pm 7. Eggplant:

NahnCee said:

“Therefore, all the logical lists he draws up are superfluous because – for me – I don’t believe a word Obama says.”

That’s ultimately the problem with parsing the Messiah’s policy statements. Case in point, you can follow a link in Dr. Ambati’s blog to the Messiah’s policy section on Science. In that policy section, you read a comparison between the policies of McCain and the Messiah.

McCain’s Space Program policies are well thought out and show a deep understanding.

The Messiah doesn’t really say a whole lot about Space Exploration except a few platitudes and that he wants to reinstitue the National Aeronautics and Space Council. The Space Council is an old concept (when it existed, past presidents tended to ignore its recommendations). The Messiah’s whole space policy boils down to recreating a council that he can ignore.

Now what’s interesting is that prior to coming up with this non-policy about the Space Program, the Messiah did have an actual program. Previously he was saying he wanted to terminate all NASA activity beyond Earth Orbit and focus all of NASA’s scientific capability upon Global Warming. However, NASA already invests resources on Global Warming (the activity is better managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)). In essence, the Messiah was advocating that NASA duplicate the mission of NOAA and do nothing else. Of course this is another way of saying that the Space Program should be terminated.

Obviously, one of the Messiah’s handlers explained to him that this was probably an unpopular policy so he changed his story. Which story do we believe?

Sep 28, 2008 - 11:14 pm 8. whiskey:

Ambati may be a Muslim, if so he is likely voting for the most sympathetic to Jihad candidate.

However, Putin thinks that Obama will win, since he’s helping Chavez go nuclear. Yes, Fox News is reporting Russia (#1 proliferator) will help Chavez go nuclear. So we can expect world wide nuclear proliferation. Iran has paid no penalties, neither has North Korea. EVERYONE will go nuclear.

Disaster — if Bush is weak, imagine Obama. Wet noodles have more spine. [Awaits prison for criticizing "the One"]

Sep 28, 2008 - 11:16 pm 9. Eggplant:

Folks,

Please don’t attack Dr. Ambati’s religion or national origin. Dr. Ambati is obviously very intelligent, well educated and capable of indepedent thinking. Imagine you’re having coffee with him and he just blirted out that he’s going to vote for the Messiah. Your task is to appeal to his reason and common sense (Don’t insult him!). You need to convince him that he should vote for McCain instead.

This should be easy to do. If it wasn’t then we would need to reexamine our own assumptions (Wretchard, you are a genius!).

Sep 28, 2008 - 11:38 pm 10. ledger:

Speaking of “coin” I have to return to ‘Burning Down The House’ and talk about the financial meltdown because it is linked to Obama’s poor showing in the polls.

To take public’s eye off of Obama’s sinking polls the dems torched the financial house.

Bluntly put, the Democrats are to blame for this financial melt down.

Voting for Obama will not help. It would only make matters worse.

Further, I suspect Obama would use the government to silence his critics (such as the ones in Missouri).

That is a trait that is almost criminal. You cannot gloss that over with lectures from Bala Ambati.

Returning to coincidental sinking of Obama’s popularity and the financial meltdown although, the prior Wikipedia article was lengthy it really did not get to the bottom of the problem. It fact it was somewhat superficial with many of “politicians” going unnamed.

Since, the Wiki article was somewhat superficial I will be.

With Obama’s ratings dipping below McCain’s it was an opportune time to tip over the financial chess board. I believe that the dems caused the run on the banks for their own gain (cough… cough.. Chuck Schumer).

After see Cannoneer No. 4’s video of Democrat Maxine Waters with her buddies trying to cover-up the Fannie/Freddie mess, it clear they were milking those government backed entities dry.

It is fairly clear that the dems where caught with there hands in the cookie jar.

Further, After see Democrat Charles Schumer contribute to the bank run on Indymac bank one could fairly to say he did so for political gain.

See: Democrats covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Democrat Chris Dodd and Barney Frank really screwed the pooch in regard to Fannie and Freddie.

As the Wiki article that Wretchard noted, the two biggest government lenders were run by “Crony Capitalism.” As usual the dems where helping themselves to the goodies.

‘Crony capitalism’

“Gerald P. O’Driscoll former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas stated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had become classic examples of crony capitalism. Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage-underwriting. “The politicians created the mortgage giants, which then returned some of the profits to the pols – sometimes directly, as campaign funds; sometimes as “contributions” to favored constituents.”

“On April 18, 2006 home loan giant Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the Federal Election Commission, as a result of illegal campaign contributions. Much of the illegal fund raising benefited members of the United States House Committee on Financial Services, a panel whose decisions can affect Freddie Mac.”

See prior thread for Wikipedia link.

It is time for the Federal Reserve to intervene but it also time to investigate how so much money got misplaced.

I believe that as we go down the rabbit hole we shall see a lot of dems associated with the mess.

But, as it stands the average citizen will only have to hope the honest stewards in our federal government stabilize the situation and make the fraudsters payback the money that they stole.

Obama will not help.

Sep 28, 2008 - 11:44 pm 11. whiskey:

Noting identity politics is not “attacking.” After Rev. God Damn America and the howls of approval by the Congregation, cries of “racism” matter not to most people. They are in fact, irrelevant.

A Muslim man will always vote for the man who was listed, by his stepfather, as a Muslim in his enrollment in school in Indonesia. Who called, the Islamic call to prayer, the “most beautiful sound he ever heard” and can recite it in fluent Arabic.

Shrug. That is the legacy of Barack Hussein Obama and his embrace, decades long, of Rev. God Damn America.

Sep 29, 2008 - 12:21 am 12. Panday:

Ambati’s opinion is important why, exactly?

Sep 29, 2008 - 3:16 am 13. Nomenklatura:

The ideas he’s attracted to on the financial front I can recognize as a motley collection of incoherent nostrums, which casts doubt on the rigor of his opinions regarding international relations and Islam.

Sep 29, 2008 - 3:26 am 14. CPT. Charles:

Hmmm…the usual pap I see.

Well then, here’s my rebuttal, written by someone else with more time than me:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

And I can’t say I disagree with a single word.

Sep 29, 2008 - 3:55 am 15. slade:

What Nomenklatura said (and Panday, NahnCee, Fred, aw heck, agreed with just about all of it). An element of smugness rings out, which is misplaced (usually is) since his little essay is really nothing more than a motley collection of this, that, and whatnot (like a cat collecting string) – lacking in rigor, coherence, and prioritization. And the visceral response to Palin is like a bullhorn of barely suppressed intolerance.

Not impressed.

Sep 29, 2008 - 4:34 am 16. Brett:

Humanists are ridiculous when they masquerade as scientists. Scientists, especially doctors, reveal the narrow educations when they play at political philosophy.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:04 am 17. newscaper:

His deciding to pull for Obama partly *because* of security issues because makes about as much sense as a couple of my friends back in 92 who voted for Clinton (who remember was not the same as post-94 Clinton) because they were mad that Bush Elder reluctantly broke his “read my lips” pledge under great pressure.

So in the name of ‘change’ they voted for the candidate of the party that thinks higher taxes are wonderful.

WTF?

BTW, I’d argue that most doctors are not really “scientists”, or even engineers, so much as highly specialized technicians. They tend to merely apply what they’ve learned, not create or discover with it.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:30 am 18. newscaper:

BTW, I do share his desire for some structural changes (not necessarily those he suggests) to encourage old fashioned “investing” more versus speculation, thru permanent tax breaks on dividends instead of just reducing capital gains, which is an incentive for more ‘churn’.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:34 am 19. Fat Man:

The kid may be book smart, but he has no experience of life. Sort of like his favorite candidate.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:48 am 20. NateTheGrate:

I think a quick Google would lead one to the conclusion that far from being a Muslim the Good Doctor comes from a devote Hindu family and a country that strongly believes that anyone that would rather invade Pakistan sooner rather than later is a Good Person To Vote For(tm).

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:16 am 21. slade:

To follow up on the theme “this job is so easy my kid sister could do it”. The armchair element of blog space criticism has some merit. But the thing that just twists my gut in a knot is to ignore repeated warnings. Mistakes – fine. Stuff and things happen – all the bloody time. But to ignore warnings and to fail to provide fixes – maybe somebody else can find the word – right now I’m thinking criminal.

Imagine the alternative reality if we had applied the brakes to the GSE mortgage market 3 or 4 years ago when the red flags were being raised?

Even one year ago.

Or six months.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:29 am 22. el gordo:

Last November, Obama accidentally blurted out something about invading Pakistan if necessary. It was seen as a gaffe then and he didn´t repeat it for a while. But his campaign noticed that it was toughening up his image and it was a tested line so he is repeating it now. Of course he doesn´t mean it, he is just burning our foreign policy capital to get elected.

Fact is, the US is already going as far as is possible without destabilizing a nuclear power or starting open war with it. Since Pakistan doesn´t have much sovereign control over these areas, it´s only right to strike over the border once in a while. But such a policy is best left ambiguous, deniable. McCain is absolutely right not to trumpet his intentions. Obama is committing a serious blunder there just to get elected.

