Bill Richardson says don’t talk to Ahmadinejad but to”moderate clerics” and confesses he chatted with Castro (when? with what authority?). Apparently he is just as adept as a surrogate as he was a candidate.
Sidney Blumenthal says John McCain isn’t George W. Bush and don’t try to make him out to be. Whoops! Isn’t this the central argument for Barack Obama? But wait: if the game plan is not 2008 but The New Hillary for 2012, maybe he is on message.
Ideology of liberal are hogwash and the upside using birth control pills, no more liberals in the next generation.
They are using their own rope to extinction.
It is obvious — transparently obvious — that Obama delayed signing his executive order simply to deprive the March for Life of a rallying point. Dionne is confusing a cringe for a courtesy.
Hey Pete, how much did Kristol pay you for that adoring fellatio over at NRO? Was it in cash?
The problem myna is that academia and the media are constantly ‘brainwashing’ new generations, so that they may constantly replenish their ranks.
Fortunately, in time reality trumps liberal assumptions and assertions.
It is the intersection between time and reality wherein the rope with which they shall hang themselves lies.
The only question is, like a drowning man, how many of us will they drag down with them?
It will be a very painful lesson but in time the people will learn it.
Excellent post, Geoffrey Britain. I have posted this before, but must write it again.
Every time Obama makes a decision choosing one way over another, (judgement!) look for a large dose of the Doctrine of Fakism to fool people into believing The One is always uniting people.
#1 myna Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Ideology of liberal are hogwash and the upside using birth control pills, no more liberals in the next generation.
They are using their own rope to extinction.
Great point because it’s well known that Conservatives never use birth control or have abortions.
Let’s not fail to note the impression Dionne, and probably Wallis as well, are trying to leave: that Obama’s political power is such that if he HAD signed the order on the day of the March for Life, it’s the PR of the March for Life, and its cause, that would have suffered.
I think Michael J Lewis at #2 has the correct read on Obama’s purpose for the signing delay. But here is Dionne:
“The symbolism of the delay suggested that Obama intends to continue to poach constituencies that were once reliably Republican.”
I think we forget sometimes that these people have been pushing the same agenda for 40+ years. They have been more than ready to start in on implementing it, since well before the long-lamented 2000 election cycle. They have no uncertainty now about what to do next; they’ve been dreaming of it their entire lives.
When they look at Obama, they see a fellow hard-leftist who poached constituencies from the GOP, FOR THE LEFT. My own impression of Obama voters is that many of them had no intention of voting for radical left policies; they thought they were getting a center-left moderate who WOULD seek consensus, rather than tell Congressional Republicans they have to accept defeat because he won, and they can’t accomplish anything by listening to Rush Limbaugh.
Obama is doing exactly what I expected him to. His press agents in the news media will continue to try to spin it, whenever he pulls a political punch, as Obama feeding crumbs to his defeated enemies in order to promote unity and harmony.
Obama is trying to please multiple constituencies with this move. On the one hand he has the NARAL/Planned Parenthood crowd, and he had promised them that his first act in office–his very first act, he emphasized–would be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, sweeping away many regulations on abortion. Obama reneged on his promise, of course, presumably because he wants to focus his political capital elsewhere and not get bogged down in cultural fights. But instead he wrote the executive order permitting the use of American taxpayer dollars for abortions overseas. In this way he communicates that he’s still on their side.
On the other hand he has religious progressives who are moderates on the abortion issue. Wallis has been preaching this for a long time, that left and right can and should come together to reduce the number of abortions. Wallis et al fought to have this included in the DNC platform, but the old guard would only go along if it were phrased “reduce the need for abortions,” not “reduce the number of abortions.” One wants to ask Wallis: just how does Obama’s executive order reduce the number of abortions? Wasn’t that the goal? And yet Obama throws them a bone by putting off the signing of the executive order for 24 hours. Big deal. Wallis only proclaims this a positive step because he is absolutely sold out to Obama.
The other constituency are independents who supported Obama and thought he wouldn’t really change anything in regard to abortion. If Obama hopes they’ll be mollified by putting off the signing by 24 hours, I think he’s mistaken. And when Obama passes the Freedom of Choice Act, he’s going to stir the ghosts of countless cultural battles and lose some support from pro-life Democrats and Independents.
