Obama, Obushma, hey, what's the difference?

American Thinker ^ | April 13, 2009 | James Lewis

[neverdem]

OK, conservatives, here's a plan.

Big deal, we lost the election. (Twice -- once for the GOP nomination, and once for the presidency).

The solution? Coopt the Obamunistas.

How? We've got the biggest ally in the world, called Reality. It's a place conservatives know well, because we live there. What's scary about Obamunismo is that its followers talk as if they don't live in Reality. Sometimes they even act that way. But nobody can act against Reality for long without getting a lot of bloody noses.

With the rescue of Captain Phillips, Barack Obama met Reality.  The US Navy shot three pirates even though they were Politically Correct pirates: Muslim, Black, African, probably sad sack desperadoes. It didn't matter, because they held a gun to our national head -- in the person of Captain Richard Phillips.

Obama reacted the way a US president should, by letting the Navy and FBI act. In this single moment, Obama became Obushma. Because that's how George W. Bush would have acted. That's how the British Navy would have acted in its heyday. It's how freedom of the seas has been protected for two centuries.

It's up to the New Media to keep asking the question: Are we seeing Obamunism or Obushmanism?

It's the crucial question. We know that crises will keep coming up. "Events, dear boy, events," as Harold MacMillan reportedly said.

So far, Obama flunked the test by bowing to King Abdullah. It was a huge, dumb move, and Axelrod has been trying to dance away from it ever since.

But Obama flunked much worse in firing Rick Wagoner, the President of GM. That was a violation of the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.

The US Constitution is a supremely Reality-based document. It assumes that people are power-hungry, as they are in Reality.

The job of the New Media is to make Obama's failing grades stick, as well as to celebrate a passing grade in the rescue of Captain Philips.

That's the power of media, to tell the public narrative, to be the Greek Chorus in the drama of state. The New Media can do it at least as well as the decrepit old ones.

If Obama is praised for acting like a conservative, Reality-based president, that's fine. He should equally well be criticized, without fear or favor, when he acts like a Marxist.

If the Obama administration drifts over time into acting more conservatively, even against its fantasies, well, bully for them. But if they swing the other way, Obama should be a one-term president, like Jimmy Carter.

(Remember, Jimmy is still totally enraged by his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980. If Obama is defeated in 2012 he'll keep the Left on the broil for years to come, trying to make a comeback. Hillary and every other ambitious Democrat will fight him. It could easily shatter the Democrats for decades to come.)

In the end it's the conservative principles that count, because those principles help us to survive and be a healthy nation in the real world. 

There will be a lot more tests for this administration. They will flunk some, and hopefully pass others.

If they flunk most of the tests, they should be defeated in the Congressional elections in 2010, and -- just like Jimmy Carter -- they should be tossed out of  the White House in 2012.

If they mend their ways -- a giant IF -- maybe they can bring the Democrats back to the center.

If they really try Marxist-Leninism, they should be publicly exposed and defeated.

Our job remains the same, to remind Obama and everybody else about Reality, time and time and time again.

In the end, it's the best interests of the country that matter. That's all that matters.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

Just wait - we’ll hear yet that the shot pirates were treated unfairly because they were really just misunderstood victims of racism and Western capitalism.

[neverdem]

Gun Bans for Your Health

Racing Past the Constitution

Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious

Out of Thin Air (renewable energy)

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[nathanbedford]

It is possible that the author has it precisely wrong in his estimation of what motivates Obama. In reaction to a Victor David Hanson piece I posted this reply which speculates that there might well be huge difference in the foreign policy of a liberal who thinks he has power and those who court a Jimmy Carter type foreign policy as a means of obtaining power as a result of its very fecklessness:

Victor Davis Hanson: Europeanizing Europe. They may have got more than they bargained for [Obama]

Friday, March 13, 2009 3:51:46 PM · 7 of 7

We conservatives are in danger of misunderstanding Barak Obama's foreign policy. The general assumption here is that he is likely to conduct foreign policy like Jimmy Carter. I think he is far more likely to wage war like Trotsky and conduct foreign policy like Stalin.

Barak Obama is not a Dean Acheson liberal. He is a dedicated Marxist power monger. Normal leftists of the kind described by Victor David Hanson at his cocktail party in France are simply soft on the international forces of the left for the very simple reason that they are sympathetic with those leftist goals. There are many leftists in Europe as well as in America who are, if not sympathetic, at least tolerant of aggressive Islamic fascism because it produces chaos which they instinctively know opens opportunities to exploit for the introduction of socialist one world government. They are smugly confident that they can deal with the Mohammedens after the chaos caused by their jihad opens the way for leftist world government.