Pakistanis may assure you their country is stable and sovereign but it manifestly will not or cannot control its territory and its leaders get assassinated by terrorists, so we have to tread carefully. No one has a good solution.

Last point, I´m not going to attack Dr. Ambati´s religion or ethnic origin. That´s just stupid and lazy.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:51 am 23. Mark:

Bala Ambati disagrees with and finds fault with the actions, decisions, and opinions of John McCain. Dr. Ambati finds that Sen. Obama has opinions (such as words re. toughness re. Pakistan) that are more appealing.

Sen. Obama’s main qualification for president, as Sen. Clinton found to her great dismay in the primaries, is that he was fortunate enough to not be in the Senate at the time of the vote on authorization of use of force in Iraq. His further qualifications are staying away from trouble (e.g., bailout discussions). “Present.”

Maybe voters are interested in seeing whether a cosmopolitan type can cut deals and open communications with other nations. Everyone complains about Pres. Bush being a bad commuicator. Of course the media static obliterated his message, but regardless his communications seldom have reached their target. Yes, he will be forgiven and praised in retrospect. But in the meantime Americans may be looking for someone to reestablish cultural, social, and political communication loops.

McCain and Palin are hedgehogs (which may be good, but not appealing to voters at this point, a la Churchill).

One time I bought a Saturn car because it seemed like a good new idea. Bad choice. I’ve bought Toyotas ever since.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:10 am 24. Jack Okie:

I congratulate Dr. Ambati for his remarkable achievements, and would ask if he gained his current position by his rhetoric at his job interview, or his prior accomplishments?

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:18 am 25. programmer:

My $0.02 – I noticed, as have others appeared to notice, that Dr. Ambati dealt with specific proposals that Senator McCain had made in his speechs, etc, but did not (could not?) identify any specifics that Senator Obama had proposed, other than meeting face to face with world leaders and invading Pakistan.

There also seems to be a strong thread of misogyny in some of his comments, not only denigrating Ms. Palin, but Senator Clinton as well.

I don’t believe Dr. Ambati coul be persuaded to vote McCain/Palin. To paraphrase a common meme in the blogosphere, he has drank the kool-aid in one swig.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:27 am 26. programmer:

In my previous comment, coul = could

And as long as I am typing, NahnCee’s comment strikes an interesting chord. Why do such a large number of people find Senator Obama so believable, so admirable? I am not saying that he may not be telling the truth and, indeed, have admirable ideas, but he does not seem to have to work or strive for others belief in him. Again, it is the narrative arc that has taken over and is almost impossible to derail. As a rhino moment, can I suggest a new acronym MMU for Mangling Metaphors Unmercifully? The only hope to stop the Leftist juggernaut is to grab the narrative and seamlessly splice in a different narrative thread that is just as powerful, but totally abhorrent to the voting public. Hmmm, I’m starting to sound like a Koslovian. I think I will go wash my mind out.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:38 am 27. sbw:

It’s a shame he bases his conclusion on faulty premises. On the financial crisis, when McCain arrived in Washington he immediately met with House Republicans who explained their objections. In the White House meeting while Obama pressured for Pelosi’s “deal” that would have given billions to Democrat friends, McCain said the deal would have to be reworked. It was. Thankfully.

Read about ACORN. They weren’t named in the bill, but like the Community Reinvestment Act when Fannie Mae wrote the regulations, they would have benefitted. And when ACORN benefits, so do the Democrats.

Obama isn’t the first of a new generation of politicians. He is the last of an old generation, straight out of the Chicago machine. Fannie Mae-ACORN-Dodd-Frank-Obama-Countrywide — all talked of affordable housing, but they shepherded people into unaffordable mortgages out of political expedience.

The good doctor sounds like the celebrities who stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:39 am 28. Mike Sylwester:

McCain has been talking way too much about himself and way too little about the big issues. I hoped we would see a re-focus when the debates began, but it was more of the same. McCain spent his time naming important people he has known for many years. In the meantime, he forgot to make the point that the Republicans are tough on national security and the Democrats are soft.

The first debate was about foreign policy, the area where McCain should have prevailed clearly. The Gallup polls show, however, that the public perceives that Obama debated better and that the debate significantly improved the public’s opinion about Obama.

If that’s the result of the debate about foreign policy, then the result of the debate about domestic policy probably will be even worse for McCain. He’ll waste his time talking about how he opposed various trivial earmarks and forget to mention that the Democrats eventually will bankrupt the entire economy.

For McCain, it’s all about McCain and his personal character, not about the government philosophy that the Republican Party has developed during the past half century.

Palin is just more personality politics. She gave McCain a boost because she attracted all the one-issue, fence-sitting independents — the abortion opponents, the gun-control opponents and the fervent Christians — back firmly into the Republican Party. She attracted such independents because of her personal lifestyle, not because she can advocate those policies in an intellectually convincing manner.

Bala Ambati’s excellent statement of his swing from McCain to Obama is an eloquent example of a larger tendency of many more voters.

I think it’s McCain’s own fault. I voted for Fred Thompson in the primaries (my fantasy ticket was Thompson and Gingrich), and my second choice was Mitt Romney, so don’t blame me.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:49 am 29. Charles:

I thought Bala Ambati understood pakistan better than McCain–and that probably set him off. Its sometimes a shock to a young man that he knows more than his elders. If he has family in Pakistan–then McCain’s ignorance would make McCain an outsider–an alien. That would be the tipping point.

Knowledge is one thing. Judgement is another.

Having once displayed his knowledge of Pakistan–the rest of Bala Ambati stuff was a judgement call. He was a little bit different than McCain on Iran and a little bit like McCain on Iraq.

I don’t know about the wisdom now of spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq. The work of the next week may avert a depression but it likely won’t avert a recession. Meaning there’ll be less tax receipts. But I’m already several steps ahead of the game. So was Bala Ambati when he talked this way.

For that matter I thought McCain’s talk of including the Ukraine and Georgia in Nato was crazy.

Even the Bush administration has turned “strategic” on matter’s of Russia’s near abroad.

I think Bala Ambati took the MSM’s read on McCain’s behavior last week. The MSM is out of line with reality–because they ignored that junk mortgages were the principle great society program of the democrats. House republicans were not onboard the 700 billion dollar bailout. In fact, they were not even consulted. McCain brought them into the discussions. Their input improved the bill. And gave the democrats political cover for a solution to a problem which they caused.

Bala Ambati acknowledged the republican improvement but said it wasn’t good enough.

I am not qualified to talk intelligently about complex financial instruments. When Bala Ambati started talking about how insurance solutions were wierd– and therefor republicans were wrong for advocating them — it occured to me that because he felt he was qualified to talk intelligently about Pakistan–he also felt he was qualified to talk intelligently about US high finance.

Having once bested McCain on Pakistan he could not acknowledge that he was as ignorant as McCain on matters of high finance.

I’m not so sure a leader is supposed to have a detailed understanding of high finance. However, he is required to have a very good cheese meter. That is a nose for knowing when people are feeding him bs–even if he doesn’t understand what they are saying exactly.

A leader’s principle job is choosing people to do the real work. He has to be a great judge of people.

Which brings us to Bala Ambati judgement of Sarah Palin. On that we’ll know more when she debates later this week.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:04 am 30. hdgreene:

“Economy/Financial Situation: McCain’s behavior this past week can charitably be called bizarre.”

McCain’s behavior bizarre but Pakistan is not a failed state? I think we have a double standard here.

Imagine, a US Senator wants to be on the scene to help craft a 700 billion dollar rescue for our financial sector. He should have just said, “Call me if you need me!”

For Sen. McCain to say Pakistan is a failed state is bad. For Sen. Obama to advocate actions based on that premise is good.

On Iraq Sen. Obama pushed legislation that would: Precipitate a US Military rout out of Iraq (advertised as “redeployment”) and would have already secured that rout. It would have allowed the decimation of the Iraq population (Sen. Obama’s position on genocide: it happens) and the emergence of a failed state that even Dr. Ambati would recognize when he saw it — all of which would be happening right now (and blamed on George Bush). These are positions that are…best passed over without comment?

In Sen. Biden, Sen. Obama picked a running mate who voted for a war he was comfortable with losing; who consistently advocated the Partition of Iraq and who’s thinking on Iran is at best described as addled brained (this is after 30 years of giving the matter careful consideration). Why, it’s enough to make one want to talk about Sarah Palin.

See, the thing about Bela Ambati is that he *believes* what Obama says.. I would add to Nahncee’s comment that Dr. Ambati “selectively believes” what Obama says.

But the Good Doctor did say one thing that made sense:

“Health Care: I have concerns about both candidates’ approaches, but I think Obama’s plan makes more sense than McCain’s of just getting rid of the employer health benefit tax credit to set up a “market.”In any case, McCain’s ideas of privatizing the VA, cutting funding for injured veterans, and his abstentions on preserving Medicare fees for doctors this summer make him a bad choice for me.

