Word may finally be getting out to the masses that Barack Obama is no "new politician" or some "unifer." He his a typical do-anything-to-win politician who gets in the dirt with the best of them. CNN has just caught up with the Alice Palmer story chronicled on this blog and other places long ago. Well, welcome to the party CNN!
Some usual critics of Obama, such as the Hot Air blog, say that this is no big deal. It's just enforcing the rules. On the contrary, I see it as using technicalities to run over your competition when you don't think you can otherwise win. It's especially unkind to do so to someone who has been kind to you as Palmer was with Obama. No nice guy he.
But both CNN and Hot Air miss the larger point. Obama dealt dirty REPEATEDLY! Not only with Palmer and the other candidates in the Illinois State Senate races (so that he ran UNOPPOSED!), but also in his U.S. Senate race.
Obama's campaign admitted to working to damage his primary opponent Blair Hull with divorce records, and the evidence points to the same in the general election with Jack Ryan. Hopefully, the mass media will get to researching these stories as well. To give everyone a head start, a summary is provided here.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Police video shows Obama robbing nuns at gunpoint -- Andrew Sullivan see upside
... at least it would improve Obama's standing among anti-Catholics in the South ... ok, so I made this up ... but this one is real: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-auschwitz-e.html
When it finally comes -- and it will -- Andrew's disillusionment will be quite a site. Will Obama get his "Bush treatment" or "Hillary treatment" is the only question?
When it finally comes -- and it will -- Andrew's disillusionment will be quite a site. Will Obama get his "Bush treatment" or "Hillary treatment" is the only question?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The New Hillary Clinton is ...
... Michelle Obama. So what makes Michelle Obama in 2008 so different from Hillary Clinton in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for President? The answer: nothing. Both are well educated, outspoken women. If anything, Michelle is more outspoken now than Hillary was then.
And then once elected, President Clinton handed over the overhaul of 1/7th of the economy over to his wife ... and she proceeded with the debacle that was health care reform. So the question for Barack Obama is, "What will Michelle do in an Obama White House?" Foreign envoy? Education? Health care?
Or will she stand by her man and bake cookies as Hillary mocked in 1992? Given Michelle's controversial statements, the country deserves to know now.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
A Sychophant Explained
Why is the conservative blogosphere so interested in blogger/pundit Andrew Sullivan’s views and unwavering support for Barack Obama? Others Republicans and conservatives have voiced their support for Obama, yet they get only glancing criticism. I think that the critics remain interested because it is so mystifying that Sullivan, who until the past few years was such a thoughtful and articulate spokesman for gay and conservative views, and his latest opinions seem like they are coming from a different person. In other words, even though he’s become increasingly outside the conservative mainstream, the mainstream can’t explain why this has happened. And since conservative thinkers rarely have major changes in their views, conservatives themselves remain stumped as to what happened to Andrew.
As a gay conservative and long-time reader of Sullivan’s blog, I think that I can shed some light on Andrew’s journey and offer a very plausible explanation of his changed views and support for Obama.
First, a bit of back story on Andrew for Andrew Sullivan was one of the first political bloggers to get popularity and notoriety at the start of the blogging phenonomenon. His unique views as impassioned, well-published, gay conservative drew many to his blog pages. He was a strong supporter of many Bush administration policies – including in the Iraq War.
However, Andrew jumped ship in the build-up to the 2004 Presidential election. While he became increasingly disenchanted with the execution of the Iraq (and eventually came to advocate a pull-out), it was the Bush administration’s support for a Consitutional amendment banning gay marriage that drove him over the edge.
Since that point, Andrew nary has a kind word to say about Bush, the administration, or Republicans in general. He holds his strongest criticism for Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the President himself.
Then as the 2008 Presidential primary season started, Sullivan became fascinated with Barack Obama. He loves Obama’s generational, racial, and political tonal appeal. Suffice it to say, he buys the Hope, Change, Yes-We-Can stuff hook-line-and-sinker.
Now, Andrew frequently parrots the Obama campaign line to such a point that I wonder if David Axelrod has his fax number. He frequently ends his entries with Obama-ish slogans like “Know hope.”
Every Obama speech is gushed upon. Every Obama gaffe is rationalized and spun to a positive light. He is now a true sychophant.
Conservatives are bemused by Andrew’s progression from conservative to Obama-ite. Some say he never was conservative. Others say he is gay-obsessed. Still others have tried to explain him as over-emotional. All have a point.
But these explanations leave out the core of Andrew Sullivan’s blog – that it is deeply personal. It is a daily dump of whatever is on his mind and in his heart. He has said as much himself on several occasions. So why has Sullivan progressed from Reaganite to Obama-ite? One has to consider Andrew’s personal life.
