Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 09, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Ahistorical Candidate
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Barack Obama chose St. Paul, Minn., to stage his victory or at least near-victory rally Tuesday night. It was a good way to stick a thumb in John McCain’s eye, since the Republicans have chosen to hold their national convention at the same arena.

Yet he overlooked the historical connotations of that site. Beautiful downtown St. Paul is where Walter Mondale delivered his concession speech after one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of American presidential elections: Ronald Reagan’s 49-state sweep in 1984.

For his last hurrah of the primary season, he chose a place associated with one of his party’s great defeats. It’s as if admirers of George Armstrong Custer were to gather at Little Bighorn, aka Custer’s Last Stand, to proclaim victory.

It’s no a big matter. The de facto Democratic presidential nominee had good reason to choose a battleground state and a battleground region for his big rally. But the choice also fits into a larger, unsettling pattern: The young senator seems tone-deaf to history.

For another example, he invoked the memory of John F. Kennedy in defense of his sweeping offer to meet the world’s most dangerous leaders ? like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il­ ? with no conditions attached. After all, he noted, hadn’t President Kennedy met with Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev early in his administration?

To quote Senator Obama: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that’s what he did with Khrushchev.”

He did it in Vienna in June of 1961, to be exact, and Nikita Sergeyevich sized up the young president at once. His considered opinion: “too intelligent and too weak.” It was just like First Secretary Khrushchev to equate intelligence with weakness. One of his aides was equally blunt: “Very inexperienced, even immature.”

In short, that meeting in Vienna - without proper preparation or any preconditions - proved “just a disaster,” to quote JFK’s assistant secretary of defense, Paul Nitze. The president himself agreed, telling the New York Times’ Scotty Reston immediately afterward that his meeting with the Soviet ruler had been the “roughest thing in my life.”

Comrade Khrushchev drew the logical conclusions from his meeting with the new American president: The guy was a pushover. The Berlin Wall went up that August, splitting the city and creating a focal point of tension and violence for decades.

Then he decided to tilt the whole global balance of power to the Soviet Union’s advantage by installing nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba. Which he proceeded to do with Fidel Castro’s enthusiastic, not to say bellicose, cooperation. Or as Nikita Khrushchev put it in his always refined way, it was time to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants.”

The result was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the closest the world has come to nuclear holocaust. By then John F. Kennedy had learned a thing or two; he never deigned to negotiate with Fidel Castro, and he made it clear from the outset that a nuclear attack on this country from Cuba would be met as if it had originated in Moscow, as indeed it would have.

After a long, elaborate, and nerve-wracking diplomatic dance, complete with a naval embargo of Cuba and many a crisis within the crisis, the missiles were removed. Things had worked out somehow. But it was still, as the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, a damned close-run thing ? much too close for comfort. And it had its origins in an ill-considered meeting without proper preparation.

And this is the meeting Sen. Obama uses to justify his open-ended, no-conditions offer to meet with some of the most fanatical anti-American leaders in the world, at least one of whom - Iran’s nutcase president - has been trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal for years. (And he’s making good progress to the regular accompaniment of irresolute UN resolutions against a nuclear-armed Iran.)

Let it be noted that, by the time John F. Kennedy went to Vienna, he’d already served six years in the House and eight in the Senate. A combat veteran and war hero, he’d spent more time in the Navy than Barack Obama, a freshman senator, has spent in the U.S. Senate. And he was still blindsided at Vienna.

By now Sen. Obama has backtracked slightly on his offer to meet the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and Kim Jong-Ils of the world with no preconditions. Which is a welcome development. But that he should use a young president’s diplomatic blunder as an example to emulate. … Well, it does not encourage confidence in his judgment. To put it mildly, it betrays a marked insensitivity to the lessons of history. Which is troubling.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
The Obama Contradiction
This is what we've seen during this presidential campaign:

- The left wants "change".
- Change can't come from anyone who is "part of the system".

Therefore:

The left's idea of change can only come from inexperienced candidates.

This might work if there is are no negative consequences to any mistake a President could make.

Thinking that your Presidential candidate CAN NOT make mistakes is DANGEROUS.

One More Time.
To my mind, Paul Greenberg is the finest writer on this Website. He knows History, and knows best that which he has "duringly" lived. He knows the actions and he knows the results. His agenda is clearly the welfare and progress of these United States, with fairness and justice for all -- achieved with as much truth as can be discerned.

