Some authors speak to a year, a decade, an era... others are timeless. Ralph Waldo Emerson speaks more faithfully to my soul than any essayist, poet or philosopher. His belief in the beauty of the individual's soul, and the individual's ability to touch on the divine truth within us is more edifying for me than any Psalm. As people see the world through the lens they hold most dear, I thought it would be interesting to look at the Obama Administration through an Emersonian Lens.
For my first piece I've taken an excerpt from Nature and used Emerson's commentary on language and truth to look as some of the more disconcerting trends in the President's young administration.
The excerpt, which I'll be breaking down, reads:
A man's power to connect his thought with its proper symbol, and so to utter it, depends on...his love of truth and his desire to communicate it without loss. The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language. When simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by the prevalence of secondary desires,-the desire of riches, of pleasure of power and of praise,-the duplicity and falsehood take (the) place of simplicity and truth. Old words are perverted to stand for things which (they) are not; (like) a paper currency being employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults. In due time the fraud is manifest, and words lose all power to stimulate the understanding or the affections-Nature
A man's power to connect his thought with its proper symbol, and so to utter it, depends on...his love of truth and his desire to communicate it without loss-Nature
Emerson is saying the individual's ability to share their ideas clearly and honestly depends on how faithfully one is committed to speaking the truth.
This notion could apply to any politician, lawyer, teacher, police officer-any man or woman. Our choice of words and the way in which we present our ideas shifts depending on our audience and subject. This is only natural. However, there are those who through their position, must love Truth more than most, must stand and speak for Truth even if it is unpopular, or difficult. President Obama has such an obligation, particularly given the host of foreign and domestic threats our Nation is facing: Financial uncertainty, record job losses, a Congress that is out of touch and largely complicit with the financial industry, a newly emboldened collection of global villains and despots, nuclear armed North Korea's brazen launch of a ballistic missile capable of hitting both Hawaii and Alaska, Mexico in chaos due to cartel violence, the very real possibility of an Iranian/Israeli war, Iraq, Afghanistan-Obama's challenges are legion.
Clarity of thought, purpose and language is desperately needed-more it is essential to effectively dealing with these challenges. Let's look at what Emerson had to say about language and how President Obama is doing according to Emerson's standard.
The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language. When simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by the prevalence of secondary desires,-the desire of riches, of pleasure of power and of praise,--the duplicity and falsehood take (the) place of simplicity and truth-Nature
Emerson notes here that the prime threat to clarity, honesty, and Truth in language is secondary desire. Secondary desire can take the form of greed, power seeking, and love of praise. All politicians tend to allow the secondary desire of getting elected infect their rhetoric. My worry for President Obama is that I have yet to see him make the transition from flowery rhetoric rife with lawyerly equivocations, which shield him from actually being held to an idea, belief or policy.
A President must put aside the perpetual campaign in times of crisis. A President must also be willing to forgo praise for Truth. Both of these are going to be serious challenges for President Obama. From the perspective of armchair psychiatrist, President Obama has always played the role of "Coolest Kid on the Block," his campaign and a fawning media provided him with accolades that must have been intoxicating. The accolades almost always began with gushing praise of his eloquence. Sadly, Obama's devotees and the media have led him to believe that his smooth speaking style is a substitute for substance.
Style is not policy. Style will not move Putin, employ a single autoworker, or wrench financial sector lobbyists from the halls of power.
We cannot afford "duplicity and falsehood" to reign any longer. The Bush Administration led from behind fortified walls from which they'd lob the occasional set of talking points. They'd rewrite history but never allow us to question anyone other than their poor Press Secretary. One week we'd get, "Four legs good, two legs bad" the next "Four legs good, two legs better" and the media would be left to shout impotently at the silent walls.
To this point, President Obama has given me no more faith that things will be any different. The duplicity and falsehood is still there, though it's out in the open. There's no need to dig a moat, when the raiders want you in power. So now the press releases are the same, but rather than Jon Stewart mocking them, he and Anderson Cooper smile at one another on Monday and say, "East Asia has always been at war with Oceania" and on Tuesday, "Isn't it lovely that East Asia and Oceania have always been such close allies?"
