Power Line News

We noted last month that a Hamas spokesman expressed a preference for Barac

» View the article

I don’t think “lost his bearings” has anything to do with age.  It means he’s out of whack.

First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama’s attack today: He used the words “losing his bearings” intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain’s age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning.

We have all become familiar with Senator Obama’s new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgment and preparedness to be President of the United States.

- Mark Salter

Yes Indeed.

AND, As the World Discovered:

“Lebensraum" meant a little more than “living space”.

<sigh>

Obambi can package it up with all the flourish of the empty suit demagogue he is, but rational people see it, AND him, for just what he is:

A danger to America and all of the free world.

.

Like it or not, this is going to be a general election of contrasts (and no, that wasn’t a racist remark). Yes you will have white vs. black...I mean, could a human being get any whiter than McCain? You also have young vs. old, seasoned vs. untried, left vs. moderate (okay, some of you would take exception to that one...), veteran vs. non-veteran, old school vs. new wave.

I think this election--more than any in my memory--may truly come down to the choice for the second slot. If McCain chooses a younger (yet experienced) running mate, he can effectively shut down the “too old to be president” discussion. If he has someone waiting in the wings who can go on without a hitch, that will definitely improve the Republican ticket.

Conversely, if Obama got someone to run with him that has decades of Washington experience or general governing experience, someone avuncular who can guide him through the minefield of the White House, he might be able to overcome some of the “He has no experience” argument. Personally, I’m not too keen on someone without any more real experience in government than me running the show and learning as he goes, but it could happen…

I anticipate an expected Obama retort will be: “I fired Robert Malley, even though he did not work for me to strongly express
my disgust.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3897414.ece

From The Times
May 10, 2008

Barack Obama sacks adviser over talks with Hamas

Barack Obama had criticised former President Jimmy Carter for holding direct talks with Hamas

Tom Baldwin in Washington
One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.

Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.

“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.

But Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly, saying: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”

The rapid departure of Mr Malley from the campaign followed 48 hours of heated clashes between John McCain, the Republican nominee-elect, and Mr Obama, on the issue of Middle East policy.

Mr Obama, who has been trying to assuage suspicion towards him among the influential Jewish and pro-Israel lobby, spoke at a Washington reception marking the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence yesterday when he promised his commitment to the country’s security would be “unshakeable”.

But Mr McCain has highlighted the Democrat’s pledge to negotiate directly with nations such as Iran - whose leaders talk of wiping Israel off the map - and a statement from Hamas saying that it hoped Mr Obama would win the presidency.

This was denounced as an offensive “smear” by Mr Obama, who repeated earlier statements saying that Hamas is “a terrorist organisation [and] we should not negotiate with them unless they recognise Israel, renounce violence”.

He went on to suggest Mr McCain’s attack showed that he was “losing his bearings”. This remark triggered a furious reaction from Mark Salter, the Republican’s senior adviser, who said Mr Obama was “intentionally raising John McCain’s age as an issue” - a claim the Democrat vehemently denied.

The intensity of this dispute reflects both Mr Obama’s desire to move beyond his battle with Hillary Clinton - and how Republicans are already beginning to train their sights on him.

The Republican National Committee has amassed a 1,000-page dossier on Mr Obama, with researchers spending weeks in Chicago seeking fresh material. He is already being criticised for his links with Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who has branded Israel an “apartheid system in creation”.

Mr Malley, who is a respected commentator on Middle Eastern issues and was part of President Clinton’s negotiating team at the Camp David talks, has come under attack in recent months from right-wing bloggers.

Today, asked if Obama campaign was aware of his contact with Hamas, he replied: “They know who I am but I don’t think they vet everyone in a group of informal advisers.”

Randy Scheunemann, Mr McCain’s foreign policy chief, suggested Mr Malley was part of an emerging pattern which has seen other advisers repudiated after throwing confusion over policies on trade and Iraq.

