Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Barack Obama

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Did anyone else see this? I fell out of my chair laughing....."I'll give you one last shot. Name one of his accomplishments, now."

Chris Matthews Crucifies Flustered Obama Backer

While I think Obama would be a terrible President, his failure to sponsor any new legislation is hardly a strike against him. Sure, repealing a few laws would be nice. But if the entire legislature followed his example and simply sat out the session without passing a single new bill, it would be a monumental improvement over the Democratic-Republican rule we've known for the past century and a half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did anyone else see this? I fell out of my chair laughing....."I'll give you one last shot. Name one of his accomplishments, now."

Chris Matthews Crucifies Flustered Obama Backer

As amusing as this was - I was more angered by Chris Matthews and his outright blatant support of Hillary Clinton. So much for unbiased journalists. CNN and liberals want to blast Fox News for claiming to be "fair and balanced" when they have conservative bias, but then will shout up and down about how UN-biased CNN is. It's just laughable and total hypocrisy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As amusing as this was - I was more angered by Chris Matthews and his outright blatant support of Hillary Clinton. So much for unbiased journalists. CNN and liberals want to blast Fox News for claiming to be "fair and balanced" when they have conservative bias, but then will shout up and down about how UN-biased CNN is. It's just laughable and total hypocrisy

I have little regard for Chris Matthews, but I don’t think he pretends to be anything other than a political commentator. In the words of his official website, he "brings a powerful and influential political commentary to 'The Chris Matthews Show.'" Link here. I'm not aware of any claim being made that Matthews is less biased than Fox’s Hannity or O'Reilly.

In any case, those who have followed Matthews know that he is anything but pro-Hillary. This from Wikipedia:

Matthews has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton, especially during her 2008 candidacy for President. The left-wing watchdog group Media Matters for America has chronicled his overwhelmingly negative comments on Clinton from September through November 2007.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As amusing as this was - I was more angered by Chris Matthews and his outright blatant support of Hillary Clinton. So much for unbiased journalists. CNN and liberals want to blast Fox News for claiming to be "fair and balanced" when they have conservative bias, but then will shout up and down about how UN-biased CNN is. It's just laughable and total hypocrisy

It's worse for Fox because they do have "fair and balanced" and "We report. You decide." Like they are actually kidding someone. With CNN if I turn it on right now I'm bound to see something newsworthy and some general discussion about it. If I turn on Fox, I'm bound to see something geared towards a Republican voting audience, with completetly dumb-downed commentary about it or something totally unnewsworthy like "Britney Spears was caught with her pants off again! Now lets bring in our discussion panel to explain how this makes America look bad and is the fault of evil Godless liberals!"

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Three attacks that will be used against Obama, if he is the nominee:

  • He is corrupt. While his message of change is empty at the level of political philosophy, the bigger attack will be that his message of change is bogus at the level of character. He is a typical corrupt politician. His deal with Rezko clearly show corruption. This kernel will be expanded, pointing out ties to Iraq. (ref: IBD Editorial)
  • He is too far to the left. While everyone understands that Obama is from the left, he has tried to position himself less to the left than Hillary on the issue of health-care. However, when his sponsorship of the "Global Poverty Act" becomes more widely known, it is likely to paint him as pretty far left.
  • He is a racist. Huge majorities within the black community have voted for Obama in the primaries. Nevertheless, he has an image of not being a racist. In fact, people find him appealing because they find him calmly articulate. His close association with the minister will hurt him here. He's trying to disavow this, but I don't think too many people can buy this disavowal, when Obama has attended the church for years, has been married by this man, had his kids baptised by him, etc.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • He is a racist. Huge majorities within the black community have voted for Obama in the primaries. Nevertheless, he has an image of not being a racist. In fact, people find him appealing because they find him calmly articulate. His close association with the minister will hurt him here. He's trying to disavow this, but I don't think too many people can buy this disavowal, when Obama has attended the church for years, has been married by this man, had his kids baptised by him, etc.

I think you're right that heretofore Obama’s appeal to many white people was that he’s black and didn’t obviously dislike whites, as seems to have been the case with a Jackson or a Sharpton during their presidential bids. However, if you listen to Reverend Wright/Wrong, this man is clearly a paranoid racist who seems to be coming from a black separatist perspective.

