Monday, July 23, 2007
|
|
Barack's Big Moment
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:02 PM
|
Responding to one of the YouTube questions, Barack Obama announced he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea without precondition in his first year of his presidency, sending oppressed people in those countries and around the world a clear message: The U.S, under a President Obama will not be worrying about them.
Senator Clinton had the common sense to say no, she wouldn't make such a commitment. She's got a lot of problems as a candidate, but always pandering to the "give peace a chance" crowd isn't one of them.
Five out of six of the questions have been idiotic, while a few have been quite good. The most disingenuous moment was when Anderson Cooper protested that the "are you authentically black" question to Senator Obama wasn't his. Yes, indeed, it was Cooper's question, because CNN's staff, with Cooper's participation, selected these questions. All of these questions are CNN's, and it is silly to protest otherwise. If any of them are inappropriate or silly, that reflects on CNN's judgment.
UPDATE: Byron York heard what I heard: an inexperienced, over-his-head rookie making a stunningly dumb commitment to meet with the world's worst thugs and dictators. So did Victor Davis Hanson (the trasncript of his reaction will be here later.) It should be a campaign-ender, but the MSM will cover for him. It makes President Ford's Poland answer look statesmanlike.
I wonder if Mugabe and Nasrallah are wondering "What about me?"
|
|
|
Hugh said "The U.S, under a President Obama will not be worrying about them." Why would talking to the leaders of those countries hurt their citizens? And by the way, is it the responsibility of the US to hold every government in the world to our standards by ignoring them? I just don't get you wingnuts. Ignoring Cuba and Syria and North Korea gets us nowhere, and by not engaging them we in fact do penalize oppressed peoples. Surprised that Hugh had such a thing for the "oppressed". I guess only the oppressed under dictatorships, not the oppressed at home. Why not focus on that? |
|
|
|
|
At the last debate, I was unimpressed by the issues covered in the debate. Instead of asking what each candidate how they would utilize Bill Clinton in their administration, I wish the moderator had devoted that time to a less frivolous matter such as global poverty, for example. I would like to see the candidates address the United States’ commitment to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue. I hope this debate proves to be different. |
|
Sorry Mr. H,
But Ms. Rodham panders all the time, to everyone, and has lied repeatedly about her vote in Iraq, the status of Iraq, even her plans to pull the troops is a big fat lie.
She may feel she is sitting pretty now, but as soon as the race tightens, when the extreme known as the Democrat Party cries, Hillary will portray a fake follow.
Giving Hillary Rodham credit, is like giving a liar an excuse.
A complete fraud, and we all better get our act together before Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton are raising our taxes, appeasing monsters, and peddling pardons again. |
|
President Hillary Clinton is better than President Barak Obama?
I agree that selecting questions from a large pool is essentially the same as writing them yourself. If the individual people deserve credit for making their YouTube questions, CNN has to take equal responsibility in picking the ones to be presented.
Of course, CNN has to take 100% of the blame for picking Anderson Cooper to be on their network. |
|
way more nuanced than any Conservative could possibly fathom. He is a bold political leader (without portfolio), who, while he doesn't speak Espirantu, is at least willing to fake it.
He could kick off the Babakazama Administration with a 'Magical Misery Tour,' pressing the flesh with misbegotten political leaders of disenfranchised potential future constituents of the dimocrat party. It would really give all of us a warm, fuzzy feeling, sort of like watching Hillary Rod'em French Kiss Mrs. Arafat.
Eek! Did I say 'French kiss?' Sorry, folks. I meant to say 'kiss in the style of the French.'
My bad.... |
|
Obama's beyondism rhetoric may appear to be fresh, new, and exciting, but it entirely lacks substance. Despite the many gatekeepers in America continuing to propel him(Oprah Winfrey/Newsweek's Second Cover?), he lacks any depth at all.
When meeting with the many dictators of thugocracies around the globe, our "good intentions" do not change the reality of the peoples' motives for their single-minded desire to maintain power without the feedback loop of democracy. In fact, a President Obama meeting with all of these autocrats would only be used for propaganda and prove as an overt form of weakness to regional bullies who thrive on intimidation of the weak.