Obama won and he intends to deliver the progressive policies America wants. The difference is that he is not going to rub it in the faces of conservatives. He recognizes that the anniversary of Roe is a dark day for many Americans, and he was not going to salt the wound by celebrating the day with a new executive order. Obama starts from the left and moves just far enough right to hear “this could be worse” from Republicans. It is more than his predecessor did and it does mark a difference in tone that people respond to. Witness Gallup:
“At the outset of his presidency, Obama has majority approval from all ideological groups, including 83% of self-identified liberals, 75% of moderates, and 52% of conservatives.”
Got that? Most conservatives approve of Obama, as do an overwhelming majority of moderates. You can’t even convince your fellow travelers on Doctrine Air to dislike the guy.
Hey, on a happier note, I see that the NY Times fired that embarrassing neocon hack, Billy “Mr Saturday Night” Kristol.
Unfortunately, Trev’s argument breaks down immediately, since Obama did not once say or imply, during the campaign, that he intended to use US federal funds to support groups that perform abortions overseas. If he had campaigned with such clarity, we can accurately suppose that he would have gotten fewer votes, and might not even have defeated the conservatively-unreliable, and uninspiring, Senator McCain.
Americans have, over time, reliably favored some restrictions on abortion. A minority favors abolishing it, but only a minority favors having no restrictions on it. Regardless of which end you add to the middle, the consensus position of the majority is that the people should be able to place some restrictions on abortion.
Moreover, majorities of both Republicans and Democrats have voted to withhold federal health care funds from the practice of abortion. Virtually every time Americans have had the opportunity to vote, by state, on abortion restrictions in the last 30 years — typically on prohibiting partial-birth abortion or requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortions — voters favor the restrictions. It is simply not the case that there is an overwhelming consensus in the US that abortion should be unrestricted by law, in any way, and paid for with public funds.
Neither Obama’s campaign posture — what people thought they were electing him for — nor the demonstrable sense of the people over time supports the conclusion that, in ordering US federal funds released to abortion providers overseas, Obama is acting on a majority position in America.
#3: So now we know why it is that hurl hurls — maw gets too full even though Billy Jeff is gone.
#10: Hartscheiss sees! What miracles to follow?
#11,”Neither Obama’s campaign posture — what people thought they were electing him for — nor the demonstrable sense of the people over time supports the conclusion that, in ordering US federal funds released to abortion providers overseas, Obama is acting on a majority position in America.”
then, there should be a substantial public outcry from his deceived voters,and soon.
Trev, I’m in a kinder mood today, so I’ll just say: I really don’t care what some poll says that majorities of other people believe. You seem to be fond of citing polls or referring to conservatives who, you believe (sometimes incorrectly), agree with your point of view. This permits you to say “America isn’t buying it,” or “Even your fellow travelers disagree,” or etc. Typically you’ll garnish the plate with some name-calling.
If you really want to make a significant contribution to the conversation, deal with the substance of the argument. Present an argument why, in this case, Obama’s delay of 24 hours is more than empty symbolism. You claim it is, in one of your posts in this thread, but you don’t actually advance an argument. Tell us why it is actually consistent of Jim Wallis to advocate a reduction in the number of abortions and to praise Obama for delaying by 24 hours a rule that will dramatically increase the number of abortions performed overseas.
Support for Obama presently is high, yes, and some of that is the general good-feeling given to new Presidents, some of that is a consequence of media adulation, and some is a response to what are generally perceived to be strong appointments and a decent transition. If we are correct, then Obama’s actions will not be especially effective, and that support will erode. That it is presently high does not mean a whole lot–and it certainly doesn’t mean that the majority is correct. One can imagine, if Galileo lived today, someone writing, “Hey, 90% of Catholic astronomers favor geocentrism, and 80% of Protestant astronomers, and 60% of religious skeptics. You can keep selling it, Galileo, but nobody’s buying it, not even your own.”
#10,
They have to cut financial corners somewhere. Why not abandon the pretense of objectivity? The election campaign conclusively let that cat out of the bag.
Fortunately, the only thing that can save the NYT is a government bailout. Which will make them the ‘Pravda’ of the American media. A distinction they already hold but one that will then be undeniable.
