OMG!!


The Great Unifier,

All the country is talking about these days is differences in Race and Religion.... Not a whole lot of unification going on with these two topics. They are hot button issues and they are all about division...

Obama is not a leader!! He is a slicked up extremely well packaged candidate, but (nothing) comes across as leadership. He always seems to follow.... Where is the brilliance, there is none, he ducks debates despite saying all the time how there are so many issues he would love to have a debate on... He consistently says about issues "now that's a debate I would like to have" but the truth is he does poorly with debates because he has to stand on his own two feet.... Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry and the multitudes of surrogates can't hold him up when he is asked questions, and has not place to hide.

Obama is weak on issues, he is weak in debates, he is weak in and on everything... He is just a very weak candidate who has had a brilliant manager who has managed to keep him protected along with critical help from the media/pundits. But that's not working anymore, Obama in a bottle time, has passed, the genie is out of the bottle. The brilliant Chameleon Lizard, has lost his ability to fade into the surroundings, he is politics as usual, nothing close to what he and his campaign have portrayed him to be.

Obama's problem is the campaign has gone on too long, it has given "the people" time to get to know him.... "We" are thankful to Hillary for that.

Anti Reaganess

Wow. This is something from a badly resourced Junior High School paper. This tripe is really on the main hit list of RCP? I come to this site for real clear articles and opinions, not shameless propaganda. I'll give this and RCP a D-

This is so sad and shameful, I'll take it a little at a time.

Sowell says "There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans...."

Certainly Obama is not as dishonest as Clinton ( sniper fire ) as arrogant as Bush ( "whoever the leaker is we shall fire them" re Valerie Plame) or as ultimately dangerous ( we have been in a war now for years when "Mission Accomplished" was also up years ago, so the 4000 lives what about them? Here we are on hte ever of the worst presidency in History)

So how is it that Sowell believes all these things that are obviously true about Bush and Hillary are also true about Obama? Well simply becasye he says so it is " proof by assertion" or in other words " true because I said so" But obviously Sowell doesn't like Obama, but doesn't give us any reasons...except for the vague assertions above and another case of assertion to quote

"the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s."

again a statement completely devoid of any actual fact, just a simple assertion. Here's a few refutations. Obama's pro Israel stance ( Israel wasn't around in 1930) Obama's position otwards charter school sand the teachers unions ( also not around in the 1960's)

Sowell, ( I prefer the knickname sewell) why don't you just say 'I don't like Obama" it would at least be honest as your attacks are neither sensible nor honest.

You remind me a lot of Wright, another black man who is jealous of Obama's rise to notoriety.

to

Ground control to Obamaphiles: American voters will never elect as President an emaciated arugula eater whose father was a Marxist Muslim goatherd and whose spirtual mentor has ridiculed Jews, Italians, and Irish and beseeched God to damn America.

An excellent essay, Mr. Sowell.

I predict that if Barack denounces Wright completely, that denunciation will take place after the primary in North Carolina -- since that is the last primary in a state with a large black population. Barack is a clever, calculating politician (just like Wright said he is).

Obama is unelectable.

Voters will not ignore Obama's 20 year relationship with anti-American racist “Rev.” Wright, what to say of Obama's friendly relationship with the known and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers.

When you put the ideas supported by Wright and Ayers together, one has to question Obama's judgment in his choice of friends. When the poor judgment and possible ulterior motives behind these relationships are considered, it begs question of ‘what could Obama’s agenda for America be?’ Just how would Obama deal with the known enemies of America and its allies such as al-Qaeda or Hamas when his habits with past associations would indicate these as like-minded friends?

Now consider Obama’s ‘Politics of Hope’ which is a complete sham when he guts the real concerns of voters with his condescending and elitist rhetoric; stereotyping the working class of Pennsylvania and the whole country as xenophobic bigots obsessed with religion and guns.

Much of this background was there to be seen for anyone who cared to look.

________________________________________
Liberals are the only people on earth that cry “Character Assassination” when we play back what they just said.