I would think that most fans of Obama are going to have a hard time swallowing his rhetoric. The Reverend’s diatribes are going to be hugely damaging to the Obama campaign among white voters, as his denunciations of Wright’s more radical statements have been fairly weak so far. Obama claims that he didn’t personally see any of the sermons given by the Reverend. I find that implausible. I wonder if that church uses pew registries where you sign a book to evidence your attendance at a given sermon? Could be trouble for Barak.

Here’s an interesting scenario. Assume Clinton wins in Pennsylvania and this entire contest comes down to the super delegates. Assume further that the super delegates mostly go with Clinton and she gets the nomination. At this point, in order to heal what is going to be a very divided and pissed off Democratic party, Clinton has to ask Obama to be on the ticket with her. However, what if Obama’s Reverend Wright problem proves to be so damaging that he’s more of a liability than an asset on the ticket? Does she go with someone else, causing many blacks to stay home and strengthening McCain’s chances in the general election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s an interesting scenario. Assume Clinton wins in Pennsylvania and this entire contest comes down to the super delegates. Assume further that the super delegates mostly go with Clinton and she gets the nomination. At this point, in order to heal what is going to be a very divided and pissed off Democratic party, Clinton has to ask Obama to be on the ticket with her. However, what if Obama’s Reverend Wright problem proves to be so damaging that he’s more of a liability than an asset on the ticket? Does she go with someone else, causing many blacks to stay home and strengthening McCain’s chances in the general election?

I think the claims of a "Dream Ticket" with Hillary and Barak (or as I call it, the Rodham-Hussein Ticket) is only a dream for McCain. Ole'Mama and Obama are diametrically opposite in all facets of their ideology except statism. Clinton is a pretty aggressive hawk internationally, while Obama wants to slash the military and dismantle nuclear weaponry. (Either way, you get to play war) Clinton offers the impression of cold, calculating political savvy, while Obama's idealistic campaign offers a tasty pablum of hope and change (It's subjectively delicious!). Clinton offers "you're goddamned right, I will" to Obama's "yes we can."

If you like one, you have to hate the other. While this may play okay to Democrats, who have become accustomed over the past eight years to pinching their nose and gulping down whatever lump of excrement the party passes for a candidate, the independents and teetering Republicans are probably going to rationalize their votes based on McCain's running mate (whoever it might be, as long as it ain't Huck), and hope the 71 yr-old geezer kicks off before he tantrums us all into WWIII. (or is it IV? V? ... I lost count)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three attacks that will be used against Obama, if he is the nominee:

  • He is corrupt. While his message of change is empty at the level of political philosophy, the bigger attack will be that his message of change is bogus at the level of character. He is a typical corrupt politician. His deal with Rezko clearly show corruption. This kernel will be expanded, pointing out ties to Iraq. (ref: IBD Editorial)
  • He is too far to the left. While everyone understands that Obama is from the left, he has tried to position himself less to the left than Hillary on the issue of health-care. However, when his sponsorship of the "Global Poverty Act" becomes more widely known, it is likely to paint him as pretty far left.
  • He is a racist. Huge majorities within the black community have voted for Obama in the primaries. Nevertheless, he has an image of not being a racist. In fact, people find him appealing because they find him calmly articulate. His close association with the minister will hurt him here. He's trying to disavow this, but I don't think too many people can buy this disavowal, when Obama has attended the church for years, has been married by this man, had his kids baptised by him, etc.

Not just racism, but the anti-Americanism. The pastor gave a speech after 911 where he said something like "God Damn America" ... and "chickens coming home to roost." This guy is more than a pastor, he's a spiritual mentor to OBama and has been for 20 some odd years and he's an advisor on OBama's campaign presently.

So, we have Socialism + Racism + Virulent Anti-Americanism. Not a good concoction that one.

Really, it also shows OBama to be deceptive as hell.

Blacks who support him because he’s black better realize that electing a guy because he’s black is not a good idea. You elect a guy for his ideas. And, for crying out loud, I wish so many blacks weren’t so left wing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pastor gave a speech after 911 where he said something like "God Damn America"

What type of "pastor" would even dream of using the words "God Damn" from the pulpit? I suspect he is less a pastor than he is a proponent of Socialism + Racism + Virulent Anti-Americanism hiding behind the cloth.