“those championing abortion rights get an executive order allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to perform abortions overseas”
No, no, no. They get untold numbers of dead dark-skinned female babies. What a great day for them!
He signed it on Friday and announced it past 5 pm on Friday because he wanted as little public attention paid to it as possible. He knows this is one EO that will turn some voters who voted for him against him (or at least give them doubts) so he wanted to minimize that reaction. He is not as smart, or as decisive, as most of his hard core supporters – and detractors – believe.
I suppose that if Obama puts off national security until after the next 9/11 everything will be just fine too.
“What matters is reality, not PR gimmicks.”
Obama is a PR gimmick, and absurdity is the new reality.
The independent anti abortion types are all gasping, the conservative we figured he would govern from the middle are gasping. Liberals are only gasping on the point that Obama is acknowledging that foreign policy under Bush wasn’t so wrong in the first place. Even FDR was strong in foreign policy. Why is everyone so surprised here?
His stimulas isn’t, he is looking for a way to give children of people making $100K free health care, he is supportive of gay marriage… I mean that is how he has always voted right? The honey moon will be what it is. The reality as people wake up, as they are starting to on the global warming hoax, will be a reaffirmation of what the republic is – a center right country.
#20,” a center right country.”
And your candidate will be in 2012??????
And your spokesmen will be Rush,Sean, Laura, Bill,Ann,and the cast of Contentionsistas,Standardistas,and National Reviewistas.
Good Luck
Triangulation lives
So let’s get this straight: those championing abortion rights get an executive order allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to perform abortions overseas; those championing a culture of life get the announcement delayed by 24 hours.
Obama won the election. Chew on it, wingnut.
“Chew on it, wingnut.”
Oh, we shall and the ‘wingnuts’ will too.
Part of that will be pointing out how many people of color are being ‘euthanized’ in the womb by liberal policies. ‘abortion rights’, funded by US tax dollars, will be responsible for how many millions of deaths?
When single parent motherhood shoots through the roof as the result of fathers no longer being held responsible for their actions, as has been the case in the west since roe vs wade, your parties sins will come ‘home to roost’…
Good luck with that when trying to explain to the very conservative (on this issue) people of color wing of the democratic party that their people’s unborn children are ‘only’ fetus’…
What Obama meant by “childish things” – and what those of his supporters mean who echo his statement – is simply that it is childish for Republicans to criticize Obama. That’s it. That’s all. No criticism shall be brooked, and those who dare to engage in such will be called unpatriotic.
It seems that people forget that those organizations – the ones performing “hundreds of millions of abortions abroad” – actually offer many other services (medical and otherwise). So, in the first place, it isn’t as though all of those funds go directly to abortions. Far more lives are saved through the other services that those organizations provide than are lost through the abortions.
Looking at it from either side, it’s a strange ethic that says “I get to choose which one lives and which one dies, and how.” If our nation wants to give to humanitarian orgs and NGOs, then they should do so without all sorts of stipulations, as if we know what everyone else needs. We don’t.
Angie,
spare us the sophistry. Nobody dies at the hands of your wonderful humanitarian organizations when America refuses to fund them. The money those organizations spend on abortion goes to encouraging (educating) women to have abortions, not to performing the actual abortions. The medical staff are volunteers or already paid whether or not they receive funds from America, so THE AMERICAN FUNDS ARE NOT NEEDED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS. Not only that, but the majority of organizations that promote abortion do not actually perform abortions. There are plenty of other organizations that don’t push infanticide as a matter of “choice,” anyway. Additionally, more than 80% of funds received by your “progressive” organizations go toward so-called operating costs. That means organizations’ executive staffs are sucking up most of the money meant for the “needy.”
“Looking at it from either side, it’s a strange ethic that says ‘I get to choose which one lives and which one dies, and how.’”
That’s a fairly succinct description of abortion. The father and child have no say whatsoever–only the woman, who is encouraged to feel good about herself fro committing infanticide. Take your pretension to moral superiority and abort it.
Angie,
I forgot to mention that our nation doesn’t want to fund NGOs claiming to be humanitarian. Only a small minority does. The rest of us are footing the bill for your agenda–and agenda we don’t support.
Istead of advocating for Uncle Sam to put his hand in our pockets, why don’t you pony up the money yourselves?