Posted on 07/26/2008 2:25:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I so, so wanted to believe it. Really I did. He is so handsome, so fresh and, well, truth be told, I want everybody to know that I embrace diversity. I’m hip, if you can dig it. I’m not afraid of change. That is, as long as by “change” Barack Obama and his followers are referring to a change in vision, a change in paradigm and perhaps a change of tone in Washington. Politics can be so grubby and nasty. Everybody wants to see the Jimmy Stewart, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” movie come true.
Unfortunately, what I think Obama and his followers mean by “change” is constant, erratic changing of the story, changing of his policy views and then changing what he says he said, that is, before he said what he thought he said, if you get my drift.
What doesn’t change is his winsome, folksy if not downright Hollywood smile nor his clean-cut, youthful executive-in-training style. All of these things kept me pulling for him in the primary against Senator Clinton.
I winced a little bit when I heard excerpts of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, but chalked it up as being unreasonable to hold him accountable for his pastor’s comments. Then I heard that Oprah left Wright’s fold years ago because she considered Wright too extreme. Hmmm, well, it’s still not fair to make him guilty by association.
In all probability I wasn’t likely to vote for him anyway because I do support the war on terror and I do believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified for a variety of reasons, too many to number in the space of this column. Still, this being a democracy, I admired that he carried forward his beliefs. He seemed to genuinely believe his anti-war stance as was evidenced by his Senate voting record.
It was difficult, though, to accept a Senator running for President that voted to immediately withhold funding for our troops while they were in harm’s way. But at least he was being consistent. He could afford to, after all, because very few democrats had the courage of their convictions to vote against the funding, so Obama knew our soldiers would get the funding in the end.
I had further cause for concern as democrats, including Obama, proclaimed that we were headed for certain failure in Iraq under General Petraeus’ troop surge strategy that began in 2007. That sounded a little too much like a naysayer who was holding out hope for our failure to his own political benefit. That’s when the “politics as usual: this guy’s no different than the others” warning light started to flash. Was he actually hoping for failure?
Then came some fanciful tiptoeing around his views on NAFTA, gun bans, immunity for telecom companies who cooperate with the Terrorist Surveillance Program, public financing of elections, welfare reform, and nuclear power.
The typical pattern in all elections is for a candidate to win the nomination by first appealing to his base, the far right or far left of his party. After he secures the nomination, he then starts to lurch to the center in order to win over the rest of America, the “muddy middle” independent folks. Wait, but that’s the typical pattern. I thought Obama was supposed to be the candidate of our dreams, not like any other candidate before. I thought he was fresh air, the candidate for hope and change!
You mean...gulp...he’s just another politician after all? I would argue that if he truly cannot prove himself to be different than the typical politician, he had better have a resume by which we can judge his qualifications for this powerful position of privilege.
So, what experience does Obama have that we can look to for a hint of qualification? His Ivy League education? His 143 days in the U.S. Senate? A book he wrote about his favorite topic, himself?
The issue that catapulted Obama toward his nomination was his firm stance against the war. The policy he is advocating for today as he tours Europe and the Middle East is barely recognizable and is far from being the immediate pullout that won him such popularity.
Politicians advocate for popular causes. Leaders sacrifice their popularity to advance what they believe is right.
What I find most disturbing is that in the face of such obvious success and progress in Iraq, Obama was quick to credit the success to a sudden and inexplicable diplomatic spirit between Muslim factions. Is he kidding?
The progress made in Iraq is due to the immovable, persistent and courageous commitment of our U.S. troops under the leadership of the President and his appointed leader, General Petraeus.
For a nation at war, facing some historic challenges of geopolitical consequence, I’d offer this simple statement regarding our presidential candidates: Mr. Smith should go back home. We need a leader, not a politician.
Excellent article! Thanks for posting this.
Someone who’s finally come to their senses!
