I must admit I find this sturm and drang of this political season endlessly fascinating. In spite of this, there is a feeling that this was all really foretold. By this I mean that when Obama promised change, I believe a large chunk of people didn't really believe he could do it. The words about "spreading the wealth," remaking our economy" and "reaching out to our enemies" were deemed momentary political posturing. However, with a Democrat Congress, Obama pushed ahead with his neo-Marxist agenda. Some voted for a guy who spouted the touchy feely talk of the left, but felt he would likely govern from the center, like Bill Clinton. Oh, how wrong they were.
You see to tack to the center, one has to believe that the system of parties, law and government in this country is essentially good. You simply move the furniture around in the house of government, not blast out walls to change things. Barack Obama was and is not that kind of man. His point of reference never was the government or laws and not really even the Democrat party. It is only himself. In his eyes, the American system has only worked once; when he was elected president.
I'll spare you the litany of sins America has committed over the years, though it is interesting that all of any degree get elevated to practically genocide level, as if no group in world history except America had ever wronged another. Still, it is amazing to me that a man purporting to be a constitutional law teacher has forgotten the most important and obvious lesson of America. John Adams put it in a way that has rarely been surpassed describing America as a "government of laws, not of men." The democratic system, not the people who run it, is the good in American government.
It's funny that ancient Rome used to have a slave whisper in the ear of a conquering general "you are only mortal." This poke at pride had a practical purpose. The republic and later the empire didn't want those powerful servants looking to themselves as the power of Rome. Of course, we know now that was the chief fault of Rome: generals who, though their armies did become the power/law of Rome. Obama seems headed in the same direction. He seeks to make all power personal.
Let's start with the Justice Department. The New Black Panther Party sends hoods to intimidate voters on his behalf on election day 2008. When Obama assumes power, the case is dismissed. The Gulf oil spill seems to highlight the confused uncoordinated response of the White House to a crisis. The solution: Eric Holder threatens criminal charges against BP. Any episode that casts a bad light on this administration whether accidental or not is deemed a personal attack on the power of Obama, demanding a counter-attack.
Article comments
1 - Alan Kurtz
I confess to not understanding the Mideast dynamic. "Obama is attempting to restart talks with Iran," you write, "in the hopes that Israel won't attack Iran while yapping persists."
Nevertheless, you predict, "after the drubbing he takes on November 2nd, Israel will ignore a weakened President," and militarily attack Iran.
What I don't follow is why Israel is waiting until our midterms weaken Obama. With Holbrooke, as you put it, "sucking up to Iranians at this very moment," wouldn't now be the perfect time for a preemptive attack? Israel could catch Tehran completely off guard.
What do you think?
2 - Glenn Contrarian
Mr. Cotto -
The New Black Panther Party sends hoods to intimidate voters on his behalf on election day 2008. When Obama assumes power, the case is dismissed.
Have you heard of Abigail Thernstrom? She's the President George W. Bush appointed as vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In an interview with Politico, she said:
“This doesn’t have to do with the Black Panthers; this has to do with their fantasies about how they could use this issue to topple the [Obama] administration....My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president.
Yet another example of Republicans building a strawman and conservatives being so eager to believe ill about liberals (and minorities) that they engage in no fact-checking whatsoever.
3 - Alan Kurtz
Glenn Contrarian (#3), speaking of fact checking, you might want to check the fact of who wrote this article upon which you are commenting. You address your post to "Mr. Cotto," but the writer of this piece is Mr Dock Ellis. Why should anyone credit the rest of your comment, if you can't even get that simple fact straight?
4 - handyguy
It's a Breitbartian world, and facts are the first casualties of this kind of partisan bile-spewing.
From a Politico article about the case and Ms. Thernstrom [emphasis added]:
The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008.
One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda -- though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic "puppet" candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct.
5 - Alan Kurtz
And your point is that it's OK to patrol a polling place while brandishing a nightstick, as long as the candidate you oppose ultimately carries that precinct? Interesting take on what makes for a civil society.