My friends asked me why a bi-coastal bon vivant like me whould retire to Arkansas. I used to answer, "Because here, for the money, are the best Golf courses" (Yes, I capitalize "Golf," like others capitalize "God"). Now I answer, "Because common sense and Paul Greenberg reside here." Right here in the River Cities -- his Little Rock, mine "Batesvul," as I have learned to pronounce it.

it is not naivete...
but ignorance and that same level of hubris that prompted a US senator to remark that it should have been he that met with Hitler after Neville Chamberlain's appeasement failure. Immaturity shows.

JFK - one of the worst presidents ever
Greenberg's brief outline of history is why I have considered JFK one of the worst presidents the US has ever had.

1. He screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion with weakness and an unwillingness to follow through.

2. His weakness at Vienna precipitated the building of the Berlin Wall and the Russians being bold enough to try to put missiles in Cuba.

3. This Crisis almost caused a nuclear war (it was only by the grace of God - not JFK's brilliance- that we got out of it.)

4. Kennedy - not Eisenhower, was the President who first got us into the mess in Vietnam. The peaceniks and liberals who love the Kennedy's conveniently forget this.

Finally people forget the reason JFK went to Texas in November 1963 was to shore up his terrible poll numbers after all of these mistakes.


Democrats slogan "Destroy America 08"
Obama is the Democratic nominee not because his 'marxism' or his blatant 'racism' or his 'islamic ties' are overlooked.

Obama is the Democratic nominee because he is a 'Marxist and 'racist' and has strong 'islamic' ties.

Democrats should be bold enough to have the campaign slogan "Destroy America 08".

No time for beginners
As someone who took part in the Cuban Missile Crisis as a Navy airman involved with detecting the location of the Russian missiles, I am frightened to think of having a novice in charge of this country during this time of radicals threating us from all over.

I remember the tension and fear that existed on our eastern seaboard and southeast U.S.. Do we want want to experience that again just so that we can have "change". I vote a strong NO.

History
This has become the new meme to try to make Obama look silly for rejecting the worst consistent American foreign policy trait of the last 50 years, namely thinking we are accomplishing something by not talking to our enemies.

What is so silly about it is that if one looks at the examples, Kennedy and Reagan, they talked to the Soviets, but refused to talk to smaller threats Cuba and Iran respectively.

Both Kennedy and Reagan's foreign policies proved successful with regard to the Soviets, but were complete failures with regard to Cuba and Iran respectively.

Kennedy and Kruschev were able to avoid the conflict over Cuban missiles. The fact that they had met face to face seems to have been more of a help than a hindrance. After all the solution was to step outside normal diplomatic practices.

But we have had no policy fail so consistently as our refusal to deal with Cuba. Castro has had the last laugh and every laugh along the way.

The same is true of Reagan and Iran. We wound up rewarding their hostage taking under Reagan. But it is hard to think of any success in those years. (If you count Hezbollah as an extension of Iran, which is admittedly rather simplistic, then Reagan's success with Iran looks even worse).

If it ain't on TV
JFK's weakness, along with how and why it resulted in disastrous failures, will never be known by the working mainstream masses who only watch TV, so as scary as Obama already is, some other "Achilles’ heel" of his must be found that will be deemed worthy of lots of TV time, in order that those same masses might be swayed so as to probably prevent a national tragedy.

al and charlesmartel
Agree with you both. That JFK was a failure as a president will always be a best kept secret.
Unmentionable.
The "facts" as presented in the article (and aptly by charlesmartel) will never be accepted. You can't tarnish someone who's achieved icon/hero status.

I think the "negotiating with terrorists" issue has run its course, and ought to be put to bed. Mr. Obama has spent considerable time backtracking, redefining "pre-conditions" and generally distancing himself from his stupid stance. He will continue to invoke the JFK defense, and for the reason that AL states, it can't be adequately defused--the "facts" don't matter.

Finishing the lesson
Why did Mr. Greenberg not mention in his history lesson that the US removed similar missiles from Turkey as a quid pro pro for the Soviets' removal of the missiles from Cuba?

Obama's lack of historical knowledge
isn't really his fault. The left took over writing history books for the schools many years ago. All of American history has been "cleansed" and made politically correct ... and we know how college professors always give the unvarnished facts in their Government and History and Political Science classes.