In terms of people born into poverty, public schools and social programs are available to help people get on their feet until they seek employment or can stabilize themselves economically.
As far as the poor in American society, a collection of government programs cannot overwhelm negative lifestyle choices that perpetuate poverty. Whether its being sexually active at a young age that yields children, dropping out of high school, and/or choosing to experiment with drugs and alcohol, individuals in the government cannot control another person's life as if it is a video game consul with the controller in the government's hands.
The strength of a society is found in the sum of positive individual choices that a people makes.
http://www.ststephensgate.blogspot.com/
|
|
Talking to these nations is a bad idea Ronnie, and here is why.
For example, let's consider Iran. Is talking to the Iranians going to stop them from sending arms and bombs into Iraq to kill our soldiers? No. It is in their interest to attack us, and to kill our troops. The Iranian government (but not the people of Iran) is made up of a bunch of Islamic fundamentalist thugs, with no interest in the well being of their people. Their interest is actually in keeping the area in turmoil, so as to facilitate the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. And so their government will follow these interests above all else, AS LONG AS THERE IS NO NEGATIVE AFFECTS TO ITS ACTIONS.
In fact, talking to Iran actually hurts us. Iran acts bad, kills Americans, and you guys want to talk to them, listen to their concerns, and give them center stage. This is called positive reinforcement, people - we are encouraging them to act against our interests! The correct way to deal with such people is actually through a "negative stick," either a physical attack on the country's military, a funding of the Iranian opposition, or real and strong economic sanctions on the country.
Human beings are always the same; you need to use both carrots and sticks to influence them. |
|
Nice lookin',presentable,well spoken in 'an articulate class' sorta way,vacuous where substance is concerned...
What he(and Hillary,too)badly needs is say...oh,
1/15th od Condi Rice's resume. |
|
|
Byron York and VDH have opined. Its all over..Write this in for Romney. |
|
|
|
|
So typical for CNN to ask if the candidates where either "Black Enough" or "Woman Enough". Why can't liberals step into the present and out of the past? One big diffrence between Republicans and Democrats is how Demoracts always use gender and race for votes. I guess that's what you do when you have little substance. |
|
|
A campaign ender? You mean like holding up a sign like Mitt Romney did saying "No to Obama Osama and Chelsea's Moma". That's a campaign ender or Mitt's Macaca moment. What an idiot, then he lied about it and said someone else held it up. Say goodbye to Greg Stillson Romney. |
|
|
Look, the real point of this debate was as always, style over substance. And to boot, the public , at least those voting Dem, loved it. BO was' fresh' , not 'the same old same old', always bright, articulate and up to date. Yipe. But, according to snap polls and Frank Luntz' profiling, the public viewers lapped it up. To be frank, the issues bit is just overplayed by Hugh and he should know better. America is , has , will be changing from more of a substance group, to one group after another emoting and wanting someone to 'feel their pain.' Ala Clinton in the '90's and now BO. Hil may still get the nomination but BO will be on the ticket by popular demand. Just because we who are conservative and better educated think issues are soooo important, does not make an election a slam dunk for the policy wonk. Most Pubs know more about life, politics, economics than most liberal Dems. Most understand character issues better. They have had ideas developed over the years from the Goldwater-Buckley-National Review days , through the Reagan Revolution, through the Newt win of '94 but I can see those game plans lacking nowadays. Of course, as Robert Hunter and others used to say, ideas count. But, perhaps in the 21st Century, people want to be soothed, to be uplifted without any sacrifice and to blame the rich, the military, the mean old conservatives and those pesky Christians soooo much that they will be willing to take on a Nanny or Daddy. If they vote for any Dem, they will get it and unfortunately more. |
|
If you think that sign was a campaign ender, then you really need a thicker skin. PS: Greg Stillson is a fictional character.
|
|
|
will never get the nomination - this dance is hilarious |
|
Hugh writes: "Barack Obama announced he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea without precondition in his first year of his presidency, sending oppressed people in those countries and around the world a clear message: The U.S, under a President Obama will not be worrying about them."
