Much as I am disgusted with the Clintons and the other “monarchs” detailed below, I am more fundamentally scared of Barack Obama because I don’t know what he stands for other than “hope,” “change” and other truisms. He has done a brilliant job of avoiding the nitty-gritty and now with this welter of big time endorsements and the wind at his back we are not likely to get any specificity soon. He is certainly a charming main. Why not rely on that and not rock the boat with ideas subject to debate or thoughts that might reveal lack of preparation or experience?
But, as we learn from Noah Pollak who has been doing some interesting digging at the contentions blog, we have serious reason to be wary of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, just as we have reason to be disturbed by the idolatrous support of the racist Louis Farrakhan by Obama’s minister.
My own suspicion… and at this point it is only that… is that Obama himself actually doesn’t know what he thinks in the foreign policy area. He speaks in generalities, claims he was against the Iraq War and then voted to fund it (like Hillary) – the usual hypocrisy that makes for moral and psychological confusion. So all is reduced to slogans or brainless competitions like who will pull out of Iraq faster when everyone knows that when confronted by the reality of decision making all will be different.
And, like most people when getting the approbation of the crowd, I imagine Obama is loathe to alienate it and finds himself agreeing with it as the line of least (temporary) resistance. But Obama’s particular crowd is partly a dangerous rabble that has not thought through the times in which we live on any serious level and responds in the most generic peacenik manner. As a single issue voter – the War on Terror – I am more than a little bit concerned.
Meanwhile, there is not much consolation on the Republican side. I just read an interesting article by Fred Barnes in the latest Weekly Standard – How Bush Decided on the Surge. Barnes has good contacts and I imagine much of the reporting here reflects Bush’s view on how this occurred. Here’s a telling paragraph:
After the bombing [in Samara], NSC officials were increasingly dubious. They weren’t alone. General Keane kept in contact with retired and active Army officers, including Petraeus, who believed the war could be won with more troops and a population protection, or counterinsurgency, strategy–but not with a small footprint. At the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, a former West Point professor (and a current WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor), Frederick Kagan, was putting together a detailed plan to secure Baghdad. But the loudest voice for a change in Iraq was Senator John McCain of Arizona. He and his sidekick, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, traveled repeatedly to Iraq. McCain badgered Bush and Hadley with phone calls urging more troops and a different strategy. Together, McCain, Keane, Petraeus, the network of Army officers, and Kagan provided a supportive backdrop for adopting a new strategy.
According to this article at least, the loudest voice for change in Iraq was Senator McCain. And yet he is the man we see reviled again and again by conservative Republicans. Well, I guess they have different priorities from me. Can’t say I’m really surprised. Rigid party politics is boring to me – and regressive. But I am very sad.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Jim Rockford:The reason Mr. Simon is that apart from wanting a “Win” in Iraq, McCain is a disaster on the struggle against Jihad:
*McCain wants GITMO closed and terrorists captured on the foreign battlefield sent to US criminal courts where most of them will be released — soldiers don’t read Miranda warnings.
*McCain wants prosecution of those who waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed and co.
*McCain believes waterboarding is torture.
*McCain is an open borders fanatic, exposing an easy avenue of attack.
*McCain is opposed to any effort by the NSA to intercept AQ communications.
*Most damaging — McCain courts the NYT relentlessly. He is not a Republican but a Democrat slightly to the right of Hillary. Preferable to Obama. But that’s small praise.
As for Obama, as a man who has made much of his “Black Identity” in his book “Dreams from My Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance” and his actions with Rev. Wright, it should not be surprising that he surrounds himself with the usual Black Identity politics which includes the usual anti-Israel to anti-Semitic sentiments. Obama makes much of his Kenyan roots, and anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic views are common in Kenya.
Jan 27, 2008 - 9:35 pm 2. markus:Dennis Ross and Richard Clarke are other Obama foreign policy advisors.
I really wish I knew who Republicans are REALLY more afraid of taking on: Obama or Clinton?