“Perhaps, because of his inexperience, Senator Obama surrounds himself with advisers that contradict his stated policies,” said Mr Scheunemann.

Relish - 09 May 2008 04:46 PM

, left vs. moderate (okay, some of you would take exception to that one...), .

I can accept moderate.
more likely centrist / Leftist.

Perhaps I am not perceiving what others are, but I would not have been inclined to address the age issue in the response, or at least not quite as strongly as Salter did.  It is a bit of a stretch, and to that extent distracts from an otherwise excellent retort.  In other words, it was fair to raise the issue, but because it was not as convincing as other points made, it should not have been the focus of the response.  No doubt the Obama campaign intends to raise the age issue as often as they can, and in subtle ways.

Now, of course, McCain’s camp can mockingly throw the “lost bearings” remark right back in Obama’s face, almost at will.  Nearly any small gaffe will do.  For example, they could “helpfully” suggest that perhaps Obama lost his bearings while en route to the 57th state—or was it the 54th—it’s so hard to keep track these days!

“In his victory speech this week, Senator Obama stated that “wisdom” is meeting with our enemies, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro. John McCain couldn’t disagree more. Rather than giving tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president, John McCain will instead meet with the champions of human freedom around the world and opposition leaders fighting for liberty.” M. Salter

Well ...

What’s the difference between Hamas and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro?

Obambi, in all his “wisdom” wants to meet with them all.

The empty suit Senator is not only clueless, worse, he’s a danger to America.  Fortunately, he hasn’t a Black Power Prayer of being elected.

Thus, one must ask the question why one of Obambi’s heroes, John F. Kennedy, never met with these two thugs - and in fact tried to have them assassinated:

.

Rocketman ~(Ä)~ - 11 May 2008 10:41 AM

Thus, one must ask the question why one of Obambi’s heroes, John F. Kennedy, never met with these two thugs - and in fact tried to have them assassinated.

In addtion to Obama’s odd grasp of 20th century U.S. history, he doesn’t seem to have learned anything about his own local history either. 

JFK undoubtedly had a better grasp of The Chicago Way.

...Senator Obama stated that “wisdom” is meeting with our enemies, including Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.

It strikes me as courageous common sense to take the position of meeting enemies face to face.  At least once.  It’s easier to respond initially with fear—to say you don’t want to give “tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president” is like saying “I’m not sure how to deal with you, so I’m going to pretend you don’t exist, and maybe you’ll just go away.”

I think it comes down to your preferred resolution: war or peace.  Previous administrations have had aggressive “foreign policies” and endorsed (or turned a blind eye to) the aggressive practices of US businesses, and favored the notion of an American Empire.  This has made us extremely unpopular with everyone, and the wars these policies have invited upon us will ultimately bleed us dry.  The families with ties to arms manufacturing are the only conceivable “winners” of these kinds of conflicts, because the money we waste chasing phantom villains WON’T be spent where it should for a strong, competitive America—on education, health care, loans for small businesses with bright ideas.  Unless we change course, you can be sure the next Microsoft or Apple will come from India, Japan, or Canada.

I will absolutely vote for the candidate who will make an effort to take the wheel and steer us back onto the common-sense road most Americans want.  We are mostly reasonable people, tolerant and just, and we must not let ourselves be bullied into a fearful intolerance of the outside world.  Meeting the “enemy” face to face, at least once, is first and foremost, the decent thing to do, and it’s the only possible way to avoid having to kill that enemy ... which then means you’re going to have to kill that enemy’s angry orphan child ... and then THAT angry orphan’s orphan…

END THE CYCLE!  Seek understanding, don’t retreat into intolerance.

farmerguy - 11 May 2008 02:15 PM

It strikes me as courageous common sense to take the position of meeting enemies face to face.  At least once.

It’s not “courageous common sense;” it’s craven folly.
The EU has been meeting with Iran for years, now, to talk “face to face” and it’s gotten the West nowhere.
Iran persists in developing nukes, while arming and supporting the IslamoNazi war in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and the Paleostinian terroritories. 