And maybe a good choice for everyone else. Hey, where we stand is often determined by where we sit.

“First do no harm” meets “Do something!”

I would suggest to Dr. Ambati that he get his buyers remorse in advance. The Dodge Convertible has a very leaky roof and the days are not always sunny and pleasant.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:06 am 31. slade:

McCain’s behavior this past week can charitably be called bizarre. – Bala Ambati

My “cheese meeter” just went off. Use of the word “bizarre” is not only condescending, but evokes the temper, psychological instability, and age-related issues, not to mention a thinly-veiled swack at intellect.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:20 am 32. Charles:

Just as barak only had to tie to win. sarah palin only has to tie to win. Here is the LA Times worrying about the liberal media having overplayed their hand on sarah palin.
Here’s the LA Times on the upcoming debate:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/sarah-palin-m-5.html

But have Palin’s Democratic opponents overplayed their hand in portraying the 44-year-old mother of five so derisively in recent days?

Was John McCain manager Steve Schmidt’s puzzingly strong attack on the New York Times last week really a trap, an intentional bid to call even more attention to negative coverage of Palin to lower expectations? . . .

The upcoming downside for the Obama-Biden campaign is that its supporters became so flustered over Palin’s surprisingly explosive popularity coming out of the GOP convention. They have so successfully mocked, derided and lowered expectations for Palin in Thursday night’s VP debate that if she doesn’t drool or speak in tongues, many millions still open to persuasion will be impressed.

Al Gore’s campaign made the exact same mistake going into the 2000 debates. So all Texas Gov. George W. Bush had to do was not lose.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:23 am 33. trangbang68:

Is Doctor Ambati’s cultural bias showing? Does he back Obama talking tough on Pakistan because he is Indian? Does he disdain Palin’s unembarrassed Christianity because he’s a Hindu ?
Does he dislike Palin’s leadership role because he’s the product of a patriarchal culture?
Just wondering about these things. We all filter the world through our own template.
Ambati, as others have noted takes Obama with a grain of salt and then some. There is no contemplation of whether there is any substance to his claims or whether they are clouds without rain.
I daresay much of his support is the result of the generational divide in this election. Ambati sees Obama as the shiny new sportster just off the assembly line.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:29 am 34. NahnCee:

TB68 – I agree with your observations. It’s not necessarily attacking Ambati’s heritage or religion to note that he doesn’t appear to think or react like an American. Doubtless that is because of familial influences and being *very* close to the country of his origin, still.

Misogyny is one thing it’s hard for a newly hatched American to hide. If he’s prepared to disregard 51% of Americans because they don’t have penises, then I am prepared to disregard whatever else he has to say, no matter how young he was when he became “educated”.

I wonder if he’s ever experienced what he felt was “racism” because he is melanin-enhanced …

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:46 am 35. Charles:

OT: Here’s something on the paki/afghan border I’ve not seen before. Militants pouring in from afghanistan to pakistan.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48S35F20080929?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&sp=true

A couple more turns like this and pakistan may turn from playing a double game to being fully opposed to AQ. imho the center of gravity in that game is the ISI.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:46 am 36. fred:

Both Barack Obama and his puppetmaster, George Soros, are frightful narcissistic sociopaths. Both have managed to snare the credulous. One of them is Dr. Ambati.

This is consistent with the psychological makeup of those at the top of the pyramid in socialist/Marxist organizations and political structures.

Sep 29, 2008 - 8:47 am 37. Eggplant:

Panday asked:

“Ambati’s opinion is important why, exactly?”

Dr. Ambati is a young, intelligent, well educated professional. He supported the war in Iraq for correct reasons and previously supported McCain. This means he is capable of independent thought and can resist MSM propaganda. He has all the raw ingredients for being a staunch McCain supporter but instead supports the Messiah. This indicates some breakdown in McCain’s message getting across to educated professionals like Dr. Ambati. Understanding this breakdown is a useful exercise.

My guess is this is an error-of-youth. I graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1976. Berkeley in the mid-1970s was enjoying the rosey afterglow of the Vietnam War’s conclusion, the Free Speech Movement and the People’s Park demonstrations. During that time, just about every policital radical in the nation felt obligated to give a speech at U.C.

The Messiah is obviously NOT a new phenomena. His modern prototypes are black radicals like Angela Davis. Listening to Angela Davis as a college student was sort of like being exposed to chicken pox (you get sick once and then you’re immune for life). Angela Davis is now a fat old black woman working as a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz (she went down the same road as the Messiah’s old friend William Ayers). However when Davis was young, she was very attractive and a brilliant public speaker. She ran as the American Communist Party’s candidate for Vice President with Gus Hall. If the Messiah had been born 15 years earlier, he probably would have gone down the same path as Angela Davis. Fortunately for the Messiah, he could go mainstream. He doesn’t need to waste his time with the American Communist Party, and instead can run as President of the Democrat Party.

Anyway, after seeing Angela Davis in action, there’s no way a person could be fooled by a lightweight like the Messiah. It’s as if he has the word “Liar!” flashing over his head like a bright neon sign. Because Dr. Ambati has not had the previous experience of seeing radicals like Angela Davis, he is susceptible to the Messiah’s demagogic appeal.

Mark said:

“One time I bought a Saturn car because it seemed like a good new idea. Bad choice. I’ve bought Toyotas ever since.”

Toyotas are very good cars (better than Saturns). However I like Saturns because they provide good value for the money. My wife owns a 1996 Saturn SL-1 that has clocked over 200,000 miles. I just swapped out the original engine because it was worn out (compression rings were shot). The replacement engine was a low mileage used engine that I bought for about $800 from a junk yard. SL-1’s block and head are based upon a lost foam aluminum casting. The engine is very light weight and not difficult to pull from the engine compartment. After I pulled the old engine, I dissected it and was very impressed with its engineering, e.g. the arrangement of the overhead cam was very clever. I do have some quarrels with the SL-1’s design. For example most of the engine sensors are between the block and the fire wall (hard to get at). Also many components such as the starter and alternator are difficult to access. However the fuel economy and performance of the Saturn are outstanding. In terms of bang-per-buck, my wife’s Saturn is hard to beat.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:00 am 38. Mad Fiddler:

One of the persistent and dominant features of the modern world is that people confuse cleverness with wisdom; sophistication with understanding; assertiveness with judgment.

The popularity of the television show “West Wing” embodies the Leftward Liberals’ emotional investment in image-over-substance. The show places a busload of Clintonista-style New Age Liberal poopheads, in many cases played by celebrities already famous for their espousal of Liberal fads. As is typical of television shows, “West Wing” presents dilemmas which the heroes of the show, by applying the unadulterated solutions of the Liberal Hypothesis, are invariably able to confront and resolve the most intractable challenges of the age within the show’s one-hour format, even allowing for the four commercial breaks of six minutes each.

Blissful Wish Fulfillment for a vast herd of disgruntled children who cannot acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States did not steal the presidency from their party in 2000, but merely required the dominant political party of the State of Florida to follow the election rules it had itself imposed on the electoral process.

Without knowing Doctor Ambati, it seems fair to say that the genius needed to fulfill the educational requirements to qualify as a physician at such a young age does not necessarily substitute for the experience of living on the planet long enough to see the gulf between (a) theory, expectations, and earnest desire versus (b) actual practical pitiless reality.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:11 am 39. Insufficiently Sensitive:

In all Bala Ambati’s learned discourse, he’s wholly ignored Obama’s radical leftie politics and his anti-American church – also his unexamined career in Chicago politics ($150,000,000 diverted from education to developing agitprop cadres), his ‘missing’ records from the Illinois legislature and his ‘present’ votes to conceal his true intentions. Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers is cheek by jowl with Hugo Chavez, and Obama himself is linked with FARC supporters. Mr. Ambati takes no notice whatever of Obama’s hyper-ambitious proposal to set up a mandatory national ’service’ cadre, funded at parity with the US military, which would institutionalize the programs of ACORN in an obscenely lavish manner.

McCain a poor prospect for leading the economy. The President of the US does not LEAD the economy. This is not the USSR, and the President isn’t a wise planner who brings tablets down from the mountain.

The clincher for me is McCain’s selection of Palin. The selection of Palin, despite the derogatory hurricane from Mr. Ambati, is a breath of fresh air. Nothing in the Constitution presents a rigid SOQ which candidates must meet: if you peel back the caustic media blitz and look at her accomplishments (not the Democratic talking points which MSM has been hysterically screaming in our ear for a month), she’s a type which is sorely lacking in Washington DC. With all apologies to the exquisite sensibilities of Mr. Ambati, were she to take her place in government a great number of citizens would feel that, at long last, they have a representative in the Executive branch who has an anti-corruption record, can eliminate extravagant pork, and understands more than the metrosexual and PC agendas.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:14 am 40. slade:

Just a brief note: So very tired of the Palin obsession, which the Republicans partly brought on themselves with the hysteria. The woman is unadulterated, which is refreshing to many of us. Admittedly she needs to get somewhat more “adulterated” if she is to be effective on the public stage, but for those who jump at a “poor” performance, I would ask that they dig deep into the recesses of their own histories which I doubt are free from the embarrassment of “not up to standards.” It’s the pattern that matters – and Obama has one. Palin – not yet.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:30 am 41. Panday:

Eggplant,

Dr. Ambati is a young, intelligent, well educated professional. He supported the war in Iraq for correct reasons and previously supported McCain. This means he is capable of independent thought and can resist MSM propaganda. He has all the raw ingredients for being a staunch McCain supporter but instead supports the Messiah. This indicates some breakdown in McCain’s message getting across to educated professionals like Dr. Ambati. Understanding this breakdown is a useful exercise.