“There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.”


Barack Obama presidency will be a national nightmare come true.

• He's vowed to disarm the military and cancel defense spending.

• He wants to negotiate with people who's only goal is to murder you and your family.

• He wants to install activist judges like the ones here in Massachusetts who don't interpret the law, but create it, disregarding their specific role in the three branches of government.

And those are his good points.

Obama knew what a potential problem J. Wright could become in Obama's run for President so he chose to "hide" his radical pastor of 20 years in the basement. If Obama though he would never have to be confronted with J. Wright during his campaign, then Obama is a fool.

When first "confronted" with his radical pastor of 20 years, Obama "changed the subject" with his speech on the racial divide in American rather than confront head-on the Wright potential problem.

Obama shows himself to be all about personal ambitions for material gain with little or no regard for the democratic party and the millions of Americans the party represents.

If J. Wright is indeed the alter ego of Obama (as he appears to be) then Obama has done a great disservice the the democratic party, all in the name of his own personal ambition, with no regard for the democratic party and the millions of non-black Americans who support the basic main-stream values of the democratic party. The black democrats have shown where they stand by block voting for Obama at a 80% rate or better.

Obama appears to be a combination of the views and belief systems of J. Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, the former "fixer/bag-man" friend of Obama.

Tim Dickson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This article is tripe.
>
> A one-sided attack with no balance. It is hard to
> be swayed when the counter-argument is not at
> least explored.


Learn your civics, boring tripe Tim.

We the people are the jury. Obama stands accused and soon condemned. It will be interesting to see if he ends up in prison. I will personally rejoice when Michelle does. They stole tax dollars. Most of those tax dollars where designated to help the truly poor. I have zero sympathy for Michelle and her new house should be donated to charity. She is the one with the criminal history. She is the one leading Obama by the nose. She is the one that received a $200,000, 300% raise the day after her husband was elected to the US Senate. Obama's first legislation was a grant of one million dollars to Michelle's employer.

Obama can not even be trusted to handle a million dollar kickback. President??? That will be funny as soon as it is no longer possible. Speaking of funny, did you see his performance at the debate here in Philadelphia??? Hysterical.

There is more to come. Since Obama is a cocaine user and wants to prove himself to the black community, I knew that Obama was required to do the down low. So what comes out of the Rezko trial? Testimony as to Obama giving another man pleasure. Obama is Lewinsky (as in Monica)!!!

If the press continues to give Obama a pass, he could likely be the first Affirmative Action president.

COOL BOBBY K , ARE YOU AN IDIOT?

The WE of the united states, have voted by a margin of more than 2 states to 1 for Obama to be the nominee. yes WE THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED, and more than 40 % of yopur state voted for OBAMA
so yes we the people have spoken, AMEN...

and BOBBY K YOU VOTED FOR BUSH talk about a president who has brought MISERY and SHAME to this country! Bush was a CHEERLEADER WITH A C- AVERAGE AT YALE, do you really think that Obama could do any worse than the jackass your best judgement voted for?


-------------------------------------------------------
> Chris Harwood Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wow. This is something from a badly resourced
> tripe is really on list of RCP? I come to this
> site for
> > real clear articles and opinions,
>
>
> I am left to assume you think Obama is qualified
> to be president. Chris, you need to understand
> that we have seen all this before. It is just more
> history in the making. Some of us can look back
> and see parallels that are somewhat predictive of
> the future. This is called wisdom. Obama has none.
> Obama is a con and ex drugie. Truth. Obama is the
> political muscle behind people who steal taxes.
> Michele is very old friends with the worst cons in
> Chicago.
>
> This being said, there is zero doubt that an Obama
> presidency would bring personal grief to each and
> every citizen.
>
> We in Pennsylvania voted to stop the Obama
> campaign.
>
> I plead with the citizens of Indiana and North
> Carolina to do the same. It is not too late to
> show that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are the true and
> free rulers of the USA. We bless America in the
> name of Him who has created and sustains us. Amen.