In order to save the Nation, and continue the positive human gains made since the fall of the Soviet Union, President Obama must stop the slow decay of truth, end the open duplicity and lead.
Old words are perverted to stand for things which (they) are not; (like) a paper currency being employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults-Nature
It is an extraordinary coincidence that Emerson would use a financial metaphor, particularly one referring to the Gold Standard. Here Emerson is explaining that the language of the corrupt man, though it be filled with old truths, and words that carry power--these words are as worthless as paper money tied to nothing of substance. The secondary desire of power, greed, praise or a thousand other human failings makes any co-opted word no matter how noble... meaningless.
President Obama during his campaign certainly co-opted "Yes we can" among other powerful phrases and words... many of which seemed hollow even then. As of yet he hasn't supported these phrases, he hasn't added substance to the played out rhetoric.
In due time the fraud is manifest, and words lose all power to stimulate the understanding or the affections-Nature
It is my sincere hope that President Obama will take the opportunity history has provided him, and show that my worries were premature, show that he's not a fraud built upon the sand foundation of meaningless rhetoric, media fanaticism, and a increasingly segmented and gullible electorate.
He has challenges, but he has opportunities too. The American People are rightfully livid that more than 3 trillion dollars have been promised in stimulus/bailouts and aid... while at the same time the very people who have defraud millions of our fellows are enriching themselves, receiving bonuses, retaining their jobs and engaging in a staggering cover up intended to keep the wealthy and privileged in their proper place, while the untouchables like UAW pensioners are expected to renegotiate their benefits despite having contract. As we all know, according to the AIG CEO, we're a Nation of laws and all contracts must be fulfilled... well if the contract gives an AIG charlatan a multimillion dollar bonus that is.
Obama should have no fear that Geitner will discover that he's a fraud... apparently, he was never a regulator.
President Obama could seize upon this or any of a hundred other injustices to live up to his origin mythos of community organizer and friend of the downtrodden. Sadly I believe we're seeing the cracks in the Obama facade.
The "fraud is manifest" and daily his words lose more substance.
Donna Darko has posted an invaluable resource for close Obama watchers and real liberals. (see, I included most everyone!) Obama averages one alarming act a dayis the name of her ongoing post.
Obama did something that should be alarming to progressives every day for the past 70 days. The articles below from January 15-March 25 are in reverse chronological order and the 70 acts are bolded and numbered. It's easy to find one each day. Taken together, it's staggering.
I suggest a perusal.
This brings me to my post for the night. A review of myself. I shall be biased. (Hard not to.)How have my assumptions about BHO worked out over the past year? I was never for Obama. I liked him after his 2004 Dem convention speech. I hoped he would stay in the Senate and get some needed experience. Further, I am a Clinton loyalist. That loyalty deepened and broadened during Hillary's campaign last year.
When it became apparent after Iowa last year that some very powerful people were pulling strings for Obama I began to look deeper - in the honest hope that I could get on board. As I've said 1000 times before: Looking closely at Obama is a disturbing avocation. The man is one of the cagiest politicians to appear in our history.
Quickly this blog took on some basic themes that I list below:
1. Obama is a fraud. 2. Obama ran a dirty campaign. This was co-signed, and egged on by a foolish, deceitful, biased media. 3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party.
Further I asserted that something largely unforeseen would decide the election. (I stated this in August, early September.) By October, I predicted an Obama win to the distress of a number of readers.
So how do these bullet points look now?
Number 1: Obama is a fraud. There is excessive evidence to back this assertion up. His connection to the truth during the campaign was often nebulous. Asserting he chaired Senate committees that he had nothing to do with. Implying the Kennedy's were responsible for his father's arrival in the U.S. These are not tall tales. They are lies told to fit a fictitious narrative. I have also stated ad nasueum that Obama was misleading people on Iraq, based on a mysterious speech he gave many years ago that no one recorded.