And, for crying out loud, I wish so many blacks weren’t so left wing!
I have never understood that either. You would think that if ever there was a race or group of people that would value the pursit of liberty, it would be black Americans. Yet they seem to be the biggest proponents of statism. It seems that rather than pursuing their own freedom, they wish to see shackles on everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not just racism, but the anti-Americanism. [Jeremiah Wright] gave a speech after 911 where he said something like "God Damn America" ... and "chickens coming home to roost." This guy is more than a pastor, he's a spiritual mentor to Obama and has been for 20 some odd years and he's an advisor on Obama's campaign presently.

Jeremiah Wright is incredibly racist and anti-United States. The Reverend is also is an associate of Louis Farrakhan, who is the head of the racist and religious organization Nation of Islam. Moreover, Reverend Wright advances absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theories. He promotes the theory that the U.S. government invented and disseminated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks. See a little after 3:00 on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY28l6HoKww. I find it shocking that a crowd as large as that is shown in the video takes this nonsense seriously. This is on the level of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's holocaust denial.

Senator Obama allegedly attended this guys church over 20 years with his wife and his two daughters as well as donated over $20,000 to Reverend Wright's church. In all fairness, Senator Obama issued a lukewarm apology for his association with Reverend Wright. Senator Obama also gave a universal condemnation over all of Reverend Wright's controversial remarks.

However, the issue that Senator Obama needs to clarify (I have not heard him do so) is what value could Barack Obama possibly have gained from listening to Reverend Wright for twenty years? I see no objective value in listening to this monster whatsoever. One possibly explanation is that Barack Obama is secretly incredibly racist and anti-United States but is amazingly good at hiding it. More likely, it just shows that he disgustingly places such a small value on ideas and their connection to living life that Reverend Wright's perverse rhetoric never offended him to cause him and his family to severe all ties with this church. Any rational person would have distanced himself from Reverend Wright a long time ago.

Ideas are important. I highly doubt that Barack Obama could call Reverend Wright his spiritual leader for over twenty years and not absorb some of the philosophical poison that he spouts. It looks like Barack Obama is more of an abysmal abomination than we ever imagined.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Senator Obama needs to clarify (I have not heard him do so) is what value could Barack Obama possibly have gained from listening to Reverend Wright for twenty years? ...
At best, I suspect that Obama was going the normal route of many black politicians, building himself up as a black politician, via his various contacts and his church attendance. The talk of him running for president, after his speech to the Democratic convention, might have taken him a bit by surprise. He's smart enough to know that he would have to appear more mainstream. This explains why he would drop Wright as the person to pray at/bless the announcement of his candidacy. Chances are that he had already thought through the speech he might give when his ties to Wright made the headlines. At best, that type of pragmatic political approach explains it.

I'm not sure if that explains the spiritual guide part, though. So, it's likely that Obama actually has some racist ideas of his own.

The sliver of silver lining: young black Democratic politicians are now on notice that the white-house is something they can really aim for. They know that Jesse Jackson types can never make it, and some people said that the first black president might have to be someone not suspected of being too far left (i.e. someone like Colin Powell). Obama's candidacy shows that a black Democrat has a real shot at the Presidency, but the one thing he cannot be suspected of is being too racist. I think this is true even if Obama wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shackling the individual by imposing racist pride

Here is a good article that discusses Obama and Multiculturalism. Its kind of a strange hodgepodge of ideas and quotes, but it does have some Andrew Bernstien remarks in it.

The more Americans hear this man who's been an influential part of Obama's life for two decades, the more they're going to have the audacity to look beyond Obama's inspirational milquetoast speeches, probing what makes him tick, what influences him, who advises him, what he believes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To paraphrase Reverend Wright, Obama's chickens have come home to roost. Obama, his Reverend, and his followers are nothing but Marxists. That's it - pure, unrelenting Marxists. Now that the veneer has been peeled off, I suspect Obama's chances of winning the general election are slim to none. I am, however, interested in seeing whether or not he wins the Democratic nomination, as that would serve to show the extent that the ideas of the New Left have crept into mainstream political thought.

I second DarkWaters notion. This event shows one how important ideas can be. The "idealistic" ideas developed by intellectuals in the universities and elsewhere during the whole of the 20th century have culminated in the pragmatic Barack Obama. The New Left has nearly completed its takeover of the Democratic party, bringing with it its ideas of multiculturalism, environmentalism, and feminism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you absolutely tear down everything that Barack Obama is and stands for, at least read this article by Leonard Peikoff: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

I certainly agree with the standpoint of vote Democrat over Republican because of philosophical position, but I may disagree with this statement (the "only" is what I have trouble with). What leads you to believe that Hillary cannot achieve the goals you stated above?