Fair enough. Per se, his opinions don’t resonate with deep thinking or careful analysis. However, I agree that they are useful as a gauge.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:36 am 42. Alexis:

Agree or disagree with Dr. Ambati, he is a very different kind of person than the avalanche of Obama supporters we’ve endured since last Friday. He is real and doesn’t fancy himself as an electronic stormtrooper.

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:37 am 43. Jay:

Will someone explain to me why we should spend time and effort about what this medical researcher believes about American politics? Geez.
The financial manipulations in the US and Europe and their connectons with the welfare state ideology is what I believe is the most pressing set of domestic issues on the table now.
Then we have Iran with nukes.

Sep 29, 2008 - 10:03 am 44. Old Blue:

I had asked the same question as to why a medical savant’s opinion should be newsworthy. While I have many arguments to the contrary, Eggplant’s comment above made good sense as a snapshot of an immature opinion having undergone change as a social/political indicator of the whole.

While it is admirable that the young man is the youngest doctor, that makes him well-qualified to be the youngest doctor, not to be a respected pundit. It is his right to state his opinions and do it publicly.

In getting back to Eggplant’s idea, what would make a young man change his opinion so drastically? Swinging from one extreme to another politically does not demonstrate a young man who has a philosophy (again, his forte is medicine, not public policy,) so much as it denotes a reactionary change in response to a stimulus of some type.

Was that stimulus peer pressure at school? Was that stimulus the announcement of Sarah Palin as VP nominee? Is it possible that the ideas about potential mysogyny above are directly on target?

I can pretty much guarantee that his forefathers are not champions of women’s rights. Would that possibly have an influence on a young man, though he be gifted in science?

As I said; radical change from one end of the political spectrum to the other does not indicate a settled political mind. It does indicate a reaction to the introduction of a deal-breaker. I think that the deal-breaker was the introduction of Palin.

If that is the case, then the concept of a young voter’s swing is irrelevant. What we have witnessed is a visceral reaction to the sudden introduction of an element of such repellent force (a female VP) as to cause the abandonment of all previously held political opinions and a quick scamper to the opposite end of the political spectrum.

This young man, very intelligent, knows on a conscious level that such mysogyny is unacceptable, and so is bright enough to justify his swing articulately. The talking points are out there, and easily lend themselves to such use. (Hence the name.)

So, have we witnessed the “coming towards the light” of a young, intelligent voter; or have we witnessed an otherwise intelligent young man’s fall to a strongly held prejudice of his fathers?

Sep 29, 2008 - 10:10 am 45. slade:

Will someone explain to me why we should spend time and effort about what this medical researcher believes about American politics? – Jay

In addition (contradiction) to posts above:

The subliminal reason is that we continue to rely on *smart* people having the *answers*. As we continue to forget the difference between Ivy League and the School of Hard Knocks – the tuition for *street cred* being almost as steep but maybe more useful. Jury still seems to be out on that.

Speaking of word distributions, notice how many of the (allegedly) new concepts are labelled “Smart” this and “smart” that. I am wondering what they mean by smart.

Sep 29, 2008 - 10:13 am 46. wretchard:

Will someone explain to me why we should spend time and effort about what this medical researcher believes about American politics? Geez.

One reason why we should care is because it always pays to understand why a smart person thinks the way he does. The reasons given often make sense from a particular point of view. Without understanding this process, it is difficult, often impossible, to find a counter. At the very least it indicates what arguments are telling.

Sep 29, 2008 - 10:23 am 47. Konyok:

@Eggplant

For many years I reflexively voted for Gus Hall/Angela Davis, to “send a message.” My first adult presidential vote was for Bush in ‘92. (The “LA Rebellion” and the Rio Summit were more than I could swallow … )

@Mad Fiddler

Everybody, the cast, the characters and the production staff of The West Wing all get *It.* The only thing that we lack to solve mankind’s eternal problems is the political will. Oh, and we’re not nice enough …

**

I fear that Dr. Ambati is a significant bellwether.

In the earlier thread Benj said that this election is about “process.” One thing that I’ve noticed is that Senator Obama succeeds where Bob Dole and John Kerry failed in making legislative speak sound cool. He skillfully combines the zen socialist sentiment with political techno jargon to project confidence and competence – very appealing to highly educated people like Ambati. (Subtext: I will empower YOU, the natural aristocracy of this country, to do great things, and I will remove the influence of the knuckle dragging, moose hunting gun and God clingers.)

Sep 29, 2008 - 10:26 am 48. fred:

A weakness in his thought process about Iran is the same meme that has made its rounds in the Soft Left in recent years: Because we’ve been focused on regime change in Baghdad and stabilizing that country we have not been able to focus on Iran.

That argument is wrong. The problem is not one of focus, but rather of stages of unfolding a strategy. Iran is a difficult country to get at, in terms of air space. If you have to bomb over fifty nuclear weapons’ development program sites, and you have hostile governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, your only routes of approach are from the south, by sea. Furthermore, without controlling Iraq, you cannot exert control over the Straight of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.

As smart as Dr. Ambati is, he does not, as do all people left of center, have a mind attuned to military/strategic realities.

The task of eventually dismantling Iranian nuke sites is made infinitely easier from the position we are now in. Focus is a matter of political will. On that score, the Left, domestically and internationally, has been successful in running cover for Iran. We lack the political will to do anything about Iran because this President has been fatally wounded, politically. The very same chattering classes that Dr. Ambati listens to now were major players in creating this scenario. President Bush cannot and will not act, because his government and the wider American public have either been co-opted or had sand kicked in their eyes by the media. It is stunning to observe the general lack of awareness of just how dangerous the situation becomes by the month.

Dr. Ambati does not know that Obama vows to end the ballistic missile defense program. If we are taking pre-emptive action off the table, then all you have left is that emerging ballistic missile defense project. We are in a joint project with Israel to put this system in place and continually improve it and upgrade it. If you take this off the table as well, you are back at MAD, which does not work with the Mullahs.

My guess is that the milieux of his work place and social circles have wormed their way into his thought process. Many people, subjected to the continual drip, drip, drip process from the MSM and the people around them lose resolve.

Sep 29, 2008 - 11:24 am 49. Alexis:

fred:

If a man has a mind attuned to military/strategic realities, is it possible for him to be left of center?

Sep 29, 2008 - 11:54 am 50. Bonzo:

The question for me is ‘do we want America to be more or less like Europe?’. Before Palin I would not have asked that question within the context of Obama-McCain.

What Palin has done is infuse McCain with a bit of Reagan. Conservatives may be wrong to think that but I believe it explains the massive support of conservatives after she was announced. Obama is all about Obama. Palin is about all those things McCain runs from. That so many, who stated they would at best hold their nose and vote McCain, are now enthused is amazing. However, the enthusiasm is about ideas not personality.

Even if McCain-Palin lose to Obama, the idea of GOP reform will continue. We live in interesting times.

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:00 pm 51. Bonzo:

Ambati’s distrust of Palin is understanding. However, I believe it suggests a lack of understanding of how the founding of America by religious ‘extremists’ made us far different from Europe. That America is a diverse ‘religious’ nation but also amazingly tolerant is important.

Far too many nations in the free world which are areligious are intolerant of tradition and too politically correct.

Perhaps it is acceptance or rejection of cultural traditions that have made clear the left-right divide? Notice there is no obvious divide ‘over there’.

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:15 pm 52. DrJohn:

“One of the persistent and dominant features of the modern world is that people confuse cleverness with wisdom; . . ..”

(Reference Shaw’s “Man and Superman” (Don Juan in Hell). . . . (Paraphrased) Not clean, only starched; not dignified, only fashionable; not educated, only college passmen; not prosperous, only rich; not loyal, only servile; not courageous, only quarrelsome; and so forth.)

Yes, training is often confused with education. I have had many engineers, MDs, and other professionals as students. Most were well trained; few were educated. Ambati must have been bright and took training well, but perhaps like many medical doctors, he never had the time to become educated; or, indeed, the desire.

I expect reliable service from ITs, lawyers, EEs, surgeons, plumbers, or Porsche mechanics, and am willing to pay large sums for such service; but I don’t expect wisdom or insight.

As an example of the difference between training and education, our esteemed host shows evidence of both training (computer skills) and education (political/social insight).