In plain fact, you can worry about a country's leaders, even while being willing to meet with them. That's just a fact. It is simply unserious to think otherwise. |
|
It is an oxymoron to put the words Obama and foreign policy in the same sentence. I have never seen such an incoherent approach to foreign policy. His inexperience surfaces with regularity.
Hillary at least has the sense to try to cover for the general election.
I hope Romney or someone calls Obama on this latest venture into the ozone. |
|
|
...after the policy fiascos of the Bush years, President Obama SHOULD meet with heads of government, friends and foes alike, simply to communicate that the grown-ups are in charge again, and that we have some demands, and that we are also reasonable. That may be what it takes to pivot away from the strategic blunders that occured on the Republican watch. |
|
|
There has only been one campaign ender so far: McCain's inability to raise (or hold onto) money. NO ONE CARES right now. I am a political junkie, and I couldn't be bothered to watch the debate tonight (Sox were on ESPN2). And would you talk to such and such? That is inside baseball that won't move votes -- and certainly not in July of '07. All that matters right now is raising money, ground game in early states, and waiting for things to pick up later in the year. |
|
|
And Biden knocked it out of the park! :D |
|
The big winner of this Seinfeld debate about nothing was Osama Bin Laden, who apparently is less relevant to liberals and CNN (Redundant, I know) than ever before.
The candidates did take time to play the race card. John Edwards wanted to party like it's 1968 in his video, but most of the candidates wanted to talk about 1868, since apparently George W. Bush supports Jim Crow laws. The race card was dealt in abundance.
Although they were not asked what type of tree they would be, bringing up Al Gore suffices in that department.
For those wanting an adult discussion, we will have to wait for Guliani, McCain, Romney, and F.D. Thompson.
eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com |
|
was the deal with Frothy the Snowman?
Is Scooby Doo unavailable to ask questions? Perhaps Scooby and the gang are on another adventure. ZOINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was surprised that Nahuol, that lovable, terrorist bee, wasn't able to get a question in on those zionist totalitarians occupying Palestine.
And what was up with those bean bag chairs. When did presidential debates turn into kiddie-time at Romper Room?
Now, this debate would have been a comedy sketch if you dressed up the candidates. Hillary could have been Catwoman. Biden could have been Homey the Clown. |
|
|
now you have Hugh all upset - Hugh likes to dish it but can't take it. Moreover, VDH or Steyn didnt raise the same question (i.,e which of the ones were idiotic)..since the "serious people" didnt ask it, it doesnt matter |
|
"I would begin diplomatic discussions with those countries with whom we have differences, to try to figure out what is the depth of those differences," said Clinton, who spoke to about 1,000 people at Luther College in Decorah in northeastern Iowa.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_112220939.html
She will pander, say anything, lie...
Perhaps it is Obama who is the more honest liberal about his true intent.
Hillary panders to the liberals all the time.
Remember when she kissed Mrs. Arafat, called to re-appease North Korea, etc, etc? |
|
I will cross over and vote for Obama in the primary election. I suggest everyone consider doing the same.
Hillary will make my USA a socialistic HillaryLand in a matter of months. Her machine has been in gear to make her Queen for decades.
Any Republican or Obama would be better for the USA.
Hera
Eatonton, GA |
|
|
....which Democratic candidate will get Frosty the Snowman's endorsement? |
|
|
about talking to regimes that we disagree with, that are corrupt, or that are our enemies. Isn't the US meeting right now with Iran? We need to look out for the interests of our nation every way that we can, and sometimes that is going to mean talking to our enemies, because to quote Sherlock Holmes, "it's a wicked, wicked world." |
|
"Yeah, Hugh, we all know how well Bush's "shoot first" logic has won over the hearts and minds of those we disagree with, so Obama is perceived as craaaazzzy in wingnuttia to even consider diplomacy first.
Someone please explain the so-called logic in Hewitt's disturbed lizard brain. Does he really believe Bush's tactics have WORKED? It's no wonder, with this kind of opining being tossed around here at TH, that the GOP is suffering so much in the polls."