Bridge Builder, YOU ARE SILL NOT PAYING ATTENTION

It's been while

anyway you said that Obam ahas not show any leadership skills?!! ROFL here is a quick refresher for you.

Hillary Clinton started this campaign with millions of dollars, worldwide name recognition, connections that only a former first lady can have, about a 20 point lead in the polls and the best consultants money can buy.

Now months later, Obama is ahead in the average of all major polls. As of Wednesday April 27, Obama was ahead by an average of 5.6 % nationwide in polls on the democratic nomination.

Regarding the actual results thus far, if Hillary won all 9 of the remaining contests she would still be behind in pledged delegates. She would not only have to win them all, she would have to win them all by an average margin of 28% (64% to 36 %) and even then she would only tie. She claims that this pledged delegate advantage is because of the “un democratic” caucuses. Recently it was shown that in actuality that had the caucus states help primaries, Obama would be up in the popular vote by at least 1.4 million instead of the 514,000 vote advantage that he currently has, since that was proven, magically the caucus complaints from the Clinton campaign have ceased.

Beyond the votes there is the money. She is losing by more than a ratio of 2 to 1 in fundraising. But in fundraising it’s not just the “How Much” but also the “How” So far more than 1 million donors have given to the Obama campaign at an average donation of around $100.00 each. In March alone Obama raised twice the amount of money that Clinton did but it was done through the American people at a pace and volume that is a first in American history.

Beyond money and delegates there is also the matter of states to consider. Clinton is also losing by a 2 to 1 ratio in number of contests won (28 for Obama v. 14 for Clinton) regarding the “big state” claim that the Clinton campaign makes, does anyone really believe for a second that California and New York are going to vote Republican in November if Barack Obama is the nominee? Be serious.

All of this shows that not only is Obama electable, he is one of the strongest candidates democrats have had in the last 50 years.

If you go from nothing to beating the hell out of an entrenched candidate, that shows some leadership skills.. BUT OF COURSE YOU KNOW THAT

BridgeBuilder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The USA has a lot of problems today. No need to
> add to the pile of problems we face by electing
> Obama in November. The USA would likely be in
> worse shape by 2012 than it was in 1930 if Obama
> were to be elected. Obama is a novice and has
> shown no leadership skills and appears to have
> very bad judgement. If the answer to a problem is
> not in a book Obama has read about
> socialism/maxism, or the plight of black
> Americans, it is not in Obama's head and Obama
> would never think of it.

Daniel Greene Smith:

The WE of the united states, have voted by a margin of more than 2 states to 1 for Obama to be the nominee. yes WE THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED

Actually, Obama's current delegate lead is due primarily to his wins in caucuses, in which turnout is consistently lower turnout than in primaries, and in which the secret ballot is not used. A lot of people (myself included) consider caucuses to be rather un-democratic. There's a reason they are not used in general elections.

Caucuses tend to attract affluent members of the party base, as working-class voters often can't find time to attend them, and independent-minded voters often don't bother. In this particular case, this played right into Obama's hand: wealthy "latte liberals" are one of his two core constituencies (along with black voters). If the states he had won caucuses in had held primaries instead, the results may well have been very different.

Daniel Greene Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COOL BOBBY K , ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
> do you really think that Obama could do
> any worse than the jackass your best judgement
> voted for?


Absolutely and 100% YES, he can. Why do you doubt. You are possibly young, too young to have seen worse, like LBJ having JFK gunned down in the street. Then LBJ instituting a draft and destroying an entire generation of American youth.

The most intelligent president ever was Jimmy Carter. He received my first vote.

Gas lines anyone??? Empty shelves like in Cuba? NO, did not think so. I learned from my mistake and am here to make sure it does not happen again in my lifetime. I am nearly through the first half of my 120 year life and will not allow the mistakes we made as children be repeated and thus be for naught.

Didn't we once have an embassy in Iran???

Marxism is not a buzz word or something to be afraid of. If everyone were a PhD., it would be the best, most efficient form of governance. But, there would have to be no violence Violence would bring about a Stalin. Such a shame, We the People really do have to stand guard. I only wish the constitution allowed us to bear arms, the founding fathers should have given us the right to defend ourselves.