Between his early, high school and college education and his submersion in the tutelage of Rev. Wright and Fr. Pfleger, is it any wonder he has a skewed vision of Kennedy the Supreme?
Has any interviewer asked him (in addition to what kind of tree he would be) what history books he has read? what biographies? We know he reads Gov. Patrick's speeches; but has he ever attempted to learn some real history about this country and its leaders?

He looks in the mirror and there he is: 46, charismatic, smart ... and by golly, I can be President! Will it dawn on him at some point that he has been put there (albeit by people who are not who they were 20 years ago)?

I Think This Dangerous, Ill Prepared....
He is dangerous, naive, Ill prepared, and above all, snarky. He will also win. Why? Because our youngest voters are a bunch of fat, lazy, spoiled snots who have never experienced true sacrifice or discomfort. They have been raised in an "everybody" wins system where competition is frowned upon. They are wusses, and will vote for whomever promises them the most for the least effort... and that is Obama. We live in a country where poverty is defined as owning but one car, and each house is built with a temple of the car, a three stall garage.
Pepperdog

Tony
I enjoyed this article--hope it is read and digested far and wide. Obama is not only inexperienced--he has demonstrated poor (to say the least) judgement.

Three reasons.....
...to hold your nose and vote for McCain, and to mobilize living soul you can find to do the same.

1) Obama is a naive fool on national and global security.

2) Obama nominess to the SCOTUS will endanger our liberties for a generation or more.

3) Obama will preside over a socialization of the economy under the "Global Warming" banner, nothing more than a vast new government tax and spend program aimed at businesses and consumers alike.

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

"No preconditions" disasterous
Khrushchev's assessment that Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak" needs a bit of context. By "too intelligent" Khrushchev meant that Kennedy was a know-it-all elitist and was too self-impressed to understand his own limitations. Or, as many a parent has said of a teenage child, "You're too smart for your own good."

This exaggerated sense of his own wisdom and his own abilities is what Khrushchev saw in Kennedy in 1961, and it is what we see in Obama now. Such self-aggrandizing elitism is not uncommon among Ivy Leaguers, unfortunately. It probably results from the radical left-wing agenda being pushed on those campuses. That agenda is more indoctrination than education, and by definition avoids self-criticism -- or any critical analysis at all.

Every year or so, we read a story about college freshmen surveyed for their basic history and geography knowledge. You know, the recent high school grads who can't identify America on a world map or pick out the correct decade of America's Civil War. Obama is one of those clueless college freshmen all grown up.

Don't forget FDR
Khrushchev had a role model in dealing duplicitously with US Presidents. The con job Stalin played on FDR & Churchill at their summits was one for the ages. Nakita just followed Joe's footsteps.

obama is right
barak obama says that Iran is not a threat.
they spend much much less on weapons than the u.s.a. does. he's right.

and for all the saudis on the 9-11 flights,
how much did their box cutters cost?

Menshevik.

adios,
Harvey
Lancaster, Mexifornia
dial 1 for english

p.s. the agriculture department NAFTA division dismantled the tomatoe (sic) growers in the u.s. by allowing cheap mexican tomatos in (sic). and i thought i was getting a bargain at 79 cents/lb.

. McCain wins big or race riots.
Folks voting for Obama do not understand the nuances of danger surrounding their candidate. The man is a disaster on all fronts, but at least 50% of his supporters are blacks and young white guilt no nothings.

Like it or not, McCain wins big is our only lifeline back to grace and greatness.
Don Jones
MyManJohn.com

BO has never been wrong
BO once thought he had made a mistake then found out he was mistaken. This is the closest BO has ever come to admitting a mistake.

His "mentors" turn out to be rabid racists, his big political fundraiser is a felon and his wife is someone who has never been proud of America. Barack Olame'o freely tosses three of them under the bus with the comment that he never really knew them and the main stream media gets a shiver up their leg at the great oratory of their messiah, BO.

If a white had any connection with a whites only country club let alone a racist church it would be head line news day after day until the guy was tarred, feathered and run out of the country.

BO sits his oreo rear end down amid a congregation that goes absolutely bananas when Rev Wrong or Father Phlem gives one of their rabidly racists "sermons". He gets a complete pass on his membership and association of over 20 years with this racist cesspool of a church.
His membership was not a mistake on his part but had become a "distraction."

This is the man who will unite and change us all! Lord have mercy!









Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.