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with the standpoint of vote Democrat over Republican because of philosophical position, but I may disagree with this statement (the "only" is what I have trouble with). What leads you to believe that Hillary cannot achieve the goals you stated above?

With Barack Obama, he understands (on some level) the importance of a free market economy. His website states as much under Issues/Economy. He also maintains enough logical intelligence that he's capable of organizing speeches on his own ability to reason. Hillary, when faced with dire prospects, has returned to wailing for "the blue-collar worker" (a traditional Democrat-slogan), showing ultimate ineptitude in making her own decisions. She's even been quoted as saying, "Talk is cheap." Well, it certainly is coming from her mouth. Hillary Clinton, at her core, is a politician. Barack Obama, although misguided in many philosophical principles, is the closest in this race to an intellectual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barack Obama, although misguided in many philosophical principles, is the closest in this race to an intellectual.
Why would this be a qualification as such? What is Kant were running?

The article you point to is the old one from 2006, about voting for a Democrat. I don't raise that issue again; however, within the Democrats, I would have preferred Hillary. I think Obama has a much better chance of getting his agenda passed. OTOH, I think Hillary will have a harder time doing so. She just does not have the same charm that he has.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would this be a qualification as such? What is Kant were running?

The article you point to is the old one from 2006, about voting for a Democrat. I don't raise that issue again; however, within the Democrats, I would have preferred Hillary. I think Obama has a much better chance of getting his agenda passed. OTOH, I think Hillary will have a harder time doing so. She just does not have the same charm that he has.

Kant's versions of sacrifice are the bedrock of the Republican Party. John McCain would be more willing to see hundreds of thousands of Americans die in wars like Iraq and Vietnam. Because we're supposed to be the model for everyone in the world, we can't let this war go, whether or not it ultimately leads us to our own sacrificial altar.

Calling Barack Obama the closest to an intellectual refers to his ability to understand how actions have consequences. Hillary does not understand this. In a perfect world, a version of John Galt would be running for president, and true economic freedom would result. But given the present circumstances, and our necessity to chose the lesser of multiple evils, I'll take my chances with someone more active minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama, his Reverend, and his followers are nothing but Marxists. That's it - pure, unrelenting Marxists.

Although I think Barack Obama is an unapologetic Keynesian who is heavily weighted towards Socialism, I think calling Senator Obama a Marxist invites confusion on a serious issue. An important, but not keystone, aspect of Marx's philosophy is that he categorized people by working class, not by race. Barack Obama definitely categorizes people by race, amongst other things.

Moreover, I doubt that Obama embraces the Marxist dialectic view of human civilization. That is, where wealth is created through exploitation from the masses. I think Barack Obama is a solid product of Pragmatism, Keynesian economics and the multiculturalist idea that if you do not give preferrential treatment to blacks then you are racist. Actually, I suspect Barack Obama's campaign success is largely a product of 50 years of affirmative action. He is definitely very well spoken, charismatic and gives the impression of an invigorating sense of life. However, what else could possibly explain the Democratic base's infatuation with Barack Obama as opposed to any of their several of their other young, charismatic and well-spoken rising stars such as John Edwards, Blanche Lincoln or Evan Bayh? To paraphrase Shelby Steele's argument, supporting Barack Obama finally gives liberals the opportunity to appear as if they are not racist, because there is finally a viable and mainstream minority candidate who they can support. But I digress.

Back on the topic of this post. To my surprise and disgust, there are definitely Marxists out there who do think that wealth can only be accumulated through exploitation of the proletariat as well as embrace the labor theory of value. However, I doubt that Senator Obama is one of them. Of course, after this shocking fiasco with Jeremiah Wright came to my attention, I would not be surprised if you could persuade me that he is with a stream of Marxist quotes.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before you absolutely tear down everything that Barack Obama is and stands for, at least read this article by Leonard Peikoff: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4811

Obama holds philosophical principles that I vehemently oppose, but he is the only candidate in this election capable of bringing our soldiers home from the mess in Iraq and pulling the evangelical hooks out of our economy.