But note, Barak Obama already has power and he is on the very brink of obtaining power of the kind enjoyed by the likes of Hugo Chavez. If one accepts that Barak Obama is a Manchurian Marxist, then it is inescapable that he seeks personal power unrestrained by democracy or human rights to do all the good that he alone sees must be done. Such a man calculates how to get the power he covets. American history has never offered a megalomaniac such a perfect storm to exploit to gain that power. Washington might have had it, but he was not a megalomaniac. Abraham Lincoln, with all his faults and with all his trampling on the Constitution, never lost his patriotism and never abandoned his fidelity to the principles of democracy. So in the midst of our tragic civil war, Lincoln preserved his essential humility. Franklin Roosevelt was never burdened by too much humility but he lacked the worldview, possessed for example by Adolf Hitler and, one speculates, Barak Obama, which drives a president to exploit a financial crisis and a world war to attain ultimate power. Roosevelt was a fixer first, an egomaniac, an elitist liberal, and a man who enjoyed manipulating the levers of power, almost as a hobby. He was certainly high-handed but he was not prone to be an autocrat.

Barak Obama certainly is obsessed with an ideology which propels him toward autocracy, a degree from Seoul Alinsky's School for Scoundrels provides him with the modus operandi , the financial crisis provides him with the opportunity, and the absence of political opposition makes it all possible.

Now if this is Obama's state of mind why would a man grasping for ultimate power tolerate a repugnant ideology, such as aggressive fundamentalist Islam, competing for that power?

Virtually all leftists in all of history have not been supine in the face of challenges to Leftism. Leftists care only about casualties in war when those wars are waged in defense of democracy or in opposition to Leftism. One need no better proof of this principle than the flip-flops of the American Communist party pivoting around the Hitler- Stalin pact. The left has been willing to extravagantly sacrifice the blood of its sons and daughters in defense of its own power or in the acquisition of that power. The historical examples are are numerous: the Russian Revolution after 1918 and the bloodbaths in its civil war against the White Russians; Stalin's murder of upwards of 10 million Kulaks in Ukraine to extend his authority there; the unbelievable casualties sustained by the Russian army in ultimately beating the Germans; the suicide attacks by the Communist Chinese in the Korean War mirroring the same suicide tactics Stalin resorted to against the Nazis; Mao's deliberately sacrificing his own troops against both Chiang Kai-shek and the Japanese to further his own power; the indifference of the authorities around Ho Chi Minh to the casualties sustained by the civilian population of North Vietnam, or to the astronomical casualties sustained at the front in pursuit of the conquest of the South; the bloodthirstiness of the Khmer Rouge in murdering 25 to 33% of their own people in Cambodia.

If Obama is in fact a committed Marxist but one who shrinks from violence in obtaining or preserving power, he will be exceptional among the breed. There are a few such as Gorbachev but his forbearance occurred in the context of a dead ideology. I believe that it is more likely than not that Obama would wage war against any threats to his power whether domestic or foreign. Obama has it within him to stun the left by his aggressiveness. In fact, I think we're seeing this already in his tardiness in withdrawing from Iraq and his doubling down on the war in Afghanistan. His objection to Iraq occurred before he had power. His diplomatic overtures in the Middle East primarily endanger Israel, not his own power.

Of course, this projection of bellicosity by Obama makes for the ultimate irony especially for the European left described so vividly by Victor David Hanson because an ideologue like Barak Obama is far, far more likely to pitch the world into war than a civilized Christian like George Bush ever was. George Bush, contrary to all fulminations of leftist crazies like Naomi Wolf alleging fascism in his soul, has proved as willing as Cincinnatus or George Washington to walk away from power.

I cannot imagine Barak Obama doing the same.

[Salamander]

O’Bortion is claiming that while it *looked* like he was just partying hearty, he was secretly laying plans for the rescue and is now taking credit for it.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090412/NATION/904120337/Obama+twice+approved+force+to+rescue+hostage

He’s the real hero!

[NOT]

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Of course, this projection of bellicosity by Obama makes for the ultimate irony especially for the European left described so vividly by Victor David Hanson because an ideologue like Barak Obama is far, far more likely to pitch the world into war than a civilized Christian like George Bush ever was. George Bush, contrary to all fulminations of leftist crazies like Naomi Wolf alleging fascism in his soul, has proved as willing as Cincinnatus or George Washington to walk away from power.

I cannot imagine Barak Obama doing the same.

Interesting times.

BTW, the link to that is

Victor Davis Hanson: Europeanizing Europe. They may have got more than they bargained for [Obama]
NRO ^ | March 13, 2009 | Victor Davis Hanson - #7

(Note that when you click on an FR reply number you wish to target with a link, the URL window of your browser displays the URL that gets you to that particular reply - in this case, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2205757/posts?page=7#7. That's something I was long in learning.)

[Christian4Bush]

bump

[EBH]

He got it right for the rescue, but he is getting it wrong for bringing the one pirate here...for trial. Hope they read him his Miranda.

Dump his butt in Kenya and let them take care of him.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Obama reacted the way a US president should, by letting the Navy and FBI act. In this single moment, Obama became Obushma. Because that's how George W. Bush would have acted. That's how the British Navy would have acted in its heyday. It's how freedom of the seas has been protected for two centuries..... In the end it's the conservative principles that count, because those principles help us to survive and be a healthy nation in the real world. “

I don't think this message is going to sell, that everything Obama does right is what GWB would have done, conservatism. That makes TARP1 and the stimulus package right. I know this is the Hannity/Levin message but it sounds lame after the past two years of GWB/Pelosi socialism.