> > I am left to assume you think Obama is qualified to be president. Chris, you need to understand
> > that we have seen all this before. It is just more history in the making. Some of us can look back
> > and see parallels that are somewhat predictive of the future. This is called wisdom. Obama has
>> no wisdom.
> > Obama is a con and ex drugie. Truth. Obama is the political muscle behind people who steal taxes.
> > Michele is very old friends with the worst cons in Chicago.
> >
> > This being said, there is zero doubt that an Obama presidency would bring personal grief to each and
> > every citizen.

> > We in Pennsylvania voted to stop the Obama campaign.
> >
> > I plead with the citizens of Indiana and North Carolina to do the same. It is not too late to
> > show that it is WE THE PEOPLE who are the true and free rulers of the USA. We bless America in the
> > name of Him who has created and sustains us.

EXCELLENT, WELL WRITTEN ARTICLE! I totally agree with him on his points! I can tell you, that as a caucasian male, the African American issue isn't the reason I'm not voting for Senator Obama... He just clearly hasn't ONE CLUE as to what he's doing... he's into this all for himself and it's finally coming to head now. It is TOTALLY silly for an African American to vote for him soley because his skin color is black... In fact, from what I see, Senator Obama hasn't done hardly anything to canvass and talk to the African American community who support him by as much as 90%. As an African American, I would feel outraged that I was being taken for granted by him. I've even seen a few articles by some African American journalists that are now questioning what it is that the community is voting for in him. Had Senator Obama been Colin Powell, I think this issue would be a mute point... he would be the 3000th hit for the African American community!

Thomas Sowell is brilliant. His logic is irrefutable. He has wisdom. He has experience.

Who is behind Obama? For whom is he fronting? I fear that it is a coalition of ultra, ultra, ultra American liberals, and, foreign parties both of whom have grown older and "wiser" and are now using non-violent means to influence the highest reaches of government in every corner of our great nation.

"Internationally, the approach that Senator Obama proposes -- including the media magic of meetings between heads of state -- was tried during the 1930s. That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history."


Media magic was treid in the 1930ies ???


What led to WW II, Mr. Sowell ???
Have you ever said/read a sentence more meaningless: " That approach, in the name of peace, is what led to the most catastrophic war in human history."

Thus: in one sentence without any factual content you analyze the origin of WW II ????


If you, Mr Sowell, have any intellectual credibility, then I ask if the standards that have established it have been unusually low.

Naperich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "terrorists with nuclear weapons"........... is
> that another way to say "weapons of mass
> destruction"?

I see no war in Iraq.

I support giving France Iraq and Iran back as colonies.

you
> are frightened by Obama!

Ten dollars a gallon gasoline frightens me. Not being able to get any except on alternating Wednesdays would not make me very happy either. Pacifism losing more embassies sucks. Islam advancing is bad. Going the wrong way can bring some very unwanted results. Who will pay for all the welfare when business becomes the enemy of government like in the bad old days? Watching the rest of the world imitate our success while we turn around and go backwards will not be as interesting as watching us produce more and more wealth. Can you point out something Obama would do that I should like. Hint: hip hop is not it. We as a country have been going upwards for so long, the young think it is the given state of our country. News flash, without quality leadership we can go very far downwards. Obama could bring that about fairly easily. You can either believe he is unqualified or you can believe he wishes ill toward us for his father's and mother's sake. Your choice.

This article is not up to the standards normally associated with RCP. I actually AM a history professor, and your historical analysis is sophomoric twaddle. When the the moderate Eisenhower of the 1950s and the liberals Kennedy and Johnson of the 1960s were in power the country enjoyed the highest growth rates in the nation's history, gains that were enjoyed broadly across all five income quintiles, and that were achieved with minimal federal debt.