Now, before I start this, I will admit that I don’t know Andrew (we have never met), but as I have stated above, I have read his blog for some time and he describes much of his personal life there. What follows is just an extrapolation.
One must first know that Andrew has lived for years in Washington, D.C. – a very liberal, Democratic city despite the presence of Republicans in power. To be a (1) conservative, (2) gay, and (3) a supporter of Republican presidents puts oneself in an extreme minority position. I know this because I was one with these same positions as well in D.C. during the same time period as Andrew.
For myself, it meant knowing that almost all of my gay friends and neighbors held political views diametrically opposed to mine. So I largely kept them to myself and hidden from them. For years now, Andrew has had no such luxury. He has been well-known for his public writings for years. I am quite certain that almost all of his friends, neighbors, and acquaintances knew of his politic views. This could not have been easy for him.
Why? Because I know the D.C. gay scene having lived among it for seven years, and it is nothing if not a pit of vipers. Their coldness and self-serving nature is legendary throughout the U.S. gay community. I am quite certain that Andrew was broadly ostracized and likely black-balled for his politics in the 80’s and 90’s. Keeping civil with them – let alone maintaining friends and relationships – could not have been easy.
Then in 2004, when Bush announced his support for the Defense of Marriage Consitutional amendment, I’m sure that the social pressure on Andrew was ratcheted up another notch given his past support for the President. So Andrew, who was soon to be betrothed to a man himself, decided that was it time to dump Bush and, indeed, dump the Republicans.
So, his criticism of the Iraq War increased and soon he had nothing nice to say about the Republicans. I am sympathetic to much of this argument. But why did Andrew not go off and become an independent conservative (like I have done) and instead throw his lot in with the most liberal U.S. Senator and the most left-leaning of all of the main presidential candidates?
First, to become an independent conservative voice would have, by and large, marginalized Sullivan’s voice. Politics have become so polarized that only people who get any listen are those firmly in the left’s Democratic or the right’s Republican camps. Sullivan couldn’t be a Joe Liebermann – after all, he has to make a living. He needs an audience.
So, that explains why he would go over to the left, but why Obama and not Hillary Clinton. Well, simply put, Sullivan hates her. His wrath against her is at least as great as it is for Bush. Why? He decries, not so much the policies of the Clintons, but the tone and style of Clintons – the politics of personal destruction that meant if your not on our side, you must be personally destroyed. Andrew probably felt himself to be on a hit list and likely was seen as the enemy my many in the gay D.C. scene. Again, for him to tolerate this, could not have been easy. So supporting Hillary Clinton was never an option as she was the source of much of his past problems.
That leaves Obama and McCain. And while Sullivan has written many nice things about McCain, they pale in comparison to the glowing things he has said about Obama. To Andrew, Obama represents a fresh start and an end to the Clintons. No more divisiveness. Unity. Know hope. I am quite sure that this is what Andrew wants in his own life.
Now married, Andrew can enjoy personal tranquility among family and friends without the constant pain of being branded a “Bush supporter.” I am certain his new views win almost universal support in his social circle. His life is perhaps better now.
Am I merely hypothesizing? Of course. But a more logical explanation of Andrew Sullivan’s conversion, I have not heard.
Is he selling out his principles for personal tranquility? In many, many ways, yes. But who am I to judge, if that’s the deal he wants to make. What I can criticize is his willingness to try to square the circles of his logic in supporting Obama. They’re often ridiculous and as vacuous as the candidate himself. But I leave detailing of that for other posts.
As a gay conservative and long-time reader of Sullivan’s blog, I think that I can shed some light on Andrew’s journey and offer a very plausible explanation of his changed views and support for Obama.
First, a bit of back story on Andrew for Andrew Sullivan was one of the first political bloggers to get popularity and notoriety at the start of the blogging phenonomenon. His unique views as impassioned, well-published, gay conservative drew many to his blog pages. He was a strong supporter of many Bush administration policies – including in the Iraq War.
However, Andrew jumped ship in the build-up to the 2004 Presidential election. While he became increasingly disenchanted with the execution of the Iraq (and eventually came to advocate a pull-out), it was the Bush administration’s support for a Consitutional amendment banning gay marriage that drove him over the edge.
Since that point, Andrew nary has a kind word to say about Bush, the administration, or Republicans in general. He holds his strongest criticism for Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the President himself.