With Obama, I see a proven inspriration and vote getter with blacks, jounalists, college students, and people who actually voted for Gene McCarthy or George McGovern at some point in their lifetimes. I see someone likely to lose the Latino vote to McCain. I see a candidate whom conservative writers are falling all over themselves to praise. I see someone who no one knows what he stands for, as you put it, and who may or may not know himself. But I also see a lot of excitment, some of the same excitment that Bill Clinton raised in 1992, albeit with less substance.
Hillary, Billiary, on the other hand, is a known quantity. A policy wonk married to a junkyard dog.
I just wish I knew: who does Bill Kristol really prefer to face?
Jan 27, 2008 - 9:43 pm 3. Roger:Thank for sharing, Mr. Rockford. I believe I read the same fulmination by you, almost verbatim, on Victor Davis Hanson’s blog. It’s nice to see that you’re so sure of yourself. I am less so. I even think support of the Surge may be more important than waterboarding, pro or con. As for McCain’s supposedly relentless courting of the New York Times, my suspicion is he was less than thrilled that they backed him for President on the Republican side. Or he should be. Such an endorsement would be tantamount to the kiss of death. Bill Clinton picked it up within hours, as an indication.
Jan 27, 2008 - 10:37 pm 4. Mogwai:If you truly want to know where Obama stands, he does have a 64 page pdf on his website, detailing his stands on the issues.
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf
BTW, in the far left circles where I dwell, Obama is often accused of being a tool of AIPAC, so, as a single issue voter, you really might not have much to fear from an Obama presidency.
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:42 am 5. Gary Rosen:Mogwai: In those circles, a “tool of AIPAC” is anyone who thinks Israel and/or Jews should be allowed to exist. By the way, that was a nice little bigoted cheapshot at Roger, you Jew-baiting scumbag. Are you sure you’re not markus?
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:09 am 6. Peter Boston:Obama is the reason there is not a direct, popular election for POTUS. The Founders were well aware that empty but pleasant rhetoric was the seed of destruction of the Athenian democracy and wisely avoided the possibility of a repeat.
Jan 28, 2008 - 5:36 am 7. David Thomson:“My own suspicion… and at this point it is only that… is that Obama himself actually doesn’t know what he thinks in the foreign policy area.”
Barack Obama seems to mostly put his wet finger into the air to see which way the wind blows. I do not see any evidence whatsoever that he has ever done any serious reading during his entire life. He is an empty suit—all style and no substance. The man has instead focussed on creating the “perfect” resume.
Jan 28, 2008 - 7:37 am 8. dclydew:*McCain wants GITMO closed and terrorists captured on the foreign battlefield sent to US criminal courts where most of them will be released — soldiers don’t read Miranda warnings.
This is not only untrue, it smacks of outright fabrication. McCain is against holding individuals without trial, but NOT giving them a simple criminal trial with all of the same controls as an American Citizen (such as your Miranda Rights BS).
*McCain wants prosecution of those who waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed and co.
So do I… according to most polls, so do most Americans.
*McCain believes waterboarding is torture.
So do I, so does anyone that’s ever experienced it, so do most expert psychologists in the realm of torture. Of course, you can choose to believe whatever you like and base it on what the tooth fairy or Rush Limbaugh tells you.
*McCain is an open borders fanatic, exposing an easy avenue of attack.
Ahahahahaha, my god you’re entirely full of Bullshit. Open Borders Fanatic?! What planet do you live on?
*McCain is opposed to any effort by the NSA to intercept AQ communications.
No, and again outright lies.
*Most damaging — McCain courts the NYT relentlessly.
Do you realize how stupid this statement makes you sound?
He is not a Republican but a Democrat slightly to the right of Hillary. Preferable to Obama. But that’s small praise.
You are an idiot and reason to wonder if Democracy is a good idea. You apparently have no concept of what Conservative means, what the Senator’s actual voting record is, or what his positions are on any thing you just wrote. I often think your posts are kinda on the lame side, but this jump straight into the wet dreams of the GOP’s loudest Useless Idiots.
We should start a website with every one of the comments like this maintained and stored. Some generations hence, they will line the History books on why the GOP disappeared with the 20th Century. Not because of its policies and politics, but because it simply turned on and ate itself.
Jan 28, 2008 - 9:31 am 9. MikeD:I don’t think I revile John McCain. I just disagree with him on almost everything but Iraq and the need to win the war on Islamofascism. That doesn’t make him unacceptable, just less appealing than others.