Blessed and few are the folks with both.

Technicians hate this distinction, as well they might, considering the effort that goes into, say, an MSEE.

Actors, athletes, or MDs with political opinions worth listening to? Maybe, but probably not.

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:29 pm 53. slade:

The difference is in the spark. Many posters here have the spark, or call it sparkle, that makes the trained intellect dance.

The good doctor has a nice little Mercedes between his ears. Ain’t no Lamborghini.

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:34 pm 54. Georg Felis:

I started making a reply on his blog. And it grew quickly to unmanageable size (like Tax Code). So I lumped it all on my blog and posted a link in his comments. Its probably a web-etiquette violation, but if brevity is the soul of wit, I’m only halfway there.

Sep 29, 2008 - 2:54 pm 55. Doc99:

Youth is wasted on the young.

Sep 29, 2008 - 3:22 pm 56. NahnCee:

One wonders what it was in the young doctor’s diatribe that touched Wretchard. In posting Ambati’s screed, is Wretchard (whom I admire) agreeing with Ambati (whom I most assuredly do not)?

Sep 29, 2008 - 3:35 pm 57. Bonzo:

NahnCee, what struck me dead on was the trust Ambati placed in Obama and the derision he placed on religion. His point is one which should be addressed.

Religion may all be lies but not all religion is stupid. Some religion is evil.

America is an oddity which should never have been born. America is the most amazing nation in human history.

If I choose to believe the ’stupid’ idea that Moses actually freed Hebrews from slavery only to have them wander for 40 years, am I sub-human? As one who does not ‘get’ most traditional literature, I find the story of Passover to be amazing. Amazing and complex.

Far too many ‘thinkers’ allow and enable Ahmedijan to spout Mahdi tales, while fearing and demonizing Americans.

Pelosi and Frank both stated clearly that they nor their party had anything to do with the current bank problems. Hmmm.

Sep 29, 2008 - 4:47 pm 58. Bonzo:

NahnCee, Ambati is clearly to the right of the free world. Europe is not divided at all. America has been split 50/50.

To me this is an amazing point. Why the lack of diversity in Europe?

Sep 29, 2008 - 4:52 pm 59. AZM:

I started to go down the thread. I usually read and learn quite a bit about the world. Today’s reading helped me to learn a lot about some of you guys (and gals).

First, some answers:
1. Bala (not Bela) is significantly more likely to be originally from India than from Pakistan or Bangladesh. There are a number of reasons for this, but at the very least think of the base-rate frequencies at play.
2. Bala was almost certainly born a Hindu. You can tell from the name, which is to say, I can tell from the name, even if you can’t. Calling/wondering whether “Bala Ambati” (is) a Muslim is a bit like asking whether “Mohammed Ansari” is a Buddhist.
3. So, he’s born a Hindu. Given his education, what he does or does not believe, and whether he practices any religion with any fervor at all is simply not knowable. This from someone who knows a thing or two about that part of the world.

Now, some observations:
1. When presented with another viewpoint many of you mocked the person and impugned his motives.
2. Many of you have attacked his youth and also his “confusing” his knowledge of medicine as a license to mouth of on things he knows nothing about. It’s not clear his arguments relied on any false claims to authority.

I suppose it’s a good thing that the world is made up of so many, many people smarter than Bala Ambati, and that they are so much more knowledgeable about world affairs (or at any rate have permitted themselves to comment on it with aplomb), and that they all hang out at the Belmont Club.

I know that last bit is snarky. But I think of most of you as my friends (even though you hardly know I exist) and friends don’t let friends drive drunk.

Wretch, thanks for trying to let air into the echo chamber.

Oh, and in case anyone’s wondering: I was born Muslim (in India), am an atheist and libertarian, and am struggling now to decide which of the two populists to vote for — Obama or McCain.

My motto for Hope: If America could survive Carter, she can probably survive this too.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:46 pm 60. AZM:

That’s “mouth off” not “mouth of” lest keystrokes be wasted on putting me in my place.

Sep 29, 2008 - 5:49 pm 61. Bonzo:

AZM, I like to say that colonial rule was good for India. Many Indians do not understand my point. Regardless Indians speak English and so very odd in that they are in most ways the opposite of Pakistan.

Which nation is more normal? India or Pakistan?

Which is more normal? Sudan or South Africa?
Zimbabwe or Ireland? North Korea or South Korea? East Germany or West Germany?

Why is New Zealand free? Why is Canada free but not Mexico? Israel is first world why not Egypt, Syria, Jordan etcetera?

Why is DC so poor? We all kind of know the answer. Poor, poverty, slave nations adopt Obama’s POV.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:02 pm 62. NahnCee:

AZM – and your point is? Because all I can get from your post is that you *are* being snarky and you *are* trying to put a whole lot of posters who weren’t being particularly snide down. But then, being Muslim, you probably can’t help feeling that we’re all inferior to you, right?

Is it important that Bela Bala is Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim? Is it important which part of the world he brought his misogyny from? Frankly, I don’t think his whole rant is that important, but what I do find interesting is why Wretchard thinks it is. Bala Bela is entitled to his opinion, provided that he’s a citizen and hopefully a tax payer. But in trying to place himself on some kind of a superior male pedestal because of his youth and education, he just blows his argument all to hell.

So frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn either about his or your assumed superiority.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:30 pm 63. AZM:

I understand your point and agree. Colonial rule was, in fact, good for India in that it gave India the education, tools and institutions to build a democratic and modern nation.

The flip side of that, and unfortunately for many countries under British colonial rule, is that most of their leaders were educated at Oxford and Cambridge. These young leaders brought back with them that horrible, if very popular, disease: Fabian Socialism. So, yes, poor and slave nations are attracted to the Obama POV. Always.

And what we have to show for it is fifty years of wasted human potential. Fifty years of Indians aligning themselves with Russia and not the U.S. and of the U.S. choosing Pakistan… since that’s all it could have for a friend in the region.

Fifty years of centralized planning where the government got to decide how many telephones and toasters to manufacture in a given year.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

It is well reported that the advent of the British rule in India co-incided with a decline in the share of India’s GDP relative to the world. What is not often reported is that post-independence India saw that share decline further and faster and that it was not until economic policies liberalized in the mid-90s (fifty years after independence) that India’s GDP relative to the rest of the world started to grow again.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:44 pm 64. slade:

I suppose it’s a good thing that the world is made up of so many, many people smarter than Bala Ambati, and that they are so much more knowledgeable about world affairs

What I saw from the comments was (1) he knows Pakistan better than either candidate, (2) has suspicious dislike of Palin, and (3) the rest being methodical, mundane, and not particularly interesting or novel – Retread Issues 101.

Nobody disparaged his intelligence, aside from making the obvious suggestion that as a policy wonk, he makes a good doctor; or his knowledge of world affairs – aside from suggesting that it was, well, average (except for Pakistan maybe).

I personally didn’t like the voice – reminded me of the kid in class who was always showing off – in everything. In such people, youth often overstays its welcome.

Treatment of his essay was fair and thorough – and occasionally insightful.

This is a tough crowd. Surely you weren’t expecting converts??

Looks like a case of AZM protesting too much.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:47 pm 65. AZM:

Nahncee,
It must suck to be you.

Sep 29, 2008 - 6:49 pm 66. JFSanders:

The gentleman was most assuredly raised in a male centered household. He is a learned misogynist. He feels a kinship with the Conservative viewpoint due to the male dominant environment he grew up in. But goes with Obama due to Obamas latent misogyny. McCain cannot be the correct choice because he gives voice to women.

He then goes about the mental gymnastics to prove his position.

I find it odd that he has no comments even though there are over 60 on this site.

Jim

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:08 pm 67. AZM:

Slade -
Tough crowd? You’ve got to be kidding.

No, I wasn’t expecting converts.

Yes, I do agree with you that many comments addressed the arguments fairly and stayed away from trashing the individual; it would have been appropriate to acknowledge that upfront.

Re: protest too much — Whatever.

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:29 pm 68. slade:

Well, my “whatever” is bigger than your “whatever”.

And so.

The reason – timing(?) – for your post was what exactly?

That is the point, is it not?

Sep 29, 2008 - 7:40 pm 69. Benj:

@K – Re “Process” – I was actually thinking of Adolph Reed, the would-be Labor Party organizer, who criticized O for “elevating” process over program back in the 90’s (which REed took as a hallmark of a classic middle class-bound reformer). Had a call the other day from a bud that might be to the point here too. HE’s an 80 year old white southerner down in Durham who’s been carting his air around N.c. – he’s got emphysema – as he registers voters. (Sufice to say, he wasn’t out there for Kerry.) My friend says the % of black folks registered in many N.C. counties is above 80. The O campaign figures on getting 80% of those to the polls. That would be unprecedented. As you may have noticed N.C. is definitely in play for Obama at this point. The organizing effort has been pretty sophisticated – To me, the focus on “process” – as in the case of O’s web-based fundraising – means O’s politics are serious. He’s not overseeing another “progressive” exercise in self-righteousness. The point is to realize the democratic promise first glimpsed back at the 1964 Democratic Convention in Atlantic City.

