Re: David L.'s Overheated pro-Obama Biased and Naive Attack Against Bush & Neoconservatives
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]
Posted by Bill Narvey on 20:09:49 2008/11/12
In Reply to:
Re: Neoconservativism has failed miserably ,Now its Obama's turn posted by Dave L
Dave L., I do not recall exchanging with you before.
Your opening line is outright wrong on 2 counts.
I am not a neoconservative purist.
Secondly, I have written more against any slavish adherence to neoconservativism or any particular ideological ism, then for it.
Being as wrong as you are, suggests to me you have actually read little of what I have written over the years on this blog or you do not understand much about neoconservative ideology.
No matter. I will address what you do say.
1. Bush's dis-approval rating. He earned it, but in truth, it was not all his fault. The Democrats deserved some of the blame and then there were circumstances beyond the control of everyone.
Nonetheless an incumbent is the one who usually takes the heat, rightly or wrongly for all that is wrong with the nation and the world.
As for my stand on who I would have supported if I was American, for a great many reasons that I have written fairly extensively on here and on other blogs, I favoured McCain over Obama, but not by much much.
In spite of Obama's false accusations against McCain that he would bring 4 more years of Bush governance, the charge with the help of a biased liberal and liberal-left media stuck.
Neither McCain's nor Obama's proposed solutions for America's economic woes were realistic, according to experts on both sides of the political spectrum.
McCain had the cklear edge over Obama in terms of his understanding of what made Jihadist, fundamentalist, extremist, radical Islam tick, that the battle Israel was in against the Palestinians and their Arab supporters was just a different battlefront in the same war that America was in against the Islamists and McCain better understood the threat posed by those Islamists to America.
I made clear that this was a time that America and the world needed great leadership from America however, Americans were being offered two very poor choices.
The great leader America needs in my view, is one who possesses, not just intelligence, but wisdom, a balanced centrist political view, significant experience, a realistic world view and handle on the issues and the daring to be forthright and tough, without any naiveite when it comes to the geopolitical challenges and of course charisma to inspire followers to stand behind his leadership.
Obama certainly has loads of charisma, is a brilliant silver tongued orator, is intelligent and cunning as regards acting on his own ambitions, but Obama lacks so much in the other areas I noted and certainly is left of liberal politically.
On the economy, the Democrats were equally to blame for the melt down, if not moreso.
It was the Democratic initiative starting with Clinton to see the fulfillment of the American dream that every American owned their own home.
To that end, the Democrats managed to advance that notion through their support of the fraudulent activist group ACORN that literally blackmailed lending institutions to make improvident loans or be the target of racist accusations, the perhaps well intentioned, but incompetent Freddie Mac and Fannie May led by the incompetent, but equally avaricious and ambitious liberal, if not leftist Franklin Raines and the Democratic congress that stood in the way of Pres. Bush's efforts to address the problems as they began to surface in troubling fashion some two years ago.
David L. You know little of what you speak.
Your 8 points about Pres. Bush's record are nothing but your accusatory allusions to some greater notion that demand explanation.
Suffice it to say that in my view, you have expressed yourself by engaging in babbling biased bullshit that amounts to much sound a fury but signifies nothing.
Obviously you are quite unaware that I have written much in criticism of Pres. Bush for his policies or the lack thereof concerning both domestic and foreign relations.
David L., you appear to be suggesting that because Rahm Emanuel is Jewish, he is the epitomy of one who is pro-Israel.
David L. by such statement it is clear that you don't know much about Jews at all.
Obviously you are unaware of the fact that there is no unified definition within the Jewish community as to what constitutes a pro-Israel position and what doesn't.
The more extreme views on either side of the political spectrum are actually incompatible and clashingly in conflict.
Where Rahm Emanuel stands on the issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is that he is essentially supporting the conventional 2 state peace solution view.
Even amongst those who support such view, there is dissention and conflict as to exactly what they mean in that regard.
Time will tell just where Rahm Emanuel stands within the framework of the 2 state peace solution he is advocating.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Canadian Coalition for Democracies Public Message Forum ]