It’s easier to respond initially with fear

You’re confusing fear with resolve and strength.

-- to say you don’t want to give “tyrants and dictators the prestige of meeting with an American president” is like saying “I’m not sure how to deal with you, so I’m going to pretend you don’t exist, and maybe you’ll just go away.”

Preserving the prestige of the leader of the Free World is right!
You don’t honor the bellicosity of a childish monster like Imadinnerjacket, who has threatened the U.S. and Israel with destruction almost daily for the last 5 years, with a meeting.

I think it comes down to your preferred resolution: war or peace.

Previous administrations have had aggressive “foreign policies” and endorsed (or turned a blind eye to) the aggressive practices of US businesses, and favored the notion of an American Empire.

This has made us extremely unpopular with everyone,

Oh no! We don’t want to be extremely unpopular!

and the wars these policies have invited upon us will ultimately bleed us dry. 

What will bleed us dry are the social programs beloved by you Lefties like welfare, Medicare and Social Security.
And now you want to add “National health care” to the tab...

The families with ties to arms manufacturing are the only conceivable “winners” of these kinds of conflicts, because the money we waste chasing phantom villains WON’T be spent where it should for a strong, competitive America

The winners of this conflict are all Americans (and Afghans and Iraqis)--we’re safer and stronger because we fought this war and 50 million people who had lived in tyranny were liberated.

—on education, health care, loans for small businesses with bright ideas

We’ve thrown enough money at education.
The federal government has no business being in either education or health care.
As for small business loans, try your local bank.
If you have to depend on the feds to lend you money for your business, maybe your ideas aren’t all that “bright.”

Unless we change course, you can be sure the next Microsoft or Apple will come from India, Japan, or Canada.

Change course from what? To what?
Clearly the next “Microsoft or Apple” won’t come from India, Japan or Canada because they’ve already come out of America...30 years ago.
And so what if the Indians, Japanese or Canadians think of something clever? It’s a global market--America will find a way to fix, eat and enjoy a big piece of that pie, too.

I will absolutely vote for the candidate who will make an effort to take the wheel and steer us back onto the common-sense road most Americans want.

I don’t think we ever left that common sense road and I don’t plan to back an America-hating, “hate Whitey” Leftist like Obama now. 

Meeting the “enemy” face to face, at least once, is first and foremost, the decent thing to do,

No. It’s the stupid thing to do and reveals Obama’s lack of experience, his tendency to “blame America first” and his naivete about the nature of our enemy.

and it’s the only possible way to avoid having to kill that enemy

The only possible way to avoid having to kill that enemy is to stand them down with all options on the table, including military ones.

… which then means you’re going to have to kill that enemy’s angry orphan child ... and then THAT angry orphan’s orphan…

END THE CYCLE!  Seek understanding, don’t retreat into intolerance.

Iranian bellicosity is based on their Shi’ite beliefs of destroying the non-Muslim world and ushering in the arrival of the 12th Imam.
Toward that end, they are preparing the Muslim Bomb to take out the Great Satan (that would be US or the U.S.) and the Little Satan, Israel.
It’s has nothing to do with “orphan’s anger or hate.”
Let’s face it: if another Democrat President who preferred to “talk” to our enemies hadn’t done just that, we wouldn’t even be dealing with these Iranian crazies:
Yes, I’m talking Jimmy Carter. He should have dropped a nice MOAB on Tehran when they refused to let our embassy people go, but noooooooo, he had to be nice and chat with them for 444 days and left the Ayatollah’s regime in place (calling them “freedom fighters") and we’ve been playing catch up with the Iranians ever since in an effort to show them that we mean business.
A “President Obama"(*shudder*) would undo that at a stroke and then, Katie bar the door in the Middle East and here at home, too.

All in all, farmerguy, you hardly covered yourself in glory with your first post here.