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

American Thinker ^ | April 13, 2009 | James Lewis

[ken21]

w 43’s scotus nominees are conservative.

but w 43 grew the federal budget.

prescott, 41, and w 43 were always northeast liberal republicans or rinos.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”w 43’s scotus nominees are conservative’

yep, the highlight of last 4 years, and he tried to screw that up, Harriet Myers anyone ?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I think he is far more likely to wage war like Trotsky and conduct foreign policy like Stalin.

It's not clear to me what this means.

If it means that Obama would like to steer the ideology of the US military leftward, I can certainly believe that.

If it means he wants to strengthen the US military, that idea does not seem to fit, since he wants to cut weapons research.

If it means that he will lead the USA into a military defeat, as Trotsky did in World War I, well, I don't know. The US military, for now, can certainly hold its own when it is allowed to pick its battleground. It depends on what kind of scenario Obama would put them into.

Also, Trotsky and Stalin eventually were political and ideological opponents. Would the "Stalin" side of Obama's brain order the assassination of the "Trotsky" side?

[ken21]

trotsky was killed by an axe in mexico.

/s

[WOSG]

“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.”

Not true. There was so much Bush-bashing from Mike Savage for 4 years I was sick of it. (he’s on a drive-time so it’s either him or NPR, somedays you dont know who’d be crazier ;-) ) I mean really, Bush was wrong on immigration and Iraq was a tougher fight than planned, but all we got from some right-wing talk radio hosts was bad-mouthing the negative on Bush and not enough recognition of what he did right (especially on Iraq). (And of course nobody liked McCain much, so you have conservative talk radio almost AWOL on the 08 campaign until Palin came and energized the race.)

Rush, Levin and Laura Ingraham and the rest were ready to jump all over Bush at the drop of a hat ever since the Harriet Miers nomination. That was a signal to the right that GWB could wobble and it was felt we needed to make noise to get our way (probably correct as that is the only reason amnesty was stopped). Numerous issues set them off (I need not list them, they set off grassroots conservatives and FR posters too) and there was NO conservative loyalty to Bush. Good or bad, that was the reality. Bush was criticized mercilessly from all sides of the media on multiple issues. Even cheerleader types like Hannity joined the rabblerousing, eg on immigration.

The idea that right-wing talk radio was 100% supportive of Bush in latter Bush years is beyond bogus. The fact that Bush was over-criticized and has been under-rated is besides the point, as is the false and simplistic argument that Obama is just doing the same thing as Bush.

Further, when Rush criticized Bush for spending too much or argued against Bush on tariffs, or when Laura I. went after amnesty or bad SCOTUS picks, critiqued the RINOs for supporting earmarks, and praised good SCOTUS picks and praised the anti-earmarks conservative Republicans and praised the anti-amnesty conservatives in Congress - they were consistently conservative in point of view.

They have 100% moral authority to provide a conservative critique of everything Obama is doing wrong.

If you want to see lock-step mindless drones for an administration - watch MSNBC and the rest of the liberal MSM now. It’s beyond creepy how they are selling out - they were for pullout from Iraq - now its not happening, they are silent; the liberal blogs deliberately pulled back from bashing corporate bonuses - once the Obama WH realized it would boomerang on them they ‘sent the message’ to tone down the criticism - this is why there is suddenly no media outrage about Fannie and Freddie big bonuses, even recipients of bonuses of guys who sit in the WHITE HOUSE today!!! (Rahm E. and Larry Summers)

[nathanbedford]

I was invoking the Trotsky of the post-revolution civil war against the White Russians in which he was quite effective, indeed miraculously successful, and utterly ruthless and the expenditure of life by his own side. He had a different brief in the struggle against the Germans which was merely to contain an impossible situation so that the revolution could prosper. This is illustrative of my point about when and for what cause leftists are willing to shed blood.

I believe the Stalin-Trotsky analogy is apt also. Not because there is likely to be physical violence or attempted coups at the top but there certainly will be ideological struggles because he who wins those battles captures the apparatus of the United States government and has a real chance at world suzerainty. I have predicted since before the election that we're likely to see these struggles as soon as the left feels that it has extinguished any reactionary threat from the right. We might expect to see that to occur between Hillary and Obama.

[Henchster]

(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.)