I think his anti-Americanism makes him more dangerous on foreign policy, dangerously so. He even boasted that his middle name is "Hussein" in an interview in October or so, now he doesn't want anyone to mention his middle name. I infer he is anti-American because Jeremiah Wright is and this is his spiritual advisor and mentor of 20 years, not to mention his wife's statements on the country. The fact that he is so strongly connect with muslims in this day and age is also not a good thing. We're at war with muslims, dammit. Is this a game to people? I think Hillary would defend America better, because she would be more desirous to do so.

I get the impression that Obama has no clue about economics, since his entire approach is to use the government and taxes to spur growth. He has all kinds of programs planned, including doubling funding of science, which would cause even more corruption in that field.

The truth is, when it gets right down to it, all of these candidates are not just bad, they are gawd awful, so much so that I don't think I will vote for anyone one of them. There comes a point when the lesser of the two evils simply doesn't work, or the lesser or the three evils in this case.

Our only hope is long term injection of Objectivist ideas into the culture. That's what I'm focused on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate's religion than they do his intelligence; and 2) Given the perplexing decisions of our politicians throughout history, and our inability to achieve true freedom, preachers such as Mr. Wright have blamed advanced civilization as a whole for recurring injustice.

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright's words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

Regarding the second, it is Mr. Wright's failure to see the true culprit of poverty--the principle of self-sacrifice--and its ongoing usage that find us in this present situation. But he is a preacher of a broken religion. My guess, he was at the end of his rope, trying to find answers to questions without shape or form, ultimately deciding, in those moments, to blame all humanity at large for the existence of genocide and fraud.

Obama is campaigning under similar socialist policies as every other politician before him, namely statist health care, welfare, and whatever tax-payer sponsored government junk we've always seen, but it's no different or worse than what is currently in place. And to say that he is where he is because he's black is short-sighted. It's because he's advocating hope and answers, whether or not they exist, when the other candidates are lodged under cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Jeremiah Wright fiasco teaches us two things: 1) Voters in this country care more about a candidate's religion than they do his intelligence

Regarding the first point, Jeremiah Wright's words were not uttered by Barack Obama. And that is something to make very clear. They were uttered by an angry reverend having lost touch with reality, feeling powerless to change global atrocity. Obama called him a spiritual adviser, which means that emotion, not logic, is the connection that they share. To look any more deeply is absurd.

I do not see how your first point is a lesson from the Jeremiah Wright controversy. If anything, I think this controversy tragically reveals either how little the average U.S. voter values ideas or how difficult it is for U.S. voters to recognize objectively good ideas. Just look at the latest Gallup polls. It appears as if Barack Obama was not significantly affected by this whole incident at all! His approval ratings should have plummeted!

Secondly, I think it is absurd to insinuate that Barack Obama's affiliation with his spiritual advisor does not have any "deep" implications about Obama's character. Individuals often look to their spiritual advisors for moral and personal guidance as well as for general philosophy. Barack Obama obviously takes religion very seriously. More specifically, he evidently saw great value in Jeremiah Wright's opinions as Jeremiah Wright was appointed to the Obama campaign's spiritual advisory committee. To not place any significance on this connection suggests that you do not see personal philosophy as that important in shaping a man's character. Is this the case? If not, please clarify your position.

To reiterate from before, I think Barack Obama's longstanding association with Jeremiah Wright as his spiritual advisor is horrifying and offers a profound, negative commentary on the character of the Illinois Senator.

And to say that he is where he is because he's black is short-sighted. It's because he's advocating hope and answers, whether or not they exist, when the other candidates are lodged under cynicism.

I am assuming that this is with reference to my previous comment. I did not make a statement as vague as saying that Barack Obama is "where he is" because he is black. That would be unwarranted and incorrect. My understanding is that Barack Obama worked he way into the Senate through diligent committment to Democratic ideals (which unfortunately are typically bad ideals) as well as acquiring extensive leadership and oral communication skills. Moreover, Barack Obama's ability to campaign effectively has contributed greatly to his ongoing success in the Democratic primaries.

However, Barack Obama is definitely is not the only charismatic Democrat willing to make vague promises of "hope and answers". The question I seek to answer is, why did so many Democratic supporters rally behind Barack Obama so early in the primary system, as opposed to other young, charismatic Democrats with presidential aspirations such as John Edwards or Evan Bayh?

The Democratic party is not race blind. I think much of the Democratic base became infatuated with Senator Obama early on because of his race and they stuck with him throughout this grueling campaigning marathon because he is such an effective campaigner. The latter is certainly a result of his efforts but we cannot deny the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...