Archive for ‘Barack Obama’

July 3, 2013

Reading 7/3/2013

by thoughtfulconservative

If George Zimmerman Is Found Not Guilty, Can The American People Handle It? « TheTradingReport.

I suspect some rioting will take place if he’s found innocent.

The growing public acceptance of same-sex marriage and the legalization of marijuana are signs of that the idea of the government minding its own business — in most things — is gaining credence with the public.

via The Libertarian States of America.

And it has a map! #mapgeek

A Gallup poll has found that Obama’s Perceived Honesty, Crisis Management Key to Approval.

So there’s that.

And it’s a poll so <shrug>.

JONATHAN ALTER: There is already very little [illegal immigration] right now, if you look at statistics.

via Chris Matthews: “Republicans Don’t Like Illegal Immigration” And Democrats “Believe In Illegal Immigration” | RealClearPolitics.

Matthews’ quote is, as media is wont to do, a broad brush that attempts to polarize. One group is one side of the issue, the other group is the other side of the issue. It’s what draws viewers and henceforth sells advertising.

Although MSNBC doesn’t seem to be doing that well…

Advertisements
July 5, 2010

Barack Obama = George III?

by thoughtfulconservative

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a great service by printing the Declaration of Independence in Sunday’s Crossroads (Too bad they didn’t put it on the web site, but you can read it here.).

That got me to thinking about today. You hear bits and pieces, here and there about how we may need armed insurrection to save this country from the socialists/Marxists/Fascists. Because you know, the declaration makes that statement at the beginning:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. [Emphasis mine]

Justification for armed insurrection, no?

I think not.

Why?

First, look at what Jefferson wrote. He says two things that I think are different from the present day. One, “Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes” and two, “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”

This implies serious stuff and long time line, something we have not yet reached here (and frankly doubt we will reach).

Many of my conservative friends will differ, which is, of course, their perrogative.

But as I compare today with 1776, I see no comparison even though some do.

May 25, 2010

So I can’t belong to the Tea Party?

by thoughtfulconservative

So insists John Amato and David Neiwert in their book, “Over the Cliff: How Obama’s Election Drove the American Right Insane” according to Steve Levingston at Political Bookworm

They believe there are 10 fictitious Tea Party beliefs:

1. The birth-certificate conspiracy.

2. Death panels.

3. Obama is a Muslim/Socialist/Fascist.

4. Obama is going to take away our guns.

5. Obama is raising our taxes.

6. Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon.

7. Global warming is a hoax.

8. Some 16,000 new IRS agents will enforce the new health care reform act by throwing you in jail.

9. Two million people were at the 9/12 March on Washington.

10. The Tea Parties are a non-partisan, broad grassroots movement.

Well, I don’t believe them all, so….

January 20, 2010

Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley in Massachusetts

by thoughtfulconservative

By now, I expect everyone has heard that Scott Brown (R) defeated Martha Coakley (D) for Ted Kennedy’s old seat.

We’ve also heard, ad nauseum, about what this means for President Obama, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, health care reform, the 2010 elections, the 2012 presidential elections, well, you get the point.

Cable news, blogs and others need to fill space and this fits the bill.

Was there one main reason Brown won? I doubt it. And let’s not overreact to any one reason or consequence of the Republican victory. There were many.

The truth is, no matter what you’ve heard, they all probably are right in some sense about the meaning of Brown’s victory.

You’ve heard them and I won’t bore you by repeating them.

Republicans still have work to do. Democrats have work to do. Obama has work to do. The voters are angry and they will take out their anger at whomever they perceive is connected to the root of their anger.

January 10, 2010

Racism, Reid and Lott

by thoughtfulconservative

The major political news story over the weekend was about some excerpts  from “Game Change,” a soon-to-be released book by Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin and New York magazine’s John Heilemann. The book is slated to be published Monday (and looks as though it will be going on my reading list).

The excerpt that drew the most reaction from the right side of the blogosphere was a comment Senate majority leader Harry Reid made in private during the 2008 election campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” Obama is the nation’s first African-American president.

Reid has apologized for those remarks and President Obama has accepted his apology.

The most popular meme has be to compare Reid to Trent Lott’s unfortunate remarks at a Strom Thurmond birthday party.

To review, Trent Lott

lost his leadership post in 2002 after saying that the country would have been better off if Sen. Strom Thurmond — a segregationist — had been elected president in 1948.

So what’s the difference? Not much on the outside. But observe Lott had a record of voting against Civil Rights, for whatever reason. Reid has no opposition that I could find.

And I also found this:

Trent Lott lauded the presidential candidacy of an avowed segregrationist, suggesting that things would have gone better if that candidate had been elected. His comments were normative and, if he meant what he said, racist because they implied that segregration was preferable to integration. We condemned Lott at the time.Reid was not discussing who should be elected president. He was merely commenting on Barack Obama’s viability as a presidential candidate. His view was that Obama’s race would not hurt him with voters who might be disinclined to elect a black man because he is light-skinned and able to talk white, as they say. I strongly suspect that many politicians and pundits made similar sorts of assessments. Even if incorrect, they are not improper, provided one is assessing how others might vote, as opposed to deciding to vote one’s self.

Apples and oranges, it seems to me.

And “Action do speak louder than words.”

September 15, 2009

“Joel McNally is a racist”

by thoughtfulconservative

No? Try this on for size which is no worse than some I”ve seen on the left including Mr. McNally.

“…in a democracy, the loudest bullies win no matter how extreme a fringe they represent or how nonsensical their arguments are.”

Obama won the last election.

Therefore Obama is a loud bully.

If you say anything negative about Obama, you’re a racist (see, for example, Ms. Dowd).

Therefore Joel McNally is a racist.

It’s really quite simple.