Then as the 2008 Presidential primary season started, Sullivan became fascinated with Barack Obama. He loves Obama’s generational, racial, and political tonal appeal. Suffice it to say, he buys the Hope, Change, Yes-We-Can stuff hook-line-and-sinker.
Now, Andrew frequently parrots the Obama campaign line to such a point that I wonder if David Axelrod has his fax number. He frequently ends his entries with Obama-ish slogans like “Know hope.”
Every Obama speech is gushed upon. Every Obama gaffe is rationalized and spun to a positive light. He is now a true sychophant.
Conservatives are bemused by Andrew’s progression from conservative to Obama-ite. Some say he never was conservative. Others say he is gay-obsessed. Still others have tried to explain him as over-emotional. All have a point.
But these explanations leave out the core of Andrew Sullivan’s blog – that it is deeply personal. It is a daily dump of whatever is on his mind and in his heart. He has said as much himself on several occasions. So why has Sullivan progressed from Reaganite to Obama-ite? One has to consider Andrew’s personal life.
Now, before I start this, I will admit that I don’t know Andrew (we have never met), but as I have stated above, I have read his blog for some time and he describes much of his personal life there. What follows is just an extrapolation.
One must first know that Andrew has lived for years in Washington, D.C. – a very liberal, Democratic city despite the presence of Republicans in power. To be a (1) conservative, (2) gay, and (3) a supporter of Republican presidents puts oneself in an extreme minority position. I know this because I was one with these same positions as well in D.C. during the same time period as Andrew.
For myself, it meant knowing that almost all of my gay friends and neighbors held political views diametrically opposed to mine. So I largely kept them to myself and hidden from them. For years now, Andrew has had no such luxury. He has been well-known for his public writings for years. I am quite certain that almost all of his friends, neighbors, and acquaintances knew of his politic views. This could not have been easy for him.
Why? Because I know the D.C. gay scene having lived among it for seven years, and it is nothing if not a pit of vipers. Their coldness and self-serving nature is legendary throughout the U.S. gay community. I am quite certain that Andrew was broadly ostracized and likely black-balled for his politics in the 80’s and 90’s. Keeping civil with them – let alone maintaining friends and relationships – could not have been easy.
Then in 2004, when Bush announced his support for the Defense of Marriage Consitutional amendment, I’m sure that the social pressure on Andrew was ratcheted up another notch given his past support for the President. So Andrew, who was soon to be betrothed to a man himself, decided that was it time to dump Bush and, indeed, dump the Republicans.
So, his criticism of the Iraq War increased and soon he had nothing nice to say about the Republicans. I am sympathetic to much of this argument. But why did Andrew not go off and become an independent conservative (like I have done) and instead throw his lot in with the most liberal U.S. Senator and the most left-leaning of all of the main presidential candidates?
First, to become an independent conservative voice would have, by and large, marginalized Sullivan’s voice. Politics have become so polarized that only people who get any listen are those firmly in the left’s Democratic or the right’s Republican camps. Sullivan couldn’t be a Joe Liebermann – after all, he has to make a living. He needs an audience.
So, that explains why he would go over to the left, but why Obama and not Hillary Clinton. Well, simply put, Sullivan hates her. His wrath against her is at least as great as it is for Bush. Why? He decries, not so much the policies of the Clintons, but the tone and style of Clintons – the politics of personal destruction that meant if your not on our side, you must be personally destroyed. Andrew probably felt himself to be on a hit list and likely was seen as the enemy my many in the gay D.C. scene. Again, for him to tolerate this, could not have been easy. So supporting Hillary Clinton was never an option as she was the source of much of his past problems.
That leaves Obama and McCain. And while Sullivan has written many nice things about McCain, they pale in comparison to the glowing things he has said about Obama. To Andrew, Obama represents a fresh start and an end to the Clintons. No more divisiveness. Unity. Know hope. I am quite sure that this is what Andrew wants in his own life.
Now married, Andrew can enjoy personal tranquility among family and friends without the constant pain of being branded a “Bush supporter.” I am certain his new views win almost universal support in his social circle. His life is perhaps better now.
Am I merely hypothesizing? Of course. But a more logical explanation of Andrew Sullivan’s conversion, I have not heard.
Is he selling out his principles for personal tranquility? In many, many ways, yes. But who am I to judge, if that’s the deal he wants to make. What I can criticize is his willingness to try to square the circles of his logic in supporting Obama. They’re often ridiculous and as vacuous as the candidate himself. But I leave detailing of that for other posts.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Visions of a Obama-Jackson-Sharpton White House
What Obama's speech on race lays bare for the world to see is the fact that Barack Obama has no stomach for standing up to the countries leading race baiters. He will not disavow Rev. Jeremiah Wright – a class A race baiter. So what does that signal for an Obama presidency?