This, too, has proven to be the case. Obama's stance on Iraq now is not discernible from Bush's post "surge" policy. He is less bellicose than W but the withdrawal is back loaded - and "dependent on the commanders on the ground". Sound familiar? We shall see. But "a brigade a month" starting in January of 2009 is long forgotten. Some have documented no less than 17 different Obama stances on Iraq. This issue, now largely over run by economic concerns, should not be forgotten as it was the motor of his campaign in the primaries. Clinton was routinely lambasted by Obots for stating she would do what Obama is now doing.
On other points his fraudulence has become more and more apparent over the last 12 months. I go back to some stand by instances to illustrate because they are major indicators of a man with no core. The FISA wiretapping and the Public Financing flip flops both go to core liberal principles. Obama's reversals here were the single most telling moments of his campaign. They go to his character. No liberal in their right mind should have tolerated these betrayals. Yet, the hand jobs from the faux Left continued. I won't repeat my feelings about the "hope and change" horseshit except to say it is clearer everyday that it was horseshit.
3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. After many promises to "hit the ground running" Obama's first legislative accomplishment happened not on "day one" but Day 25. And it was a mess that got 3 GOP votes. The banking plan did not appear until this week. He made outright fools of all of us with his treatment of the The Browns. I have no doubt that he's smart enough to learn on the job - but that is not what he promised. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. Duh. If you still do not see this you are willfully in denial. Enjoy it. But know your sisters, mothers, and daughters will pay for last year's regression into bigotry for a very long time.
Obama and his media cheerleaders were nothing short of disgusting. No, we should not "get over it" any more than Black Americans should forget Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign for President. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party. After 2 months the GOP is now running ahead of the Democrats in generic "party" polls. This is astounding given the last 3 years. I did not think the reversal would happen so quickly. It may reverse again. The GOP is hardly attractive. Nevertheless, Obama has shown no stomach for a fight on basic progressive ideals. What will be sunk before this is over is liberal ideals and liberal ideas. For a generation. This assertion depends on time. But the votes are coming in. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman and Howard Zinn have all blasted Obama from the Left already. In varying areas these three men understand one thing: Obama has, and will continue to, betray the Left.
On the other points: The financial collapse was unforeseen by some. It did come as a shock to the majority and it did decide the election.
One last "out on a limb" prediction I made: Obama would fall below 50% in the polls by June. I'd probably go with September now if I had a do over.
A few things backed up today. 1. The white liberal Obots are quickly becoming the battered wives of American politics. They take a beating from the Lord Obama, insist it won't happen again, and, after a bit, start making excuses to keep the relationship going. The toxic Andrew Sullivan - who I can't bring myself to link to again - is now backpedaling with truly asinine rhetoric about generational change and the usual horseshit from Obama Kool-Aid World. Uppity has a fine round up here. 2. This nonsense about Obama "reaching across the divide" by choosing Warren is not double- think - it's triple-think. For the "reaching across the aisle" meme to be true one must believe:
A. Obama was ever pro-gay rights. Unlike Hillary Clinton, this is not true. All year Obama surrounded himself with homophobes - while refusing to even have his picture taken with pro-gay rights San Francisco Mayor Newsome (talk about cowardly). Obama has never spent a penny of political capital on gay rights.
B. Believing, in contradiction to the facts, that Obama is for equal rights for gays one can then take refuge in the nonsense that Obama is building a bridge by choosing Warren.
C. When, in fact, Obama - by choosing Warren - is simply continuing as he always has; surrounding himself with homophobic "leaders". Obama is in his comfort zone with Warren.
Nice trick, Barry.
Now a link to the ever odious Avarosis. I laid out my utter contempt for rich white faux liberals here. This does not mean that watching them impale themselves is not going to be fun next year. (I wish there was a Code Pink Cam so we could see the freak out when Lord Obama bombs Afghanistan and has the military go into Pakistan.) The cognitive dissonant nightmare that is Avarosis's brain manages to point up a sick truth about Warren here. I am not sure who causes more nausea, Rick Warren or John Avarosis. Can't decide. I'll stick with Huffington and David Geffen if I feel the need to vomit.
