John McCain is not accepting “uncle” from the likes of Sen. Jay Rockefeller. In a Fox interview he turns up the heat on the candidate himself:
I don’t understand that but I would call upon Senator Obama to repudiate Senator Rockefeller’s remarks. If he is surrounded by people like that, than I think he should have a direct repudiation. I frankly am unfamiliar with that rhetoric by a U.S. senator. I do believe that if Senator Obama is going to maintain the type of campaign that he says that he is–a respectful campaign–and this is one of his closest and strongest supporters, than I think he should repudiate Senator Rockefeller. Immediately.
And he’s not letting go of the “100 year” comment fight, clearly believing he can turn the tables on Obama:
It’s not respectful of the commitment that Senator Obama made. He continues to say it. Anyone who reads the context of my remarks knows that I was talking about after the war–a security relationship . . . so it’s really a direct contradiction of Senator Obama’s stated purpose of conducting a respectful campaign. And I think the American people will evaluate that.
Whether accurately or not, the McCain team seems convinced that Obama is banking on his crossover appeal to general election voters as a “new kind of politician.” It is not a bad supposition, given the emphasis Obama has placed on this theme in the primary race. It follows then that McCain will take every opportunity to try to smudge up that image and suggest Obama is “more of the same.” So long as Obama and his surrogates give McCain material, you can bet they will use it. We’ll see whether Obama “blinks” on these issues, either apologizing about Rockfeller himself or getting off the “100 year” refrain. I suspect he won’t. And that will be just fine with the McCain camp.
The man’s a Hamlet, a vacillating, timorous, princeling; not fit to be king!
Until the day that Barack admits that he is also Barry; until the day Barry faces down Pelosi and Reid; until the day when focus groups no longer dictate his policies (don’t hold your breath on any one of these!) BHO will dither, shilly-shally, triangulate–and those “hard truths” will remain in the realm of rhetoric, rather than transsubstantiated into public policy.
Rev. Wright was right in one thing. His goddamned America is about to get dadblamed!
“But the line about “stale political arguments” doesn’t have much to do with hard truths. It has to do with preempting or debunking his political opponents.”
This is it in a nutshell, Jennifer. All Obama is, is stale political arguments, from his puffery about saving the world to his constant impugning of the motives and actions of the Republicans, especially George Bush. It’s George Bush who tried to transcend the political divide, to no avail. It’s not possible to transcend it when you’re dealing with disloyal, lying, unscrupulous and power-mad opponents. And I’m not talking about Hamas.
Obama, on the other hand, begins his administration preaching slanders and insults to his choir (much like his mentors Lowery and Wright). Just the ticket for national unity.
Obama needs to swallow the bitter pill that Pelosi wants to be president.
#2 CFB,
George Bush’s attempt to transcend the political divide failed because he has an (R) behind his name.
Its the morning after, when reality sets in to the Messianic campaign. Even my liberal friends now admit that Obama is a roll of the dice. We just don’t know who he is or what he believes. Does he really know?
I agree with Jennifer. “Stale political arguments” are only stale when liberals are the majority and they don’t want to hear an alternative view of government from conservatives. Many voices, uh, minus 1. I would love to hear Obama say that the worldview of Iran and Hamas are “stale political arguments”
I was in TImes Square watching the speech. The sense I got from the crowd was, “make us feel like election night again!” The Messiah couldn’t deliver. I felt the theme of Obama’s speech was, “The election thing was fun, but, i am just human like everyone else, let’s all agree to lower the bar, now.”
So, in fact, “Stale political argument” was just a way to prevent the natural criticism of lowering that bar. His mask is always on. The message, don’t look for the real Obama or criticize me, the ground will shake underneath you!
JR is the Baroness Munchausen of the Neotrots. Nothing hard;no truth.
Hmmmm.
Fiscal and economic train wreck coming in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Obama has made clear what he intends to do, and he’s not wasting time. Most of Jennifer’s contentions are inaccurate. For example, Obama strongly favors free trade. In some cases, as with NAFTA, he thinks we could have cut better fairer deals, from both economic and social perspectives (use of child labor, lax environmental standards).