Well, I think we can expect an Obama administration to toe the race baiter’s line. But, but, but, isn’t Obama a half black/half white reconciler with the moderating speeches? Why would he become a race baiter?
No, he wouldn’t himself start spewing venom. That’s not him. But he has thrice bowed to the three leading rate baiters in recent memory.
First, in the Don Imus “Nappy Headed Hos” controversy, he succumbed to Al Sharpton’s pressure. Next, with the Jena 6 controversy, he didn’t stand up to Jesse Jackson’s pressure to support the black youths. Eventually, he did what Jackson told him to do. And lastly, we find that he cannot stand up to Jeremiah Wright and his church no matter what they say.
Should we be surprised what happens when there is a racially-tinged event or controversy during an Obama presidency? Expect Jackson and Sharpton to be right there in the Rose Garden pulling the strings of their puppet president.
Well, I think we can expect an Obama administration to toe the race baiter’s line. But, but, but, isn’t Obama a half black/half white reconciler with the moderating speeches? Why would he become a race baiter?
No, he wouldn’t himself start spewing venom. That’s not him. But he has thrice bowed to the three leading rate baiters in recent memory.
First, in the Don Imus “Nappy Headed Hos” controversy, he succumbed to Al Sharpton’s pressure. Next, with the Jena 6 controversy, he didn’t stand up to Jesse Jackson’s pressure to support the black youths. Eventually, he did what Jackson told him to do. And lastly, we find that he cannot stand up to Jeremiah Wright and his church no matter what they say.
Should we be surprised what happens when there is a racially-tinged event or controversy during an Obama presidency? Expect Jackson and Sharpton to be right there in the Rose Garden pulling the strings of their puppet president.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
A Call to Grandma
A phone rings in Hawaii on March 16th ...
Grandma: Hello.
B.O.: Hi Grandma. It's your grandson Barry.
Grandma: Hello Boy. How are you?
B.O.: Well, I'm ok, Grandma. Actually, I'm in a bit of a pickle.
Grandma: What the hell did you do now? You doing drugs again?
B.O.: No, Grandma. I got give a big speeck about racial relations tomorrow and I'm at a bit of a loss about what to say. Can I ask a favor?
Grandma: Sure Boy. What is it?
B.O.: Can I tell the entire world you're a racist?
Grandma: Well, you goddamn did it once before in your goddamn book. What's one more time?
B.O.: Grandma, I told you. That book's really helping me with white people.
Grandma: 'Cause we read!
B.O.: Grandma!
Grandma: Why do you have to tell the whole world again that I'm racist? Why don't you tell 'em about how I helped care for you at a time when mixing of the races wasn't so accepted?
B.O.: I just need to tell everyone you say some things that are a little ... salty. It would really help.
Grandma: I still get funny looks at the grocery store ever since you said that same thing in your book.
B.O.: Grandma please?
Grandma: And why don't you ever talk about some of the crazy stuff your wife says. Talk about some racist stuff.
B.O.: You know I can't do that.
Grandma: Well, it's not like they made video tapes of me saying bad stuff. Or said it in church. Or had it taped. Or profitted from saying things. I only said it to you a couple of times.
B.O.: Grandma please. I don't think I'll get elected if I don't
Grandma: Alright boy. Your grandfather is gonna be spinning in his grave again.
B.O.: Thanks Grandma. I love you.
Grandma: Be sure to add that to your speech.
Grandma: Hello.
B.O.: Hi Grandma. It's your grandson Barry.
Grandma: Hello Boy. How are you?
B.O.: Well, I'm ok, Grandma. Actually, I'm in a bit of a pickle.
Grandma: What the hell did you do now? You doing drugs again?
B.O.: No, Grandma. I got give a big speeck about racial relations tomorrow and I'm at a bit of a loss about what to say. Can I ask a favor?
Grandma: Sure Boy. What is it?
B.O.: Can I tell the entire world you're a racist?
Grandma: Well, you goddamn did it once before in your goddamn book. What's one more time?
B.O.: Grandma, I told you. That book's really helping me with white people.
Grandma: 'Cause we read!
B.O.: Grandma!
Grandma: Why do you have to tell the whole world again that I'm racist? Why don't you tell 'em about how I helped care for you at a time when mixing of the races wasn't so accepted?
B.O.: I just need to tell everyone you say some things that are a little ... salty. It would really help.
Grandma: I still get funny looks at the grocery store ever since you said that same thing in your book.
B.O.: Grandma please?