Marginal income tax rates in those days went as high as 70% for the very rich. The capital gains tax was 40%. National infrastructure and the school system were expanding, not contracting from disinvestment as they have been under recent conservative rule, a rule that has seen real income for the top 1% grow by 167% in the past 28 years while that of the bottom 50% has regressed. In additon to this, 70% of the total national debt of $9.4 trillion has been amassed in the 19 years Reagan and the two Bushes have been in office.

I used to be a Republican. I voted for Reagan twice. I believed. But I have since been persuaded by the facts that their philosophy simply does not work. It did not work under Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior or Bush the younger. The nation did, however, enjoy broad based growth and prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton. The historical record is that moderate or liberal policies work for the betterment of the living standards of most Americans. Conservative policies do not. They have consistently resulted in greatly improving the prosperity of a few at the top while the other income groups stagnate or lose ground.

If you are open minded enough to face the facts these conclusions are inescapable.

Mr. History Professor,

Carter is conspicuous by his absence form your list of great democrats who brought economic prosperity to this great land, and for a good reason. Carter was the first to bring us "stagflation" that economic miracle of stagnation combined with inflation, 7.5% unemployment, 12% mortgage interest and 20% interest on consumer loans, such as for autos.

Obama would be a repeat of Carter with the few clues he has given us as to his economic policies.

Those eight growth years under the Republican Eisenhower were also some of the largest years of economic growth. Eisenhower also ran the largest defense budget as a percentage of GDP of any president you mentioned.

You should also remember that it was Kennedy that began our involvement in Vietnam with "advisers." I became anti-war back then, not because we were in Vietnam, but the way we entered it. When Johnson declared that he would not send combat troops to Vietnam, he was lying through his teeth. Within a few weeks, combat troops were on the ground and the smell of Napalm in the air. Johnson lied, people died.

"There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans."

This is an asinine position. The Bush admin has repeatedly suggested that more money for the Pentagon and for the military has made us "safer" with absolutely no sense of using soft power, leverage, and tough diplomacy. Only recently with some talking with North Korea some minor process was made, something that was completely ruled out during his Axis of Evil Speech and the "for us or against us" attitude. " Was the complete dismantlement of Libya's nuclear program Peace in Our Time?" No, smart diplomacy. So even BUSH learns from his mistakes, so Obama is way ahead of the curve. What makes us safer is to get as much nuclear material off the market as we can, keep WMDs and material locked up, and to fight the scrappy war against terrorists while not bankrupting our whole government (see Afghanistan). This is Barack Obama's position.

The true war that is being fought in the 21st century is going to be economic, and the US is already seriously losing. The dollar is a joke, the investment in the US is drying up, jobs are moving overseas, and our education system and job training is wrecked. While we are playing multi-billion dollar whack-a-mole with terrorists and the rest of the world is going to pass us by because they get it. So lets end the charade that the Republican party is the fiscally conservative party and build back the industrial complex that is the source of a true superpower. I mean how many aircraft carriers and nuclear subs do we need again to kill Bin Laden? And maybe, just maybe we can get some friends in the world again so we did not have to foot the massive bills of taking on every country we don't like.

Doing what is best to get affordable health care for all Americans and getting the best bang for our buck out of government may be what you define as socialist, but realize that when people show up at the ER without health insurance and use it as their personal doctor please realize you are still paying. So tell you what, I will take Obama's health plan and let you choose your capitalist health insurance program run by Haliburton. Keep telling yourself that big government is always bad. God forbid we try and help US citizens and get them integrated into a new fast-paced world.

Hoover did not cause the depression. Smoot-Hawley did, protectionism caused the depression. Smoot-Hawley tried to protect American jobs through protectionism, resulting in retaliatory tariffs on American exports by our trading partners. The worldwide economy screeched to a halt.

Now Obama wants to scrap our trade agreements with our best trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

Thanks for the response, "history may repeat."

Yes, I omitted the Democrat Carter and the Republican Ford, you may also have noticed.