Since you referened my post in that last thread – let me add-on that the echt liberals you invoked – Hump and Mondale etc. – were central players – on the wrong side! – during the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Democratic debacle. (As per Bob Dylan in “Apple Suckling Tree” – “The Vice President’s gone mad.”) “Progressive” icons of our time who date back to that moment – such as Bill Moyers – took appalling moral positions in that battle too. The issue was whether to seat SNCC’s insurgents or the all-white Democratic party regulars in the Miss delegation. Not necessarily an up or down thing – but the Dem Party’s liberal stalwarts couldn’t handle the grassrootsy presence of those Southern blacks who had not been “processed” to use one SNCC’s leader’s term. So we’re back to that word again. I think O knows he owes more to those new “raw” voters than to cooked ones like moi. And, if he wins, I’m pretty certain his olitical agenda will reflect that sense of obligation – though he’ll seek to avoid narrow, race-based approaches to social probs…

A final note – When I think of O’s liberal progenitors – I don’t only think of pols, but there’s certainly no reason to look past King and Bobby K. — Their agendas and tragic history provide the back-story for O’s own attempt to enact a politics founded on inter-racial solidarity…

Sep 29, 2008 - 9:46 pm 70. SamIam:

and Einstein was a pacifist.

Sep 30, 2008 - 1:07 am 71. We're Screwed in '08:

Quite a few Belmont Clubbers seem to think Obama’s an outright Marxist, while my liberal nephew won’t support Obama because he’s a “Chicago-school” capitalist. I pushed him on this and he started ranting about some Svengali named Austan Goolsbee. I looked it up and concluded that Obama’s a liberal, in my book, but he does seem devoted to free-markets . . . maybe.

“From the beginning, Obama has sought out academic economists, rather than lawyers or former White House aides. His first economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a young University of Chicago professor who shares Obama’s market-oriented Democratic views. This summer, Obama added Furman, who has a more traditional background, having worked for both the Clinton administration and the Kerry campaign. But he, too, has a Ph.D. in economics, from Harvard.

As anyone who has spent time with Obama knows, he likes experts, and his choice of advisers stems in part from his interest in empirical research. (James Heckman, a Nobel laureate who critiqued the campaign’s education plan at Goolsbee’s request, said, “I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”) By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets.”

Sep 30, 2008 - 7:20 am 72. Storm-Rider:

Pakistan: Ambati scores a point, but that doesn’t go to the credit of Obama. I don’t trust Obama to wage effective war against Islamo-Fascism anywhere on Earth – including Pakistan.

Iran: Advantage to McCain since Obama has offered to negotiate with the Iranian Islamo-Fascists, just as Neville Chamberlain with the German Fascists.

Iraq: Double advantage to McCain over Obama. Obama “opposed this war from the beginning.” Iraq is not a war; it is a battle in the larger war against an International Alliance of Islamic terror groups, “Secular” Islamic Fascist nations and Religious Islamic Fascist nations. McCain helped formulate the surge while Obama opposed the surge “from the beginning.”

Economy: McCain is what we used to call a normal liberal; Obama is a Marxist-Socialist, and therefore much worse for our economy – Socialism suppresses human creativity through excessive taxation on the hard-working and by giving “free stuff” to the lazy – same negative effect on creativity at both ends.

Healthcare: Socialized medicine is bad medicine. Believe me; you can trust private doctors much more than government-employed doctors; just as you can trust businessmen playing on a level field of competition more than you can trust the government men controlling business. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” George Washington

Science: I have seen nothing which tells me that Obama loves science more than McCain. Science is science; but I fear government use of science as a political tool – something the Democrats (Al Gore) are doing as we speak. Fear political abuse of science – because at its core this is government abuse of truth. Obama, as a Marxist-Socialist is more likely to abuse science as a political project, because Socialists love government power more than science.

Palin: “She is not bright, she is not curious” This is a false and bigoted statement – propaganda of the Marxist-Socialist left.

Sep 30, 2008 - 11:21 am 73. Coyotl:

Storm-Rider:

Palin: “She is not bright, she is not curious” This is a false and bigoted statement – propaganda of the Marxist-Socialist left.

Obviously you don’t read any conservative publications. Critiques of Palin, including calls for her to step down have been written up in National Review! (Kathleen Parker). In addition, such principled conservative voices as George Will, Krauthammer, Brookhiser, Larison, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Ramesh Ponnuru and Rod Dreher have all opined that she is not qualified for OVP. Educate yourself.

Sep 30, 2008 - 11:26 am 74. Storm-Rider:

Coyotl,

“She is not bright, she is not curious”

That is a false and bigoted statement no matter who says it – Marxist-Socialist Left – or from some people on the conservative side. Some of those you mention are certainly entitled to their opinions, but Ms. Palin is not stupid or lacking in curiosity – those are false and bigoted statements.

Examine yourself.

Sep 30, 2008 - 11:49 am 75. Storm-Rider:

Coyotl,

Mark Goldblatt of National Review disagrees with the super genius, Ambati, and those others you mention.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmQ0ZWNjMDI4N2JhNDUyYzM2NjUxYWQwZmEzNDYxMzg=

If there was ever a time for a normal, common-sense, intellegent and morally uninverted person to be in our White House – it is now – and that would be Sarah Palin.

Sep 30, 2008 - 11:58 am 76. Storm-Rider:

“I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king…I have the heart of a man, not a woman, and I am not afraid of anything.” Queen Elizabeth I

I like Sarah Palin because she has courage – she is not afraid of anything or anyone – ditto for John McCain.

Sep 30, 2008 - 12:06 pm 77. Coyotl:

“I like Sarah Palin because she has courage – she is not afraid of anything or anyone – ditto for John McCain.”

Let me name the fear to which she quaked before: Katie Couric. She was afraid of Katie Couric. It was palpable. The interview was an embarassment that turned former supporters agianst her. It revealed her lack of curiosity about key issues of international relations and national security. Don’t take it from me, Stormy, read it from one who had the scales fall from her eyes:

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

— Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sep 30, 2008 - 1:06 pm 78. Storm-Rider:

Coyotl: “Let me name the fear to which she quaked before: Katie Couric. She was afraid of Katie Couric. It was palpable.”

No, I watched the interview, and there was no fear; Sarah Palin looked Couric in the eye and didn’t blink. I trust my own observations and instincts over your clairvoyance on this one.

Sarah Palin may not have the same slick journalist style of Katie Couric, or the lawyer style of Obama, but that is refreshing to me, and to her credit. I prefer and trust the company and speech of a plain-spoken person over a journalist or lawyer any day.

So, Kathleen Parker is a “nationally syndicated columnist” – I’m not impressed. I’m impressed with very few of the species.

Thomas Jefferson was a genius, but he was also gifted with moral clarity. He knew an intelligent and immoral fraud when he saw one. There is a difference between cleverness and rhetorical, and wisdom. There is a difference between style and substance.

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson

“The accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be made, as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers.” Thomas Jefferson

George Orwell also understood the difference between IQ and MQ – the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” George Orwell

Sep 30, 2008 - 2:03 pm 79. Storm-Rider:

Correction:

Thomas Jefferson was a genius, but he was also gifted with moral clarity. He knew an intelligent and immoral fraud when he saw one. There is a difference between cleverness and rhetorical skill, and wisdom. There is a difference between style and substance.

Sep 30, 2008 - 2:05 pm 80. Bala Ambati:

hi,
thanks to everyone for their comments. here is my response:
http://daylightsmark.blogspot.com/2008/09/follow-up-obama-vs.html

sincerely,
bala

Sep 30, 2008 - 4:04 pm 81. Storm-Rider:

Mr. Ambati,

Thank you for your essay and your response to comments here.

In your response you said: “The Couric interview shows she cannot string together sentences coherently or logically.”

That statement represents your elitist-sounding opinion, but your opinion is here contested. Sara Palin is not a professional philosopher, debater or journalist. Her thinking and speech is more in tune with ordinary Americans; and as I stated earlier, that is for me a breath of fresh air and a welcome change from the current cadre of slick and silver-tongued professionals. Nothing in the interview with Couric signaled a lack of intelligence; just the mindset and worldview of ordinary Americans. Many gaffs by Barak Obama and other Democrats have been covered up by our out of mainstream media – the media arm of the Democrat Party. Palin’s verbal imperfections will be focused on; Obama’s will be dismissed out of hand or never reported.

Ordinary common sense and intelligence is what is required for our President and Vice-President. Americans have always had justified suspicion for European-styled and superior-minded “Philosopher Kings.” American Presidents must have ordinary common sense and intelligence, common sense, unquestioned loyalty to America, and courage. Our American Presidents don’t need the highest IQ – they need an adequate IQ. What they must have is the highest MQ. Our Presidents must surround themselves with the very gifted, intelligent, and skilled professionals of all stripes – and they must be in command – and they must defend sacred American Life and Liberty.