Poor conclusion based on history. The Dems have NEVER tolerated a loser, and have chucked them under the bus every time. You get one chance. Johnson didn't even try to run, Humphrey lost and never got even close to a second chance, ditto McGovern, Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

Obama will end up just like Carter, not even his own party will take him seriously.

[Henchster]

I left out Dukakis. We all know what a party leader he’s been since his defeat.

[nathanbedford]

I have not yet commented on this report which is disturbing on many levels. Primarily it is not clear to me whether there is an equal and opposite reaction against leftist domestic potential terrorism which resembles this bizarre report because it was produced in accordance with the same government issue template. Such a report would mitigate many concerns.

I was troubled right off the bat when I read:

This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. a

This is troubling because it assumes the existence of a "phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States." Yet when one reads the report one reads only of possibilities never, or virtually never, factual instances of radicalization, violent or otherwise. Then, at the foot of the same opening paragraph the report states:

Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

Is this an admission that this report is itself an effort to "influence domestic public opinion"? It certainly would seem to be an accurate description of the report which deals in supposition and projection much like a global warming report.

The report also troubles me because it is reminiscent of the Kerner Commission Report which set in stone a left wing version of the causes and remedies for the riots in American inner cities: spend more money. In this case, it seems to be laying a predicate that conservative causes are virtually the equivalent of "radicalization" in the United States. This, of course, is only one step removed from "violent" radicalization.

All of this also smacks of the kind of slanderous broadsides issued by The Southern Poverty Law Center which is finding Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen and other haters behind every conservative cause. One is prompted again to ask, where in this report is the proof of the assertion that there is a "phenomenon of violent radicalization"? The report acknowledges that it is working with private groups to identify hate groups and even solicits informants to report to it at the address which appears at the foot of the report.

There is an appalling lack of statistical support for any of the propositions in this report. I do not believe it contains a single footnote. It is a compilation of speculation printed on government paper.

But because it is on government paper it has the potential to be the predicate for much mischief.

If this were done in a Bill Clinton administration I would be concerned enough to want to have the matter exposed and pursued. In a Hillary Clinton administration, I would be markedly more concerned. In this Obama administration my concern is amplified geometrically because of his moves against free speech, his planned indoctrination camps, his exploitation of groups like Acorn and his own Internet organization, his ill disguised narcissism, and his encouragement of his own cult of personality.

When one considers Obama's biography and his intimate associations with Communists and radicals and criminals, one realizes that one is not being governed by a humble Christian like George Bush but by a potential megalomaniac.

[neverdem]

I don't think this message is going to sell, that everything Obama does right is what GWB would have done, conservatism.

That's quite a stretch, to say the least.

"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 the last reference to Bush that's not a play on the spelling of Bush. It has nothing to do with the domestic, economic affairs.

That makes TARP1 and the stimulus package right.

How do you get from the first thing that Obama's done right, deal with terrorists/pirates - a matter of foreign affairs - to TARP1 and the stimulus package which are the domestic affairs of two different presidents?

I know this is the Hannity/Levin message but it sounds lame after the past two years of GWB/Pelosi socialism.

IMHO, you're not paying attention. Hannity and Levin criticized Bush without mercy when it was due going back to Harriet Myers' nomination for the Supreme Court.

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

He's doing what he has to do. Rats are sick of being criticized for being weak in foreign affairs.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”He's doing what he has to do. Rats are sick of being criticized for being weak in foreign affairs. “

Seemed obvious to me even 'Nov 1,2008. But the hysteria 'Nov 1' here at FR and on Talk radio predicted the opposite "we would all die". I was pinged many times told “The terrorists would kill us all”. Levin and Hannity were working their listeners into a frenzy. But as you say, they had to protect us, all along. It was all just political spin (I was a Levin/Hannity-bot for a long time too, in Ron Paul recovery now.)

Hear that Paul followers, it was obvious that Obama had to protect us. Everything the "Vote McCain or Die" crowd told us was a lie. To be fair, Obama lied about some of it too, to win against Hillary and get move-on $$$$.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

When he says “conservatives” lost the primary election to John McCain, has anyone ever calculated how many Democrat crossover votes in open primaries went to McCain?

That is, a LOT of Democrats didn’t care who won the Democrat primary, because all the candidates were leftists. So they felt free to instead bias the *open* Republican primaries against conservative candidates by voting for McCain.