Careful - this almost pertained to the column itself instead of solely bashing Bush and all Republicans. You're slipping! |
|
The MSM don't have to "cover" for Obama gaff. Many, many democrats actually believe that perspective. Maybe you don't realize it, but the rest of us in the world put up with a lot of seminars in our business about "trust" and "negotiating" and "are you an owl or a rat", all accompanied with a fair-amount of hand-holding & people "sharing their feelings." They think this stuff works. They BELIEVE IN IT.
It's part of their code. They'll applaud him for it--thinking he's Mr. Global Society.
|
|
|
Did Reagan not meet with Andropov? Nixon - Chairman Mao? So dialogue is bad? Just like the current administration and Hugh Hewitt thought that the ISG's recommendation to start talks with Iran was assinine...oh wait we are doing that now (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_iran) |
|
|
Obama is the Dems' strongest candidate because he seems most likeable. (A willingness to talk to adversaries is probably only a detriment to the 5% of Americans who have ever heard of Victor Davis Hanson.) The number of Republicans I know whom have voiced their possible willingness to vote for Obama is striking. I can't understand how Hillary can still lead in polls of Dems. But they rarely miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity when it comes to nominating a presidential candidate. Given the current national mood, they think they can nominate whomever THEY like best, and that she'll automatically win. Not necessarily. They should consider where Bush 41 stood in the polls a year before the '92 election. Watch them nominate another in the long line of northeast liberal senators and then be positively shocked - shocked - that she lost, even though they didn't personally know anyone who voted for the Republican. The '08 presidential race is the Democrats to lose, but if anyone could lose it, it'd be them. And they would accomplish it by nominating Hillary. |
|
|
Possibly, but another huge factor in 1992 was Perot. Throw him out, and MAYBE Bush Sr. would have won narrowly, not that we will ever know. |
|
umm.I don't recall Reagan meeting with Andropove...when did this happen? Or are you a typical Lib trying to re-write history?
I think it was Gorbachev he met with and it was while Andropov was in charge in the USSR that Ronnie made his "evil empire" comment. |
|
I remember, sort of, that RR had trouble meeting with any Soviet leaders because they kept dying. After Brezhnev died circa 1982, Andropov and Chernenko followed him to Moscow, then to the grave, in rapid succession. When Gorbachev came along, Reagan had his opportunity. And if you notice, he didn't give an inch in Iceland, and later told him to "tear down this wall!", which later happened.
In any event, it's a bad parallel. the Soviets were the other superpower at the time, and talking to them kept us away from the nuclear brink. They were also interested in self-preservation.
With the other tinpot dictators (Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba), they are 1) NOT superpowers, and 2) at least in the Iranian instance, not terribly interested in self-preservation. IF we talk to them at all, it is only to explain to them that antagonizing us will have consequences. The only country comparable to the former USSR these days is China. |
|
His willingness to talk to the despots of the world goes hand in hand with his unwillingness to recognize or confront GENOCIDE (especially a GENOCIDE we will have a hand in bringing about with an Iraqi withdrawl)...
What will Obama use as leverage in these supposed talks if the despots and dictators already know about his unwillingness on the GENOCIDE issue pray tell?
And for him to say he will explain to "Syria & Iran they have RESPONSIBILITIES" in Iraq is to ignore they are ALREADY responsible for the turmoil in that country, and in Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, etc.
Obama is a FLYWEIGHT on the Foreign Policy front. Except for you MoveOn fools.
|
|
You are correct sir!
Funny that there is no talk about Biden being the ONLY Dem willing to tell the truth about Iraq last nite. Now he will go the way of the Dodo because the MoveOn crowd don't want to hear the truth...they prefer to be lied to by their "leaders".
What a JOKE!
w/o= |
|
Biden made himself a joke many years ago. Too bad he's right about this one thing now, when it no longer matters.
I've heard Owlgore might run. I'm not a fan, but that should put Hillary's boxers in a twist.
Obama looks pretty, like JFK, but you are right, his foreign policy knowledge is catastrohpically low.
I took French a long time ago in high school, and I just noticed your w/o= thing. Clever! |
|
My apologies on the Andropov reference...you are correct on that one...my mistake not tyring to rewrite history.