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.” Thomas Jefferson

“The accounts of the United States ought to be, and may be made, as simple as those of a common farmer, and capable of being understood by common farmers.” Thomas Jefferson

George Orwell also understood the difference between IQ and MQ – the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

“There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” George Orwell

Sep 30, 2008 - 7:06 pm 82. Storm-Rider:

Mr. Ambati,

Now that you’ve given us your opinion of the supposedly low-IQ Sarah Palin, please give us your more of your opinions regarding high-IQ’d Barak Obama. I don’t question Mr. Obama’s IQ – I question his MQ. What do you think of Sara Palin’s MQ?

IQ is not the full measure of a man or a woman – wisdom is to be factored in as well – carefully factored.

“Alinsky’s contribution to community organizing was to create a set of rules, a clear-eyed and systemic approach that ordinary citizens can use to gain public power. The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”… The other fundamental lesson Obama was taught is Alinsky’s maxim that self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: “get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.”) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. “The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,” he told me “….Chicago pastors still remember Obama making the rounds of local churches and conducting interviews–in organizing lingo, “one-on-ones”–where he would probe for self-interest.”

“I asked Obama if his reputation for purity is a little overblown. He chuckled. “I wouldn’t be a U.S. senator or out of Chicago or a presidential candidate from Illinois if I didn’t have some sense of the world as it actually works,” he said. “When I arrived in Chicago at the age of twenty-four, I didn’t know a single person in Chicago, and I know an awful lot of folks now. And so, obviously, some of that has to do with me being pretty clear-eyed about power.”

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=a74fca23-f6ac-4736-9c78-f4163d4f25c7

“The other fundamental lesson Obama was taught is Alinsky’s maxim that self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people.”

“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” New Testament Bible

Sep 30, 2008 - 7:28 pm 83. slade:

I’m a technician, which means I do technical analysis. A lot of it requires compliance. A lot of the compliance is administered by immigrants or first generation immigrants. It’s just a fact. And they are detail-picky – to the detriment of the bigger picture. The syntax is perfect but the paragraph is a little confusing.

The point I make is that – as a general norm – modern government seems to suck at “plumbing”. That is why Jindall has made such a splash. Not to detract from his accomplishments, but the bigger story is why they are newsworthy. It is because this country does not demand – or receive – basic service from government. It is a news story when it does and the people who deliver are coronated.

Bobby Jindall is not a god or a hero. His peers just suck.

Sep 30, 2008 - 7:29 pm 84. Storm-Rider:

Mr. Ambati,

Consider this statement from Barak Obama:

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems….I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons….I will not develop new nuclear weapons….”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

This defanging of our American Military is, of course, the highest priority of our enemies. The disarming of our American Military, as stated by Barak Obama, is at the top of the wish list of Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and the leaders of Communist China and Communist North Korea. Barak Obama’s statement must find expression in our enemies’ wildest dreams. Our enemies are busy developing regional and intercontinental missile systems; and they are developing future combat systems, new nuclear weapons, and they are weaponizing space. Our enemies will never give up nuclear weapons even if they make such an agreement – they are totalitarians – they wish to keep theirs while we discard ours – and that will be the end of the era of sacred human liberty.

Tell me how it is that Barak Obama can be trusted with the Presidency of the United States. How can we trust a man who would give our enemies what they want the most – while we are at war? Only a fool or a traitor would make such a subversive and anti-American statement. Only a fool or a traitor would put at risk the lives and sacred liberty of the United States.

Intelligence is not the full measure of a man or a woman.

Sep 30, 2008 - 8:30 pm 85. fred:

Storm_Rider,

Your above posts summarizes everything I am trying to tell people about our next President, Barack Obama. It will be calamitous for the nation, and most people are sleepwalking towards disaster.

Sep 30, 2008 - 8:43 pm 86. Benj:

@ Storm – I was tempted to go quote a couple of Palin’s answers to Couric’s questions. She was speaking gibberish. Not common sense. And she was definitely spooked a couple of times. On HH, she may well have got back her mojo as per Peterike. But I can’t see why Clubbers who are so skeptical of cultural elites would dig a pol who assumes “Joe 6-pack” is a term with a positive valence. She’s traducing part of her own constituency and she doesn’t even know it…Ah authenticity.

Your apology for Palin reminded me of that Roman Hruska line when that pub senator was defending one of Nixon’s picks for the SCOTUS, HArold Carswell, despite C.’s mediocre record as a judge. Hruska famously claimed:

“Even if [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.”[1]

You invoke Jefferson all the time. And I know you sincerely love your image of him. But you use his words as talismans – If you really examine his writing, you might find something truer (and more vital) than Timeless Wisdom. Jefferson’s own ideas about Demos and Republics, for example, are pretty directly relevant to the Palin problematic…

J. defined a republican system as as “action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence.” While claiming the people were “constitutionally and conscientiously democrats,” Jefferson circumscribed “action by the citizens.” He thought ordinary folks were “competent to judge of the facts of ordinary life,” as when serving on juries, but they were “unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level.” Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing – an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind – the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc.

I don’t share J.’s a prioris here. (Just as I don’t have much use for his “Notes on the State of Virginia”, where he helped invent “scientific” racism). But, in this case, the point is not GOTCHA Tom. (Or Gotcha Storm!!) The interesting thing is that your hero acknowledged a tension between everydailiness and excellence. I don’t think his elitism is the answer. But forget tme. J. is your Grandee and it seems less than Jeffersonian – and less than honest – to suggest he’d welcome the prospect of a proud provincial becoming president.

PS It’s also less than honest to insist that Obama is a “Marxist Socialist.” Saying it
(over and over) don’t make it so. Same with the Alinsky refs. The guy hlmself wrote a specific critique of the Alinsky-inspired model of organizing. His own politics owe more to King and SNCC (and Fred Douglass and Lincoln). You know, the heroes who made it impossible for scoundrels to find refuge in Jefferson’s words…

.

Sep 30, 2008 - 10:38 pm 87. Storm-Rider:

Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing – an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind – the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc.”

No, Thomas Jefferson was the worst nightmare of elitists of all stripes – including Monarchists, Emperors, Fascists and Marxist/Communists. Thomas Jefferson was the antithesis of Plato and his longing for an elite cadre of rulers, i.e.: the “Philosopher Kings.” All of Europe’s disastrous tyrannies, starting with the Roman Empire, and extending through Medieval times and into the Twentieth century relate to Plato’s elitist dreams. You’ve lied about Thomas Jefferson – you will not reinvent Thomas Jefferson at The Belmont Club. By the way, my great uncle founded a major American University.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

“Action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately, and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic” Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.” Thomas Jefferson

“The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.” Thomas Jefferson, 1817

I do not wear Thomas Jefferson as a talisman. Thomas Jefferson simply voices the American Revolution – you have an aversion to Thomas Jefferson because, as a Marxist, you have an aversion to the American Revolution and an affinity for the Communist Revolution. You wear Karl Marx as a talisman.

“I declared to them point-blank: we have received our mandate as the representatives of the proletarian party from no one but ourselves.” Karl Marx

“The method of engaging in trifles at public meetings and doing real business on the quiet justified itself brilliantly.” Friedrich Engels

“The goal of socialism is communism.” Vladimir Lenin

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Joseph Stalin

Oct 1, 2008 - 7:35 am 88. Storm-Rider:

Well-stated comment on Obama from American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_unspoken_campaign_message.html

America’s outlook with Obama as POTUS and CINC with democrats controlling congress: (Not just a worse-case but a likely scenario.)

Part 1: The White House: as POTUS, Obama will appoint a collection of anti-American, anti-Semite advisors and cabinet members to oversee foreign policy; (all selected by George Soros and his henchmen based on the principals of Jimmy Carter’s presidency). Air Force-one will be Bill Ayers private transport, until he flies it into the Pentagon. Rev Wright will be the White House Chaplin. The White House staff and advisors will be a gathering of anti-American, anti-Christian numb-skulls indorsed by move-on and code pink. The White House will be overrun with BHOs corrupt Chicago cronies. (I can only imagine Michele Obama as first lady and primary WH advisor on Wright-Alinsky ideology). The Lincoln Bedroom will be filled with adoring Hollywood nit-wits. The oval office will be home to a cabal for the demise of traditional America values, (you know, those racist, gun-toting, religious clingers have got to be neutralized).

Part 2: The Military: As CINC, Obama’s first priority will be to marginalize the US Armed Forces. His handlers will redefine the military by insidious appointments; from the SecDef thru the Joint Chiefs, to the area commanders (good-by Petraeus). Senior military Officer and enlisted will retire, mid-grade officers and NCOs (the leadership backbone) will quit, and the junior officer and enlisted will be left floundering and leaderless. US super power status will be degraded to a poker bluff with the military no longer useful as a diplomatic trump card. The US navy will be brought home and mostly scrapped save money. We will be unable to project power any farther than a few miles off-shore and then only to facilitate drug and human trafficking. We will unilaterally disarm, including nuclear weapons and all future weapons systems. (He has already said he would do this). Our remaining deployed military forces will be converted to peace keepers under UN mandate and leadership or brought home and dismissed to join the “civilian national security force”. The remnants of the beleaguered US armed forces will be a blue helmet force under UN control. The once proud United States Military will be replaced with a “civilian peace corps”; Obama quote ;(”We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”) Obama will only need to control dissent within our own borders; the UN will ostensibly “protect” us and the world from foreign interference.