Here’s today’s first example of Obama beginning to do just what he promised:
“Judge Suspends Guantanamo Case at Obama’s Request
“Washington Post Staff Writer
“Wednesday, January 21, 2009; 9:08 AM
“GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, Jan. 21 — In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration. …
“The legal maneuver appears designed to provide the Obama administration time to refashion the prosecution system and potentially treat detainees as criminal defendants in federal court or have them face war-crimes charges in military courts-martial. It is also possible that the administration could re-form and relocate the military commissions before resuming trials. ”
Next up, you’ll see him ask the Joint Chiefs to give him a roadmap out of Iraq that beats the 3 years in the current SOF agreement. Obama wants 16 months, 1 or 2 brigades per month. Again, Jennifer is wrong when she says Obama has not told the hard truth that forces will remain in Iraq longterm. He ran on that platform and it’s clear as day on his DETAILED, SPECIFIC agenda on Whitehouse.gov. “Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.”
The only thing that Obama can do that is worse than not doing what he promised during campaign is fulfilling his promises.
#4, Bush failed because he was too stupid to understand the elements of his own victories. Bush couldn’t even hold his own party, let alone become bipartisan: immigration amnesty? Harriet Myers? No School Board Left Standing? Medicare part D? Spend spend spend?
It will take years to dig out of the crap that is George W Bush….
#10 “Bush couldn’t even hold his own party,”
Republicans didn’t become Independents (and Independents Democrats) and break for Obama in the election because they were unhappy with the Bush policies that were moderate. In fact, John McCain shared most of Bush’s moderate positions, including immigration reform and Medicare D, and Republicans voted by more than 90% for McCain.
The country moved left. The GOP lost members and the Democrats gained. Whether that is a knee jerk or a more durable realignment, we don’t know. But you should be asking yourself why America rejected even a centrist conservative. The idea that Bush failed because he was not conservative enough may be comforting, but it is false.
So what was the over-arching theme of President Obama’s address? What was its inexorable force of argument that would drive us to accept even what we might previously have opposed?
Black boy be President.
That’s about it.
“I’ve found that credit losses could peak at a level of $3.6 trillion for U.S. institutions, half of them by banks and broker dealers,” Roubini said at a conference in Dubai today. “If that’s true, it means the U.S. banking system is effectively insolvent because it starts with a capital of $1.4 trillion. This is a systemic banking crisis.”
Ouch !!
Hmmm.
@ Neo
*shrug* the answer has -always- been to allow market forces to take place.
Banks that engaged in idiotic or risky behavior must be allowed to die, and their shareholder’s holdings wiped out, so that better managed banks can take over the remaining assets thus clearing the table of the wreckage.
Shareholders that blindly invest in bad behavior must accept a bloodletting for the obtuse nonsense that such behavior represents.
Governments must not blindly guarantee banks because otherwise banks will engage in risky behavior that could make those governments insolvent a la Iceland and the UK.
…
The two questions for me has been:
1. Why are we trying to inflate bad banks with cash even as these same banks deflate just as fast or even faster? Are we in the unenviable position of trying to pump air into a balloon even as it pops in the sheer hope that if we pump fast enough the illusion of an intact balloon will remain?
How ridiculous is that?
2. Just who are we trying to save? One particular bank is no better than any other particular bank. It frankly doesn’t matter if you get a loan from bank “A” or bank “B”. Should we be pumping money to support insolvent bank “A” so you can get a loan from an insolvent bank? Or should we clear the wreckage, let the shareholders bleed and allow healthy bank “B” buy the remaining assets so you can get a loan from healthy bank “B”?
I frankly don’t see the point of it all. Particularly since we’ve pumped more money into some banks than their entire worth.
What are those hard truths, and what would they look like?
That George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a dozen of their top aides committed war crimes when they ordered the torture of enemy combatants, and will be prosecuted for those crimes.
That the Securities and Exchange Commission protected Bernie Madoff, the worst financial criminal in American history, and that former S.E.C. officials will be prosecuted along with Madoff.
That the Bush Justice Department was deliberately and illegally transformed into a political hit team, and that Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and others will be prosecuted for their crimes.
That the reductions of taxes on the top 1% of the income distribution was a serious mistake, and will be reversed, and that an additional surtax will be levied to help restore the federal government’s fiscal position.
Watch what Obama does, don´t listen to what he says. The man is a pathological liar.
I say, let’s give the man a chance. He’s been president for 2 days and the tone from some I’m HOPEful that he will be able to CHANGE the political climate and be able to get things done.
JMB – A chance to do what? Get what done? Depress people enough that they give him the power to create a socialist nanny state? Once you have that, it never goes away. You will get stuck with the bill and so will your children and children´s children. And the political climate will be very cold for the average citizen who is not a bureaucrat.