But I ask you this: What is the big negative of talking to the despots of the world? |
|
I had to exit the debates early. I was gagging and choking from all the narcissism. But, in the time I did listen, I didn't hear one question about illegal immigration. I didn't hear a single question about communities that have been forced to enact local laws to deal with the negative impacts of illegal immigration. I didn't hear much about terrorism (Iraq is not the definition of terrorism) or the AMT, little about taxes except for increasing them.
I heard about education (isn't that supposed to be a locally provided service funded by LOCAL taxes???). I heard a snowman ask about global warming. I heard a Carolinan ask about when the U.S. is going to supply reparation for slavery (give me a break). I heard about gay marriages.
The UK was attacked about a month ago and everyone was shocked beyond belief that physicians were involved, but now CNN is entertaining stupid questions from stupid people about reparation for slavery and gay marriages. This wasn't a debate. It was a grown-up cotillion. |
|
If i may jump in here, the problem with talking to despots is that it legitimizes them. Note: The former USSR and the current China are exceptions for the reasons I discussed above.
It's like asking why some Democrat mayor of a town of 10,000 people wasn't invited to this debate. He's not qualified to be there. Similarly, inviting all the tinpots to the white house can backfire, making them seem even more powerful at home. And finally, we COULD talk to them under certain circumstances. Meaning, they know who's in charge (us), and they actually have a desire to accomplish something, not just tour the White House. The USSR's motivation for meeting us was so we didn't blow their country to shreds. What is Iran's motivation, or Venezuela's? these aren't rhetorical questions - I don't know. And it's our job to find out before we go legitimizing them. |
|
|
|
...Despots=Talk,Talk,Talk,Talk....Think: Jimmuh
Cawtuh & Billy Clinton. Am I getting through ? |
|
To a non-political junkie's ear, the transcripts of the "would you talk to ..." answers were:
BO: Sure. They may not like what I say, though.
HC: In foreign policy one must always keep in mind that I can talk and talk and talk about ... blah blah blah blah blah blah.
JE: Hillary's right, but now I will fill a couple minutes of time so you forget her response and ... blah blah blah blah blah.
Apparently, the experts heard something entirely different, but if this were a debate watched by the general public and if the viewers were in any way concerned about the rest of the world, HC and JE would be history.
Clear and spectacular BO win.
|
|
Barack Obama, a politician who never did anything, have a track record of accomplishments, or have enough time to be an effective leader, wants to be your President. Who is he fooling? And who would be a complete inbred moron to vote for him?
Selling one's soul to achieve power is one thing, but to take others down the slippery slope of socialism is another. Barack is no leader. Barack has no intellect, integrity, nor backbone to lead.
He will not sever his ties with the racist church he attends. He will not renounce the minister of the same church for his black separatist hate filled speeches. He will not sever ties to those who he helped in shady land deals, even where his home now stands.
So a forked tongue snake oil salesman is fooling the Sheeple to drink the spoon fed strychnine kool aid. Barack can only fool enough people until their awakening, but it might be too late.
A socialist is a socialist. And Barack is an American hating socialist. Electing Obama "president" is like allowing a pyromanic into a warehouse full of matches. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
The BO machine needs to be exposed for the fraud that he is. Enough is enough.
Without appologies......... |
|
|
Im sure that the Leaders of the other countries would surely like to meet with the GROWN_UPS in this country ,ie Obama who would surely negociate with them on how to initiate PRE K SEX EDUCATION to 4 and 5 yr olds |
|
|
I have often thought that Obama would like to be viewed as a reincarnation of jfk. Well, shortly after the bungled Bay of Pigs invasion, an inexperienced and naive jfk met with Nikita Kruschev in Paris in 1961. While world media gushed over Jackie Kennedy's gowns and hair style, Kruschev sensed a weak and ineffectual president. The results: the Berlin wall and ultimately the Cuban missle crisis. Let's take a lesson from that. |
|
|
Apparently Kim Jung Ill shot a round of 18 the first time he ever played golf. I suggest Obama start working on his long game if he wants to be president. |
|
|
|