Grandma: And why don't you ever talk about some of the crazy stuff your wife says. Talk about some racist stuff.
B.O.: You know I can't do that.
Grandma: Well, it's not like they made video tapes of me saying bad stuff. Or said it in church. Or had it taped. Or profitted from saying things. I only said it to you a couple of times.
B.O.: Grandma please. I don't think I'll get elected if I don't
Grandma: Alright boy. Your grandfather is gonna be spinning in his grave again.
B.O.: Thanks Grandma. I love you.
Grandma: Be sure to add that to your speech.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Obama and The Ax
Who is David Axelrod? He is the chief political strategist of the Obama Presidential campaign. Equally as important, he was a key, if not the key, political consultant on Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004. More here and here.
Why is Mr. Axelrod relevant? Because he apparently is fond of "The Chicago Way," which is a particularly brutal form of politics ala The Untouchables. Important also, in that Mr. Axelrod seems to have found in Mr. Obama a person with a similar "appetite for the Big Kill" that wipes out the competition even before there is a vote. Perhaps, he was impressed by Obama's takedown of the Alice Palmer and others in 1996, so the two decided to join forces starting with the 2004 Senate campaign. During that campaign, the two apparently remainded in constant contact. This from an Obama biography "Promise to Power" by David Mendall, who covered the campaign for the Chicago Tribune:
"Obama would lean on Axelrod increasingly throughout the 2003-2004 campaign season--and thereafter. If Obama was on his cell phone, which seemed to be at every spare moment, there was a high probability that he was consulting with `Ax', the apt nickname for this cutthroat political operativee. Obama would call Axelrod three or four times a day, at all hours of the day and night, seeking his counsel."
The results of the political marriage? Witness the wipeout of his primary opponent for the U.S. Senate Blair Hull. Just like Palmer, Hull got kneecapped before the vote. Oh sure, he didn't get removed from the ballot like Palmer, but he was so weakened that he proved no threat to Obama by election day.
But this is where it get interesting. While most thought that Hull did himself in, it was the Obama campaign that pushed the others such as the Chicago Tribune and NOW to make a cause celeb out of Hull divorce and to force Hull to release his divorce records.
It was just before the Illinois Senate primaries in late January 2004 that the Chicago Tribune broke the news about Hull's difficult divorce. Once the blood was in the water, the Obama campaign "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings" as the was revealed months later. Obviously, the pressure worked on in Hull's case, but did the Obama campaign pressure the Trib about the Jack Ryan (Obama's competition in the general election) divorce as well. Did they suggest to or pressure the Trib to sue to get the Ryan records released?
Why is Mr. Axelrod relevant? Because he apparently is fond of "The Chicago Way," which is a particularly brutal form of politics ala The Untouchables. Important also, in that Mr. Axelrod seems to have found in Mr. Obama a person with a similar "appetite for the Big Kill" that wipes out the competition even before there is a vote. Perhaps, he was impressed by Obama's takedown of the Alice Palmer and others in 1996, so the two decided to join forces starting with the 2004 Senate campaign. During that campaign, the two apparently remainded in constant contact. This from an Obama biography "Promise to Power" by David Mendall, who covered the campaign for the Chicago Tribune:
"Obama would lean on Axelrod increasingly throughout the 2003-2004 campaign season--and thereafter. If Obama was on his cell phone, which seemed to be at every spare moment, there was a high probability that he was consulting with `Ax', the apt nickname for this cutthroat political operativee. Obama would call Axelrod three or four times a day, at all hours of the day and night, seeking his counsel."
The results of the political marriage? Witness the wipeout of his primary opponent for the U.S. Senate Blair Hull. Just like Palmer, Hull got kneecapped before the vote. Oh sure, he didn't get removed from the ballot like Palmer, but he was so weakened that he proved no threat to Obama by election day.
But this is where it get interesting. While most thought that Hull did himself in, it was the Obama campaign that pushed the others such as the Chicago Tribune and NOW to make a cause celeb out of Hull divorce and to force Hull to release his divorce records.
It was just before the Illinois Senate primaries in late January 2004 that the Chicago Tribune broke the news about Hull's difficult divorce. Once the blood was in the water, the Obama campaign "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings" as the was revealed months later. Obviously, the pressure worked on in Hull's case, but did the Obama campaign pressure the Trib about the Jack Ryan (Obama's competition in the general election) divorce as well. Did they suggest to or pressure the Trib to sue to get the Ryan records released?