In summary: the problem here is not Rick Warren or Barack Obama - it is the fools on the Left who did the Obama denial jig all year. I'd like to re constitute the central thesis of this blog at some point. But so far my basic beliefs about BHO are truer today than they were when I turned on him last January. (It's called research - you should try it Obama Pods.)
Obama is a fraud. Obama will turn out to be poison for liberals.
What I was going to post alone tonight is below:
BRAND OBAMA
No Quarter has already done the due diligence on this Chomsky clip. It is so spot on that I am happy to bring up the rear and essentially repeat a post.
Chomsky lives further to the Left than I ever alight. But I have admired him greatly from where I sit. I consider his addition of the phrase "manufactured consent" to the lexicon invaluable in clarifying my thoughts on this year's Obama media circus. Our "consent" in electing Obama was manufactured as surely as our "consent" for the Iraq invasion was.
Money quotes (I paraphrase) :
The choice of Biden must have been with conscious contempt for his own voters.
and
These people should not be advising (Obama) on the economy. They should be getting subpoenas.
One of the fascinating truisms of both Obama and Bush has been to ability to throw the bird at the population openly and suffer no backlash. Indicative, I think, of very similar personalities. When Obama, answering complaints about his status quo cabinet choices, said "I am the change." One could easily hear the echo of W's "I am the decider."
(If a Senator Clinton had been elected her saying "I am the change." would actually be true.)
Chomsky calls Obama what he is: a brand. And as a note to whoever is left out there on the true pacifist Left the comments on Afghanistan and the Obama website are helpful.
Getting fair, real analysis on Obama is going to take some work next year. The media simply won't be able to bring itself to confront its own maleficence in 2008.
I think that means that we've been snookered. Or is it a ponzi scheme? One in which most of us have - driven by blind desire to consume more and more- have been unwitting (witless?) participants. As national crisies go I'd say we are in the midst of a CAT 5. (Forgive my maleable use of metaphors - I was stoned during English in high school.Then got a degree in theater - which hardly helped matters.) While not as abrupt as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 the pain will end up worse for the society but of a diffenent nature.
My natural pessimism springs from a desire to be optimistic. While trying to comprhend what is happening in the econmy I keep atempting to see the silver lining without fantisizing.
So far. So bad.
I really DON'T get it. But I'll try: The market has fallen 2000 points since Obama won the election and Paulson handed out billions in mystical money. The "they" that does this stuff is, with ever increasing failure, trying to recreate an economy, that was false to begin with, by dumping mystical currency into the system. Gasoline on fire. As they burn, the pretend dollars being dumped are making the fire brighter and hotter. Sadly, Obama's best and brightest are going to pour more on to the fire. This may work in the short run. Things working in the short run IS the problem in the long run.
(Example: Houses are not falling in value - they were never worth that much to begin with. Anyone with half a brain knew this. But if we've learned anything this year we've learned this - I pray-: Fantasies are powerful. Even so the faux wealth created by the faux value of the real estate did give the illusion of real wealth - in the short run.)
Trillions in conjured "wealth" has evaporated. At some point that wealth butts up against reality. Bluntly put: people lose jobs. A lot of them. We'll be lucky if the unemplyment rate is 10% in a year. I think that is optimistic. Then again, as I've said, I'm no ecnomist - just a guy who feels like he has a front row seat to the end of an era. Pass the popcorn - if we can afford it.
George W Bush and his remaining court jesters are incompetent. (Then again, maybe not - W's cabal will probably survive just fine.) On January 20th, with all sorts of fanfare, Obama and his court get the booby prize.
The silver lining? In 10 years we may land back in a nation that has real wealth based on real labor and real manufacturing-not A.R.M.s and houses used as credit cards. But the capucino liberals and the NASCAR conservatives may not take such a romantic view as things fall apart.
Ohio appears to be moving toward McCain. I think Ohio, Indiana, are the 2 states McCain must win while holding on to Virginia. Obama will try to steal Indiana - like he did during the primaries. McCain must assume the Gary area will be voter fraud central.