So for the first election ever, Democrats nominated Obama *and* McCain, effectively locking the Republicans out of the election entirely.

If *anything* elected Obama, it was John McCain. Because there was *no* alternative to a liberal candidate.

And that just wasn’t fair.

Yes, a lot of Republicans crossed over as well, because they truly hated and feared Hillary Clinton. But in the final analysis, just voting for the lesser of two evils, you still end up voting for evil.

[calcowgirl]

Seemed obvious to me even 'Nov 1,2008. But the hysteria 'Nov 1' here at FR and on Talk radio predicted the opposite "we would all die".

I challenged some of those folks as early as March 2008. It escalated into complete hysteria by November.

It was all just political spin ...

That's why I rarely listen to talk radio anymore.
Most "news" programs have become almost as bad in trying to spin one way or the other.

[calcowgirl]

John McCain won R primary over Romney on foreign/military experience(Hawk)

Yep... and the sad part of that is McCain has not really been a friend of the DOD. Go back a decade and look at his record. He joined with Clinton in causing many of the problems we have today. But he used his "war hero" status to prop himself up as a "military expert" and that is all you heard from the talking-heads and campaign stooges. Do not dare to question their myth-building or you were subject to endless stories of how he was a POW, tortured, sacrificed, etc.

And today where is McCain on the subject Defense? Standing at the ready with Obama and Gates to gut our equipment inventories and "reform" the Defense Department.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”If you want to see lock-step mindless drones for an administration - watch MSNBC and the rest of the liberal MSM now. It’s beyond creepy how they are selling out ..”

I listen to both. MSNBC has also done some minor critical stories on Obama for ratings , but for the most part they are still just attacking Republicans. Talk radio presented a similar problem 2001-2008. I cant address this right now, let me get back.

[sickoflibs]

One brief thought:“TAXES ARE REDISTRIBUTION, BUT GWB DEBT AND PRINTING MONEY ARE ECONOMIC GROWTH, UNLESS OBAMA DOES IT ,THEN IT IS SOCIALISM “

[sickoflibs]

RE :”That's why I rarely listen to talk radio anymore.
Most “news” programs have become almost as bad in trying to spin one way or the other.”

It's fun to catch these Bush-McCain bots in their contradictory own talking points. I listen to talk radio similar to MSNBC, I like to know where people are getting their moronic ideas, and when they repeat them word for word, I know where. I also call liberals on their moronic MSNBC ideas, at times MSNBC scored direct hits on GWB, but they shot millions of rounds to get him, mostly nonsense. I used to get frustrated at all the different attacks on GWB.

It is scary how certain hosts work their people, if you do listen, there is a cult like atmosphere,

“YOU CAN ONLY TRUST ME”.
“RON PAUL IS INSANE”
“DEMOCRATS WILL PUT YOU IN RE-EDUCATION CAMPS”
“WE ARE CONSERVATIVES, ANYTHING WE LIKE IS REAL CONSERVATIVE”
“ GWB MEANT WELL WITH SOCIALISM ( I DISAGREED WITH HIM ) BUT OBAMA DOING MORE OF THE SAME THING WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA AND YOU”
“TAXES ARE REDISTRIBUTION, BUT DEBT AND PRINTING MONEY ARE ECONOMIC GROWTH, UNLESS BoB DOES IT ,THEN IT IS SOCIALISM “

I am like an escaped cult member LOL

[calcowgirl]

I am like an escaped cult member LOL

LOL. In my lifetime, I know that I drank the koolaid a couple times but never developed a dependence.

Late last night I turned on the TV and was scanning through the channels when I came upon a rerun of MSNBC "Hardball", (I think). I watched a couple minutes. OMG--That was painful! A couple of Dem hacks and a liberal host (somebody sitting in for Chrissy-boy) were talking about what was wrong with the Republican party, about how radically right-wing George Bush was, etc. etc. etc. (this must be where Meghan gets her talking points).

[sickoflibs]

I forgot to mention, both my gyms have multiple TV sets so I watch MSNBC, CNN and FNC together as the topics interest me. I have Rush 24/7 and levin’s podcasts are free. Hannity, well, too braindead for even me, zombie followers.

[calcowgirl]

You have a higher pain tolerance than I do. ;-)