Axelrod, who is a former Trib reporter, and Obama clearly had the Trib's constant ear around this time by granting them "unfettered access to see the real Obama on a daily, if not hourly, basis." The Trib had no record of making divorce records relevant in political campaigns prior or since the Hull/Ryan cases. So what could have possibly prompted the Trib to decide to go to court to get Ryan's records released? How much pushing did Axelrod do?
It strains credibility to think the he didn't push them to go to court for the Ryan records because:
A) Axelrod had constant access to Trib reporters and editors at this time (Documented by quotes in Tribune articles on 2/10, 3/1, 3/17, and culminating in a Axelrod-authored commentary on the editorial page on 3/26)
B) Obama has a record of using legal manueverings to wipe out candidates (see Palmer case)
C) Alexrod/Obama has been found to push for the release of the Hull records
D) Ryan was Obama's likely Republican competition (given that both were the clear frontrunners in their respective parties at the time of the Trib's initiating the lawsuit)
So tell me, how does the subject of the Ryan divorce not get discussed by Axelrod and the Trib? Given the candidate's and Axelrod's history, how do they not push for the Trib on the issue? Again, it strains credibility to think otherwise. But to my knowledge Axelrod and Obama have never directly answered the question as to whether they pushed the Trib on the Ryan divorce records.
As a coda to the whole affair, the Trib waited until late June -- a couple of days after Ryan resigned from as the Republican nominee -- to disclose that the Obama campaign secretly pushed for the release of the Hull records. Why would they wait until Ryan was gone to disclose about the 5-month old story on the long-departed Blair Hull? Could it be that they didn't want the Ryan court case muddied by questions about whether the Obama campaign pushed the Trib to get the Ryan records released?
The Obama campaign and the Tribune should be asked about this so the public knows Obama's full record of wiping out the competition -- two plus confirmed, one more highly suspect.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Hope doesn't matter. I don't have a dream.
Barack has said this:
"Dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government are now just that – dreams and hopes. We must instead turn our focus to those concrete objectives that are possible to attain"What! Why that sounds like he's poo-pooing hopes and dreams! But, but, but, but ... I thought he told Hillary:
"Don't tell me ideals and inspiration don't matter. Don't tell me hope doesn't matter."
He said this nasty thing about hopes and dreams about Iraq, of course, in November 2006.
When it comes to Iraq, it's "No we can't!"
The Best Competition is No Competition -- Part III: Jack Ryan
Who is Jack Ryan? None other than the third political opponent of Barack Obama to meet their political demise prior to the election. This knock-off rate is enough to make Vladimir Putin jealous.
Jack Ryan was the 2004 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. By most accounts, the race against Obama was expected to be real, notwithstanding Republican troubles in the state. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the election -- the Chicago Tribune and ABC 7 News in Chicago sued to have Jack Ryan sealed divorce proceedings unsealed in a California court. Had/has the Trib taken such a drastic measure regarding a divorced political candidate prior to or since? Uh no. No matter. In it's ex-post editorial on June 25 tiltled, "Why the Tribune Went to Court," the Trib reasoned:
Ryan and his ex-wife resisted the move, and when the court announced that the records would be unsealed, the two were were "disturbed and angered" by the decision. She said that she supported his bid for the Senate and cited no abuse or infidelity. Of course, as is so often the case in divorce proceedings, there were salacious details -- an allegation about a sex club. Soon after, Ryan was forced to resign from as the Republican nominee. He was replaced by a very weak candidate, firebrand Alan Keyes, who was trounced by Obama in the general election.
The point here is that, once again, Obama ran in an election against no, or in this case, nominal competition. Is Obama the luckiest man in the world or what? First Alice Palmer, then Blair Hull, and then Jack Ryan -- all strong candidate weakened or gone before the election.
I wouldn't necessarily call it luck. Look for more on the "or what" scenario in a future post.
Jack Ryan was the 2004 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. By most accounts, the race against Obama was expected to be real, notwithstanding Republican troubles in the state. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the election -- the Chicago Tribune and ABC 7 News in Chicago sued to have Jack Ryan sealed divorce proceedings unsealed in a California court. Had/has the Trib taken such a drastic measure regarding a divorced political candidate prior to or since? Uh no. No matter. In it's ex-post editorial on June 25 tiltled, "Why the Tribune Went to Court," the Trib reasoned:
"This is not the first time that the Tribune has sought access to publicYes, so these were the best parallel examples that the Trib could cite -- village board meetings and Watergate from the early 70's? No other divorce records? No other records (e.g., medical or tax returns) of political candidates? Apparently not.
records. Reporters seek all manner of records, from government contracts to the
minutes of village board meetings to the transcripts of the Watergate tapes.
They do so for one reason: so readers are informed."