Part 3: Foreign Policy: US foreign policy (and sovereignty) will be eventually subordinate to the UN.) Obama will appease every foreign tyrant so they will “like him”. Islamic countries will rejoice at having an ally in the most powerful position in the world; the success of their jihad will be assured. All our intelligence resources will be turned inward and used to control Americans. The CIA and FBI will be Obama’s private police force along with his civilian national security force (to control any pending domestic rebellion). All our current allies will be betrayed, we will acquire a new set of allies: (Vladimir, A-Jad, Hugo, Raul, whoever the hell runs Kenya and you could fill in the other names yourself). Massive give-a-ways will go to his native Kenya (to whoever the hell runs the place) and other failed African countries because he can. (This is already in the planning stage). Iran will have the bomb (with our blessing), Israel will be fighting alone for its very existence against Iran, its puppet states and its own subversive leftists; Lebanon will be lost to Hezbollah; Palestinians will rejoice; Russia will have free reign in its area and all the old USSR’s former satellite countries will be reabsorbed. Al Qaida will dominate the Middle East including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf States. A nuclear Pakistan will be lost, along with Afghanistan to the Taliban. Europe will be hostage to Islamic fundamentalists and no longer a useful ally to the US. Venezuela will dominate South America with Chinese; Iranian and Russia’s help… our crippling dependence on foreign energy will be exploited by our enemies. China will be struggling for super-power status to replace us: (with their nanoweapons technology they may already be in a position to dominate everyone), India will be a failed democracy with nukes. The US, with a European style do-nothing military, will be ineffective for not only our security but the security of the world. The corrupt UN will gain near absolute world power; the American and European leftist will rejoice; (at least until their wake-up call). Our enemies around the world will be emboldened and our old allies will be demoralized; (mostly our eastern European friends). The UN will project a world order that will favor tyrants over democracies; third world countries will be able to bleed industrial countries dry (with Obama’s help). America will not have the political will to resist any foreign country, consortium of countries or amorphorus groups with the aim of absorbing us through unchecked immigration, Islamization or more likely both. It’s actually already happening; Obama will just facilitate it. (Europe has proven that all-out armed conflict isn’t necessary for total conquest with the help of “useful idiots”.)

Part 4: Domestic: Alinsky’s rules for radicals will replace the constitution, socialism will replace capitalism. (Obama has already stated that his model for the social order is his Kenyon father’s idea of the ’60s.) We can expect him to follow the failed model of every African country… Every federal appointment, especially the courts, will be populated by leftist, socialist appointees. Anti-American theology will be the guiding religious theme of the White House and the country. Individual rights and free speech will be what the ACLU decides it will be. Our National Borders will vanish and the indigent from all countries, along with their contraband will flood into the US until the country is bankrupt. Our entire social fabric will be altered… Judeo-Christian values will be unacceptable. Even a slightly altered supreme court will rewrite the constitution, including the first and second amendment. Gun ownership will be a criminal offense; free speech will turn even more politically correct (critical speech of our “rulers” will be punished.) Obama already owns 90 percent of the media and will be shooting for 100 percent. The so-call “fairness doctrine” will finish off radio and the internet. Government will own all vital industry; (this will make for inefficiencies, cost overrun and endless bailouts and subsidies). Three quarters of the population will work for, or be beholden to the government and half the country will live on government welfare (enough to lock in the democrat vote for endless re-elections); all accomplished with the unfaltering cover of a scurrilous, compliant media. Socialism will seep down to state and local levels by the demographic shift brought on by unchecked immigration and welfare. English will be a second language. The teachers Union will absorb a massive share of GDP with very little trickling down to actual useful education of students. Schools will be government propaganda factories (even more than now). The military budget (especially R&D) will be slashed to near nothing to help finance liberal social programs and bribe corrupt politicians. Labor unions will dictate to company management and along with confiscatory taxes, drive them off-shore. The few people still in private enterprise will pay the bulk of the taxes, under onerous government oversight; the few companies that do survive will be besieged by greedy trial lawyers that will increase their cost of doing business to eventual bankruptcy. With America’s financial debacle, most of America’s capitalization will be, by necessity, from foreign sources… America’s natural recourses will be nationalized and raped to bolster the engine of socialism; (see Hugo Chavez, Obama’s role model). With socialists in charge, our hydrocarbon wealth and all other energy sources will be exploited without regard to environmental damage, global warming or any other hoax:(with socialism you don’t need any phony ways to control the masses.) The Southwest US has shown us the effect of uncontrolled immigration on our culture, language and politics. We have plenty of “useful idiots” right here in our congress, universities, ACLU, state and local political offices and endless special interest groups. In fact it would be hard to find a “useful patriot” in any of these offices. Obama will be able to control election outcomes, like his idol Hugo Chavez, to insure a second term and maybe even more: (president for life?). Virtually everyone that supported Obama these last few years will be “thrown under the bus”, their usefulness over. The Soros world-view is pretty much like described above and he and his cabal will be calling the shots. Obama is simply a figure-head, empty suit who will carry out the orders of his masters to the letter.

Part 5: The End Game: Disabuse yourself of the “hope” that after things get so screwed up “we” can kick the bums out! There will be no “we”, at least with voting power. Obama’s puppet masters will flood the electorate with shadow voters and organize local, state and national Chicago style “Acorn” groups to insure only the votes they want counted will be, as many times as necessary; the democrats in congress will find some way to finance this corrupt organization and liberal judges will rubber stamp the whole blatant fraud. Within the first two years of the anointed ones presidency, conservatism will be a pariah and Judeo-Christian culture will be on the run. True Conservatism will be forced into “fight or flight” mode. Conservatives, by definition, love America, and I’m pretty sure the crew of the Titanic loved their ship too, but what are the other options when you hit an iceberg named Obama.

Oct 1, 2008 - 10:37 am 89. Benj:

@ Storm – “You’ve lied about Jefferson” The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a “liar” hints at’s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It’s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there’s a tension in Jefferson’s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the “republican-demos dualism” is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You’re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by “intelligence above the common level.” J. was no Hruska.

Go back and look at the histories of “fugitive democrats” around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you’ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson.

One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would’ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L’s approach to demos than to J’s… By the way, you know I like Paine – I’m a Big James Otis fan too!!

One more story – A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend – a historian of American populism and dreamer of King’s dream – asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line – didn’t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O’s taste for Ham…

One And not just to this issue. (Again -the ad hominen assertion that I’m M is suggest another interpretation of J. is is The notion that anyone who disagrees with your ou’ve lied about” C Jefferson’s letters to Depont de Nemours. You’;re certainly

Oct 1, 2008 - 11:11 am 90. Benj:

@ Storm – “You’ve lied about Jefferson” The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a “liar” hints at’s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It’s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there’s a tension in Jefferson’s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the “republican-demos dualism” is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You’re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by “intelligence above the common level.” J. was no Hruska.

Go back and look at the histories of “fugitive democrats” around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you’ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson.

One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would’ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L’s approach to demos than to J’s… By the way, you know I like Paine – I’m a Big James Otis fan too!!

One more story – A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend – a historian of American populism and dreamer of King’s dream – asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line – didn’t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O’s taste for Ham…

Oct 1, 2008 - 11:13 am 91. Storm-Rider:

Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing – an elite was a prerequisite.”

That is an untrue statement; and if stated to mislead, it is a lie.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

Oct 1, 2008 - 11:26 am 92. Benj:

Storm – Consider the very quote you cite:
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

Isn’t it clear that Jefferson’s own position as a slaveowner made such pronoucements slightly problematic inside his own head? As you may know, Jefferson’s thinking about slavery (and black people) wasn’t static. And if you probe into his thoughts about the relations between “the people” and their representatives, you’ll see there are nuances there as well. I didn’t misquote Jefferson – and you couldn’t claim that I did. So you reached into your back pocket for “you’re lying” (and pointless bluster about me and the devil Marx walking side-by-side.) It’s a response that’s not worthy of a (small d) democrat. I believe Jefferson would think you’re taking his name in vain…

Oct 1, 2008 - 9:48 pm 93. Storm-Rider:

Benj,
Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but that doesn’t diminish his understanding of elitism as an unjust and often tyrannical form of government power – power which does not derive from the consent of the governed.

There will always be an elite class of scientists and thinkers, but there must not be an elite class of rulers. Elite minds are as easily drawn to totalitarianism as ordinary minds – probably moreso, because elites often worship the superiroity of their own minds.

Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing – an elite was a prerequisite.”

That is a lie.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

Oct 13, 2008 - 9:01 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.