Obama will be a leader in his own way (like multi-billion dollar contributions to the UN to wipe world poverty and disease, unilateral disarmament, subordination of the US to international bodies like the World Court and various UN agencies, drastic reductions in US consumption of fuel and food, etc.).
But in order for him to lead, he has to get elected, see? Ya gotta have faith.
Sounds anti-Christ like to me BUT i could be wrong .... I hope so .
Golden Retriever puppies at that age have the sharpest teeth you can imagine. They can cut you like razor blades if they scrape your flesh. Even when they’re just playing.
mark
Don’t I know it! And I have the scars to prove it!
Wait . . . is that YOU in the photo, getting bit?
No. My golden retriever/black lab mix is currently a bouncing, brainless 90 pounds. She got me pretty good on the right hand, while our full-blooded golden retriever (our previous dog) got me on the left wrist.
I usually teach my pups on top of a table or a 4-wheeler, though -- they don't feel quite as secure.
Suffering Ruby:
Better she than I!
He acts like he is already elected — setting up a transition team even before he has declared a v.p. louse.
I don’t work my Golden, but as with previous dogs, I am teaching him to listen and follow complex commands, like, “Jack, go in the office, get your ball, and bring it to me.”
He’s only two, but he’s already understanding this. Unfortunately, because he’s a Golden, he’s stubborn, and pretends to NOT understand . . . unless he wants me to throw him the ball. Then he goes into the office (or whichever room I tell him it’s in) and brings me his ball.
But that type of complex commands are not appropriate for a working dog in the field, I don’t imagine. Just for a house dog who is way too spoiled.
At that point she retrieves the 'go bird' (the last one shot). She returns to me, meanwhile I turn towards the 2nd bird shot, she heels at my left and delivers the bird. I send her again on her name, she retrieves the bird and heels and delivers. Then I send her on her name to the last bird in the middle. As she returns, the judge heaves another bird under her nose and yells, "THERE GOES ONE!" She has to ignore that and return the bird in her mouth to me, then on her name go to the diversion bird.
It's a fairly complex series of commands, but she does have visual cues (the falling birds, and my swinging my shotgun to the next bird.)
I’m now sneaking away from this thread with my head hanging down in shame. Ol’ Jack is a miserable failure.
And here I thought he was pretty smart. Darn it.
Goldens are stubborn and can be difficult to train. We have a few of them in the hunting retriever club, and it's true pretty much across the board, even for the "little red dogs" i.e. the field bred goldens, more so for the big yellow Goldens - the show dogs. You just have to work harder.
I started late with the Shell, she was 3 years old before she ever saw a duck (or a bumper for that matter). She had done obedience and had done a lot of agility, it took her awhile to get the hang of the hunting retriever stuff, but now she loves it best of all. After all, it's what she was bred for!
We train every month as a club, a bunch of us go out on Fridays just about every week too. If you'll take Jack to a HRC club once a month and work with him just 10 minutes a day, he can do triples and diversion birds and even blinds!
(We're still working on blinds. Shelley is still not convinced that I know where a bird is that she didn't see fall!)
No HRC nearby. Thanks, though.
The AKC also has some hunting retriever clubs, with a directory here. One is based in Norman and one in Tulsa.
You have to check, because where the clubs are 'located' (where the secretary lives) and where they train aren't necessarily the same. Our local UKC club is based in Lilburn GA where the secretary lives, but trains in Newnan, almost 75 miles away. And the AKC club is in the same boat, training mostly in Newnan but the club secretary is in Acworth in NW Atlanta metro. (We have a bunch of members with farms in and around Newnan.)
It really is a load of fun to have your dog out doing what he was bred to do! Hunt tests are MUCH less rarified and technical than field trials -- in other words we amateurs have a fighting chance! And the people you will meet are just as nice as they can be, just salt of the earth type folks whether they are doctors, preachers, plumbers, retired, whatever. The pros in the club go out of their way to help beginners along, there are always fun parties and picnics, and the tests (in the early stages at least) are designed to help the dogs and handlers and encourage people to participate. We even have a special event for kids!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