Ryan and his ex-wife resisted the move, and when the court announced that the records would be unsealed, the two were were "disturbed and angered" by the decision. She said that she supported his bid for the Senate and cited no abuse or infidelity. Of course, as is so often the case in divorce proceedings, there were salacious details -- an allegation about a sex club. Soon after, Ryan was forced to resign from as the Republican nominee. He was replaced by a very weak candidate, firebrand Alan Keyes, who was trounced by Obama in the general election.
The point here is that, once again, Obama ran in an election against no, or in this case, nominal competition. Is Obama the luckiest man in the world or what? First Alice Palmer, then Blair Hull, and then Jack Ryan -- all strong candidate weakened or gone before the election.
I wouldn't necessarily call it luck. Look for more on the "or what" scenario in a future post.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Best Competition is No Competition -- Part II: Blair Hull
Who is Blair Hull? He was the front runner for the Democratic nomination for Illinois junior U.S. Senate seat in 2004. Then on February 15, 2004, about a month before the primary the Chicago Tribune dropped this tidbit into the race at the end of an article by David Mardell:
"As his second marriage to Sexton collapsed in 1998, Sexton filed an order of protection against him, public records show. Hull won't talk about the divorce in detail, saying only that it was "contentious" and that he and Sexton are friends."
That was all it took for blood to hit the water. Hull's explanations didn't suffice, and calls came for him to release the divorce records. On Feb. 21 and 26, Mardell wrote two more articles highlighting Hull's difficulty.
Then two days later, bowing to pressure, Hull released his divorce records, showing a hostile relationship with his former wife. One day later, the Tribune endorsed Obama and cited Hull's divorce record as a reason for not supporting him. On March 2, NOW protested Hull in Chicago. Long story short: Hull tanked and Obama won.
Five months later, it was revealed, to little fanfare, by Mardell that the Obama campaign "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings."
So Obama took down Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents without an election in his primary campaign for the Illinois State Senate, and he also got Blair Hull whacked without getting any blood splattered on himself. How did he do it? Would anyone else fall?
"As his second marriage to Sexton collapsed in 1998, Sexton filed an order of protection against him, public records show. Hull won't talk about the divorce in detail, saying only that it was "contentious" and that he and Sexton are friends."
That was all it took for blood to hit the water. Hull's explanations didn't suffice, and calls came for him to release the divorce records. On Feb. 21 and 26, Mardell wrote two more articles highlighting Hull's difficulty.
Then two days later, bowing to pressure, Hull released his divorce records, showing a hostile relationship with his former wife. One day later, the Tribune endorsed Obama and cited Hull's divorce record as a reason for not supporting him. On March 2, NOW protested Hull in Chicago. Long story short: Hull tanked and Obama won.
Five months later, it was revealed, to little fanfare, by Mardell that the Obama campaign "worked aggressively behind the scenes to fuel controversy about Hull's filings."
So Obama took down Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents without an election in his primary campaign for the Illinois State Senate, and he also got Blair Hull whacked without getting any blood splattered on himself. How did he do it? Would anyone else fall?
Barack's resume: No page-down necessary
In the Meet the Candidate section of Barack Obama's own website, his life and accomplishments are summed up in just 822 words. However, for even easier viewing, I've omitted the fluff and rearranged the remaining text into resume format. Below is the entire resume:
Barack Obama
Born: Hawaii, August 4th, 1961.
Youth: Grew up in Hawaii, lived a few years in Indonesia.
College: Undergraduate -- Columbia University, 1983; Graduate -- Harvard Law School, 1991
Barack Obama
Born: Hawaii, August 4th, 1961.
Youth: Grew up in Hawaii, lived a few years in Indonesia.
College: Undergraduate -- Columbia University, 1983; Graduate -- Harvard Law School, 1991
Non-political work experience (starting 1985):
- Chicago community church-based group organizer. The group had some success improving living conditions in poor neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment
- Civil rights lawyer - Chicago
- Constitutional law instructor – Chicago
Political Work Experience:
Illinois State Senate (eight years)
- Creating state Earned Income Tax Credit program
- Expansion of early childhood education program
- Passed law requiring videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases
U.S. Senate (2004 to date)
- First law: online public disclosure of public spending
- Championed ethics reform
- Worked to prepare the VA for care veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan
- Traveled to Russia
- Promoting greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards
Personal life: Married with two daughters; Church -- Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The Best Competition is No Competition -- Part I: Alice Palmer
Who is Alice Palmer (pictured on the right) Just one of many of Barack Obama's formidable former political opponents who happeened to meet the their political demise prior to the election. Dr. Palmer was the longtime state senator from Illinois' 13th district. She was well respected and, by all accounts, her constituents were happy with here performance. She had suggested that Barack Obama would be a suitable heir to her senate seat when she ran for Congress in a 1995. Alas, she lost the primary and decided to run for re-election in the Illinois senate. By that time, Obama had decided, as well, that he was the heir to that seat and was already on the ballot.