Jan 28, 2008 - 10:13 am 10. heather:you know, all this argumentation pro and con the various GOP candidates is – in my view – healthy. You guys SHOULD be analyzing the record and words of each of the people who want to run your country, and the more outspoken and angry the ‘discussion’ the better.
The men left are: McCain, Giuliani, Romney. Each of them will make an excellent (though not perfect) president. You are all lucky.
Imagine trying to choose between the Clintons (who have a trail of records like that of Jacob Marley’s ghost); and Obama, who really has no record at all.
But you could try not to insult each other, No?
Jan 28, 2008 - 10:24 am 11. JayReding:I don’t think McCain is necessarily “reviled”‚Äîplenty of conservatives are supporting him. However, there are a number of issues where McCain simply doesn’t advocate conservative positions. He’s pushed McCain-Feingold, a bill that places unconstitutional restrictions on the exercise of political speech. His immigration positions are worrisome to conservatives. His position on interrogation techniques is principled, but perhaps to a fault.
Conservative Republicans admire John McCain for standing up on Iraq, even when it was politically disadvantageous for him to do so. However, we also have to balance all the views of a candidate, and McCain has given plenty of evidence which suggests that he would only pay lip service to our principles.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:04 am 12. Paul:“But you could try not to insult each other, No?”
It’s the so called moderates here doing the insulting these days. Emotionally they’re still juvenile lefties.
I call BS that most Americans want to prosecute the people who waterboarded KSM, who quickly gave up all kinds of valuable intel that likely saved many American lives. Only the wacked out left “feels the pain” of mass mudering terrorists.
And the idea that waterboarding = blowtorches and power tools is moral equivalence taken to cartoonish extremes.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:15 am 13. jedrury:Victor Hanson has some good points on his website this morning which I encourage you to read. It may even be on Pajamas site too.
All this talk about McCain overlooks that he appears to be a winner in polls against Obama and/or Clinton .. . which keeps the Dems out of the White House.
Fat Ted endorses Obama this noon and the media
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:43 pm 14. LarryD:views it as the second coming of Christ.
One only has to listen to the talk about JFK/RFK, “generation leadership,” and it is clear that silly season is upon us. This whole campaign season takes on an air of unreality. I can not see the American voter placing this fuzzy faced neophyte in the White House. I lived through the turmoils of 1968, the years of “Will Teddy Run?’ and the American voter may enjoy this flight to fantasy but Obama will not be the winner in November. So sit back, relax and watch Billary get hosed ! It is better than any horror show.
McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, says
“I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’ “.
And you wonder why we have issues?
Oh, by the way, Juan Hernandez was the head of the Mexican Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.
Jan 28, 2008 - 1:57 pm 15. chuck:It’s the so called moderates here doing the insulting these days. Emotionally they’re still juvenile lefties.
If the shoe fits…
Jan 28, 2008 - 4:17 pm 16. Stace:Is it true that McCain wants to prosecute the CIA people who waterboarded KSM and Abu Zubaydah?
I can’t find any verification of this, but if it’s true, that would be a deal killer for me. You don’t punish people who were doing their duty as approved by the president and congress.
I’m on the fence about McCain. I have problems with some of his stances, but I know a lot of good people who are supporting him.
Jan 28, 2008 - 5:23 pm 17. Barrett:I too believe that Obama is quite light on substance despite his 64 page pdf file.
What I find extremely interesting is the position Samantha power takes regarding Palestine. In short, she says (i) lets invest billions in a (ii) nation building exercise (iii) supported by a massive military presence that will (iv) alienate both our allies (or at least one, Israel) and various constituencies at home.
Isn’t that exactly what the left has charged George Bush has done by going into Iraq?
It never ceases to amaze me what people on the left come up with? Has any one read Aristotle or understand his principles of consistency and coherency?
Regarding McCain, he was right to stand up for a change in direction and he was out in front of the surge. I think he largely gets the the war with Islamofacism. However, I less than sanguine with many of his other policy positions and he acknowledged lack of understanding of economics. My guess is that he would have different positions on taxes, spending and immigration if he had a better grasp of economics.