In fact it's problematic politically because Obama is not acting as bad as was predicted by talk radio on military related actions.

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI

[calcowgirl]

I don't think this message is going to sell, that everything Obama does right is what GWB would have done, conservatism. That makes TARP1 and the stimulus package right.

Agreed. It would also make his amnesty program perfectly sensible... which it isn't.

I had trouble reading the whole article ant understanding the author's point.
I lost him at "Obushma" and "Obushmanism"? What does that mean? What is "ma"?

[Hardastarboard]

Gorbachev but his forbearance occurred in the context of a dead ideology.

Great post, as always. I might disagree mildly with your comment here. Unfortunately, Marxism isn't dead, as we learned in the last election. I'll undermine my own point by noting that 0bama did run as a conservative, at least rhetorically. Anyone who was paying attention, mostly ideologues on both sides, knew he was a Marxist at heart, hence the outrage from the left every time we called him a socialist.

contrary to all fulminations of leftist crazies like Naomi Wolf alleging fascism in his soul, has proved as willing as Cincinnatus or George Washington to walk away from power.

I cannot imagine Barak Obama doing the same.

A lot of us, even including Rush Limbaugh, were concerned that Clinton wouldn't lay down the staff either (multiple pun sort of not intended), but he ultimately did. Thank God. You may be right - I just think it would take an ego of such outsize proportions that even 0bama wouldn't do it.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I had trouble reading the whole article ant understanding the author's point. I lost him at “Obushma” and “Obushmanism”? What does that mean? What is “ma”? “

This is what you (or we) are left with when we have no leaders. To be technical John McCain won R primary over Romney on foreign/military experience(Hawk) , then late 2008 the economy exploded and the electable McCain became the unelectable McCain. This author selects military examples (only) of how Obama mimics GWB. But that is the Hawk McCain argument, but few here want to reference McCain as the positive example, no way.

[Obushma]

I’m famous!!!! Wait.........how does the author know so much about me? Hmmm..............

[sickoflibs]

The problem is the so called conservative talk radio hosts like Levin and Hannity (that I used to believe) are running out of arguments against Obama, given their support for Bush. Most of their arguments last 8 years were pro-military arguments. As the economy fell apart they were forced to talk about economy, problem was much of the socialism stuff BoB is doing now, Bush started. And they already gave credit for Bush economic boom.

In this sea of liberals in MD I know a few talk radio listeners, and all they know is what these talk radio hosts(Levin/Hannity/Rush) tell them, everything good=Bush, everything bad=democrats(Rush isnt quite that bad, he has quietly ditched Bush legacy) . Pretty obvious this is a loser of an argument, except with a few that think everyone else is stupid or a traitor, including those crazy Paulites. (not realizing Republicans were part of the problem)

[Just A Nobody]

OK, conservatives, here's a plan.

I’ll pass on this plan. Comparing the pos usurper currently residing in the people’s house to President George W. Bush, makes my skin crawl. That thing is not fit to kiss President Bush’s arse. Praising and slobbering all over him for common sense and the most basic principle of the presidency, protecting American citizens, is absurd.

Also, according to some non-enemedia reports and the presser held after the rescue, the Commander did not need a permission slip from the people’s house in order to save the hostage. It is only in the after the fact fawning enemedia we hear reports of the "heroic" leadership from the usurper. That in and of itself should be a clue. The “imminent danger“ caveat was the key to the stand off. Captain Phillips was in imminent danger the moment the pirates were permitted to board the ship.

According to Blackfive:
The standing authority gave them clearance to engage the pirates if the life of the captain was in imminent danger. The on scene commander deemed this to be true and gave the order to fire.
This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

And from the presser:
Navy Seals and other officers opened fire on three pirates when a Navy commander made a split-second decision that an American hostage's life was in danger...
Gortney said the White House had given "very clear guidance and authority" that if any time the commander Capt. Phillips' life was in danger to take action to make sure it was not...

[WOSG]

“Virtually all leftists in all of history have not been supine in the face of challenges to Leftism. Leftists care only about casualties in war when those wars are waged in defense of democracy or in opposition to Leftism. ... Of course, this projection of bellicosity by Obama makes for the ultimate irony especially for the European left described so vividly by Victor David Hanson because an ideologue like Barak Obama is far, far more likely to pitch the world into war than a civilized Christian like George Bush ever was.”

Strange coincidences ... look to who he sees as the ‘enemy’ ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2227878/posts
“Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’ U.S. military veterans particular threats “

[Just another Joe]

That's the power of media, to tell the public narrative, to be the Greek Chorus in the drama of state. The New Media can do it at least as well as the decrepit old ones.

A newspaper is not just for reporting news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it.
Name the author of that quote.

[MrB]

We've got the biggest ally in the world, called Reality.

God's Natural Laws are not friendly to liberalism.

[MrB]

You're not far off. Listen to this:
Evan Sayet - how modern liberals "think"

There's a transcript somewhere as well - google "evan sayet regurgitating the apple".