So did Obama demure to a respected civil-rights leader and allow her to keep her seat? No. Did he, believing he was the better candidate, run against her in an honest campaign in the primary? No. Instead, against the urging of many other in the district, he not only ran, but he also KNOCKED HER OFF THE BALLOT!
But did Obama knock her off or did she do it herself? He got her disqualified on a technicality. Her hastily conceived petition did not have enough validatable signatures -- not surprising in a district of many dispossessed and homeless. But surely this happens in Chicago -- the city of the voting dead -- all of the time. How did Palmer's petition become invalid? Well, Obama sent his henchmen, er supporters, to dig through the signatures and find the invalid ones. Why did he suspect this would work? No one has said. But Obama also used the same tactic on 3 other opponents in the same election.
Obama won the democractic primary UNOPPOSED! He won the general election against virtually no opposition in a district where it is hard to find a Republican.
The elder black women would not be the last to get knocked down by Obama's sharp elbows as he muscled his way to the political frontlines.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Unsociable Mrs. Obama
Apparently, Michelle Obama has not been very good at reaching out the other wives in the Senate or keeping in touch with her follow alumna at Princeton:
"Every woman that I know, regardless of race, education, income, background, political affiliation, is struggling to keep her head above water."Perhaps, things in the U.S. Senate and the lives of Princeton grads are tougher than reported.
----------------------------------(NOT MICHELLE AND BARACK OBAMA)-----------------------------------
Monday, February 25, 2008
Obama threatens 292 thousand jobs
Just take text from the post, "Obama threatens 1.5 million jobs," substitute "pharmaceutical" for "oil" and 292 thousand for 1.5 million," and you'll see more of whom Obama is out to get. The links are here, here, here, and here.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Obama threatens 1.5 million jobs
One week until complete troop withdrawal from Iraq ... almost
In January 2007, Obama sponsored a bill to have all U.S. combat troops out by March 2008
... al Qaeda would have been so pleased. Sorry Osama, you can always hope for Pres. Obama to change courses starting January 2009.
... al Qaeda would have been so pleased. Sorry Osama, you can always hope for Pres. Obama to change courses starting January 2009.
The Great "Unifier"
Obama calls him self a "Unifier."He talks about it in almost every speech. He has ads suggesting such.
But what has he every unified of significance. Yes, he has attracted some people of some different stripes to his campaign. But where is the evidence of how this plays out in terms of policy? And please don’t point to some reaching-across-the-aisle b.s. done in Springfield, Illinois. I live in Chicago, and those folks down there are not the sharpest knives in the drawer and nothing like the vipers in Washington. Where has he done so on a national stage?
Take Iraq, for example.. He emphasizes over and over again how important his stand has been. So how has he unified on this issue? He has taken an extreme position on withdrawal and done nothing – NOTHING – to bring the two sides together. Where are the initiatives legislative or otherwise? Where is the outreach to people on the other side inside or outside the Senate? All he has done is taken an extreme position and not budged. It is the type of position typical in Washington – that you decry – that results in acrimony and divisiveness. So again, I ask, where is the evidence that he can unify the Washington crowd? Is he not just a demagogue on this issue just as so many other are on so many issues in Washington. I just see more of the same in an inexperienced package.
But what has he every unified of significance. Yes, he has attracted some people of some different stripes to his campaign. But where is the evidence of how this plays out in terms of policy? And please don’t point to some reaching-across-the-aisle b.s. done in Springfield, Illinois. I live in Chicago, and those folks down there are not the sharpest knives in the drawer and nothing like the vipers in Washington. Where has he done so on a national stage?
Take Iraq, for example.. He emphasizes over and over again how important his stand has been. So how has he unified on this issue? He has taken an extreme position on withdrawal and done nothing – NOTHING – to bring the two sides together. Where are the initiatives legislative or otherwise? Where is the outreach to people on the other side inside or outside the Senate? All he has done is taken an extreme position and not budged. It is the type of position typical in Washington – that you decry – that results in acrimony and divisiveness. So again, I ask, where is the evidence that he can unify the Washington crowd? Is he not just a demagogue on this issue just as so many other are on so many issues in Washington. I just see more of the same in an inexperienced package.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)