Anyway, I’d like to hear other people comment on Samantha Power’s vision of what is needed to build a Palestinian state.
Jan 28, 2008 - 8:02 pm 18. GringoTex:Come now, people, every one knows that John Wintergreen made a great President!
Jan 28, 2008 - 8:51 pm 19. moqui:(from the Gershwin musical Of Thee I Sing. Wintergreen’s winning platform was LOVE)
“reviled” is a stong word. Yes, in a wide open primary like this passions are stirred, and many people are digging in their heels for their favored candidate, seeking to accentuate their differences with the others.
personally, I am a Rudy man, and McCain has always been my 2nd choice. My guys have come under some withering criticism from some quarters of the Republican coalition, but I find it to be just part of the game. Hell, it was just a few weeks ago that some of the same were laying into Romney, and now they are flocking to him as their standard bearer. Thus will be the same if McCain wins.
Jan 28, 2008 - 9:13 pm 20. Mogwai:Gary Rosen – There was nothing bigoted about my post, AIPAC does in fact exist, and it is a lobbying group that has a mission. I don’t want to get too offtopic, so I’ll just say they have been involved in quite a number of controversies.
Roger called himself a one issue voter in his post, that wasn’t my claim.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:01 pm 21. Larry J:All this talk about McCain overlooks that he appears to be a winner in polls against Obama and/or Clinton .. . which keeps the Dems out of the White House.
It wasn’t very long ago that those same polls showed the only Republican who could win was Rudy. We’re at the end of January and the election is early in November. Polls this far out are worse than useless, they’re manufactured news that attempts to influence events instead of reporting what is actually happening. They wouldn’t even make good toilet paper.
McCain-Feingold by itself is enough reason for me to never vote for him. It isn’t the only reason but it’s enough. If he wins the nomination, I’ll not vote for the head of the ticket. No candidate is perfect but his temprement and distain for the 1st Amendment make it impossible for me to vote for him regardless of who the Democrats nominate.
Jan 29, 2008 - 6:46 am 22. Jamie Irons:Back in the early Jurassic, as a student at Yale, I canvassed the streets of New Haven for Eugene McCarthy (that was President Bush’s last year at Yale, by the way).
I see some of the same excitement being generated by Obama, though it doesn’t have a “one issue” feel about it (the issue back then of course was Vietnam).
Like Roger, and for similar reasons, I have become a one issue voter. Same issue.
Nonetheless I am following Obama closely. He’ll never get elected, but he does have the decidedly salutary effect of flushing the true Clintons out of hiding.
Still, at this point I think the election of Billary is a done deal, more’s the pity.
To me it seems the GOP has become etiolated or, perhaps, jejune. And the wind is blowing steadily and hard in the direction of the Democratic Party.
So while this is going to be an interesting election, from the point of view of those of us who want to defeat Islamofascism, it’s going to be a disappointing one.
Jamie Irons
Jan 29, 2008 - 7:27 am 23. AlanC:I’ve been voting for Pres. since I cast my first vote for Nixon. With the exception of a brain dead vote for Carter (I liked his 0 based budgeting idea) I’ve voted Republican in every election. Unfortunately too many of those votes were of the “lesser of two evils” genre. I was a Fred guy up until he crapped out.
If McCain wins the nomination I won’t vote for him. My issues & McCain are:
1) GWoT – Not bad but there are questions re: Gitmo & “rights” that need clarification. Grade B
2) Immigration – Terrible. He seems to have a One World Federalist approach to Sovereignty. His Hispanic outreach director is a former Mexican government cabinet member, complete with a loyalty oath to Mexico, who shouldn’t even have a dual citizenship and is completely against assimilation. Grade F.
3) Free speech – McCain Feingold = grade F. Here, and in several other areas like taxes, he demonstrates way to much sense of ease with incipient tyranny.
Those are the top 3 and he doesn’t come out well at all. My guess is that Hillary would grade out better and my feelings about HER are somewhere south of Medusa.
PS Roger, if I want to place a paid advertisement in Pajamas to run in October that touted the importance of electing a certain person, would you run it?
Jan 29, 2008 - 7:43 am