6 - handyguy
Nope, my point was that conservatives have [over and over] tried to portray this as a case of black activists intimidating white voters. It was a precinct in a mostly black neighborhood, and the guy with the nightstick had expressed contempt for the only black candidate on the presidential ballot. So possibly the story has been misrepresented by some people, including the author of this article.
No voter stepped forward to complain about being 'intimidated.' This story is mostly about Fox News playing a short video clip approximately 89 zillion times and yelling about its 'significance.'
The weirdo with the nightstick is under federal court order to stay away from polling places. That should be the end of this minor incident. Apparently we are destined to talk about it periodically until right-wing propagandists find another obscure narrative to blow up and misinterpret for us.
7 - Arch Conservative
"This is what the Tea Party is rebelling against: an Obama directed assault on this market economy for the enhancement of his personal power."
Couldn't have said it better myself Dock. The left has tried to portray the Tea APrty as something they're not, a bunch of crazy racists. It hasn't worked because it's not true and the Glenns and handguys of the world are about to find out in two days just how many Tea minded people are out there.........far more than the number of people that beleive Obama and Pelosi represent what is good for this nation.
However, it is also true that the GOP has not instilled any great confidence in their ability to deliver this nation to a better place. But when you're staring the devil in the eye, any other option available is the one you take. They win by default only.
I know that personally I will be voting not for the GOP but rather against the left wing agenda that would mean the end of everything that once made this nation great. Perhaps it is just an act of desparation to slow our inevitable descent into the abysss. Perhaps the Tea Party movement is here to stay...to relegate the leftist kooks of the world (ie Glenn and handy, Pelosi, Obama) to the fringes of society where they belong, never again to threaten our nation.
8 - Arch ConscienceStain
I know that personally I will be voting not for the GOP but rather against the left wing agenda that would mean the end of everything that once made this nation great.
More cliche, more bullshit. As usual.
Oh my liberties! Oh my liberties!! Many of the idea in that health care boondoggle were of Republifuck origin and yet not they're driving the country to ruin.
Elemental bullshit.
9 - STM
Arch 1: "The Glenns and handguys of the world"
You seem to be obsessed of late with hand action, Arch.
10 - zingzing
dock: "This is what the Tea Party is rebelling against: an Obama directed assault on this market economy for the enhancement of his personal power."
archie: "Couldn't have said it better myself Dock. The left has tried to portray the Tea APrty as something they're not, a bunch of crazy racists. It hasn't worked because it's not true."
see? dock's statement is pure bunk. and the left's view of the tea party is a little more detailed than just "racist." add religious and ignorant if you want to get closer.
still, you see how the first and second statements (about the tea party's view of obama and the left's view of the tea party) suggest that you should know your enemy better? when (if) the left just labels the tea party as racists and dismisses them, it's a blow that glances off without doing much damage, as it just isn't true. when the tea party advances some ridiculous view of obama as some power-mad communist would be totalitarian, it does no real damage. it's just junk that anyone can see through.
11 - Alan Kurtz
Said zingzing, whistling through the graveyard on Halloween, en route to Tuesday's GOP drubbing of his beloved Democrats.
12 - El Bicho
"a bunch of crazy racists."
is that in contrast to sane racists?
"You don't have to buy an I-phone,"
You mean an iPhone, right? Should I use Alan's standard and ask, "Why should anyone credit the rest of your [article], if you can't even get that simple fact straight?"
13 - zingzing
alan, don't count your chickens. there could be corpses in them eggs.
also, i made the point earlier that more power for the republicans might be a good thing, as they'd actually have to compromise, debate and govern rather than just be stubborn children as they are now.
14 - Alan Kurtz
Re #12: "crazy racist" is not necessarily redundant. Before his 1964 pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X was a racist. But he was never insane. Just wrong.
15 - Alan Kurtz
Corpses in them eggs? A suitably ghoulish image.