The stagflation you speak of began under Nixon. In fact, that is when the term was coined. It got worse under Ford and even worse yet under Carter. I did not mention them because I feel their problems were not of their own making. They were trying to clean up the mess Nixon left them, the nation was riven politically by Watergate and the first oil embargoes (Arabs in 1973, Iran in 1979) shook the economy.

Obama has actually given a great many clues about his economic ideas. If you are interested, go to his website. They are there in great detail. In most respects they are quite similar to Hillary Clinton's, you will find.

You are quite right about Eisenhower. Economic preformance was outstanding in his tenure. He governed as a moderate, though, not a conservative, rejecting calls from the conservative Republicans of his day like Robert Taft to dismantle the New Deal programs such as social security. You will note that I did include him as those under whom broad based growth was achived, and I salute his leadership during that time.

You are quite wrong about defense expenditures during Ike's term, however. He cut them significantly.

As far as your points on Kennedy and Johnson at the end, you are comparing apples to oranges there. of course. I was writing about the economy, and you've introduced foreign policy concerns too. OK, so let's go there. JFK did increase our advisors in Vietnam to 16,300. Then Johnson began large-scale involvement. The policy was a catastrophe, no question, though it shouldn't be forgotten that their Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, was running on the platofrm that they weren't doing enough and that he would escalate even faster then they. Still, they (especially LBJ) are responsible for that terrible decision.

Now, with that in mind, which of the current candidates do you feel are most likely to repeat that kind of foolish mistake, to get bogged down in a guerilla war, or keep us bogged down in the current one: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or john McCain?

Steve Natoli:

This article by Fareed Zakaria appeared in RCP a few days ago, [www.realclearpolitics.com]

Scroll down the the section heading THE ENTREPRENEURIAL EMPIRE

Since the late 1800's, US GDP as a percentage of the global GDP has been generally constant, the lowest point coming at the end of the Carter administration.

"The U.S. economy has been the world's largest since the middle of the 1880s, and it remains so today. In fact, the United States has held a surprisingly constant share of global GDP ever since. With the brief exception of the late 1940s and 1950s, when the rest of the industrialized world had been destroyed and its share rose to 50 percent, the United States has accounted for roughly a quarter of world output for over a century (32 percent in 1913, 26 percent in 1960, 22 percent in 1980, 27 percent in 2000, and 26 percent in 2007). It is likely to slip, but not significantly, in the next two decades. Most estimates suggest that in 2025 the United States' economy will still be twice the size of China's in terms of nominal GDP."

Defense spending under Eisenhower peaked at 10% of GDP...

"The United States also spends more on defense research and development than the rest of the world put together. And crucially, it does all this without breaking the bank. U.S. defense expenditure as a percent of GDP is now 4.1 percent, lower than it was for most of the Cold War (under Dwight Eisenhower, it rose to ten percent). As U.S. GDP has grown larger and larger, expenditures that would have been backbreaking have become affordable. The Iraq war may be a tragedy or a noble endeavor, but either way, it will not bankrupt the United States. The price tag for Iraq and Afghanistan together -- $125 billion a year -- represents less than one percent of GDP. The war in Vietnam, by comparison, cost the equivalent of 1.6 percent of U.S. GDP in 1970, a large difference."

almost forgot...

Hillary would be the most likely to keep us bogged down in a guerilla war with a one toe in, one toe out approach. With Obama, i see his short term appeasement bringing us later into a much larger hot war. McCain would probably work best with our allies in managing our alliances.

Pennsylvania is so far the only state that has voted after Wrightgate, snipergate, and bittergate. If Jeremiah's jeremiads had been televised before Super Tuesday, Hillary would have locked the nomination. So Barack's vote and delegate totals are distorted by the media coverup of his background.

90% of Barack's popular vote margin comes from his margin in Illinois and most of that from Cook County (aka "Crook County") alone.

By the time Puerto Rico has voted, HRC will be ahead in popular votes even excluding FL and MI. yet the craven superdelegates will be afraid of Al Sharpton riots in Denver and will grudgingly nominate Barack the sure loser who will lose FL, OH, PA, and maybe MI.