BHO must win PA., Virginia, and hold on to Minnesota (This looks tough. McCain is doing surprisingly well.)
Note to McCain: LAWYER UP. Obama/ACORN have every intention of stealing every vote they can. If this election is close, Obama will try to steal votes to win. It is who he is. Obama's people are crazy and they will...uh...well...they won't play nice if you come out on top in a close race. Obama's most ardent fans have no moral center and don't much care for democracy, anyway. Che "I'll shoot the children myself" Guevara is their hero, not JFK or FDR.
Note TO Obama: Where is Michelle?
General Note: Remember when everyone was saying "after the conventions the 527's will kick in and go after Obama" ??? Where are they? Part of me thinks the GOP wants to lost this election. The very best way to expunge the W hangover and reinvigorate the GOP is to let BHO behave like the narcissistic buffoon he is - in the White House. A few years - or months - of the BHO show and the GOP will be sitting pretty for a generation. Yes, if Obama wins his honeymoon will be very short (he is a wildly divisive personality) and yes, when the media turns on him is will be harsh.
Anyway: Where are the 527s that everyone thought would bury Obama?
A reader sent my this tidbit from Down Under: Bill Clinton likes Palin's instincts. The President was referring to her political instincts noting that she was an effective politician and should not be underestimated. He spoke about the sitting, elected, Governor of Alaska with respect - which is ,not doubt, why he is so hated by PODS. Being adult is so difficult for them.
An odd dynamic is at play in my attitude toward Palin. The more I find out about her politics, the less I like her politics. The more I find out about her, the more I like her. I've said this a few times this week and one would have thought I said "I enjoy eating the livers of orphans." It seems unremarkable to me that one can appreciate or like someone that one does not agree with. But on the Obama Left this yet another impossible thought problem to solve. On most social issues I agree with Harry Reid - in action I find him to be a cowardly hack - and this leads me to dislike him. Both Pelosi and Reid were elevated in 2006 with a mandate to confront Bush and deal with the war. Both flinched. After running for Governor on a platform that included a repeal of same sex benefits - Palin, once elected, was told a ban was unconstitutional - whether she liked it or not. She governed from the middle and vetoed the bill. In other words, her overarching conservatism trumped whatever her personal belief may have been. That trait is admirable in an executive. For the record: It mirrors what Howard Dean did in Vermont with civil unions. The courts told him a ban would violate the law - and he went with legalizing civil unions.
I know it seems arcane at Brentwood cocktail parties and college drum circles to judge a person by their ACTIONS - not by their website - but I will persist in this little piece of nostalgia. I won't "hate" Palin until I see reason to "hate" her. As I've said, and now Clinton has said, Palin running for VP is a fascinating turn of events and she is a force to be reckoned with.
Obama is not trustworthy. The evidence is in and is overwhelming. What Obama says and what Obama does are at odds on nearly every major issue. From Iraq, to Nafta, to Public Financing, to FISA he has demonstrated an utter lack of integrity.
I've been thinking about my stance on comments. I've removed all banned I.P's. This blog has grown a lot in the past few months and I feel an obligation to the small by consistent audience here. On occasion Pro- Obama commenters have all but hijacked threads. I see no reason to allow this. I want this blog to be a refuge where those disturbed by BHO can alight to gripe, explain, point out fallacies, raise concerns, insult...whatever....Therefore - and follow me here - I am laying down rules for Pro- Obama commenters. This is not fair - but it is more fair than the treatment Pro-Clinton folks got at Kos.
Anyone is welcome to make their case for Obama. But pro-Obama comments that do not address the serious questions about BHO's past, experience, associations, and worthiness raised here and elsewhere will be nixed.
This blog pokes fun, attacks, and is opinionated. It also accuses. When L.R. says he has no experience worthy of the White House those who disagree must either rationally justify why experience does not matter or explain why his actual experience crosses the "White House bar".
When L.R. accuses BHO of dissembling about his past associations - the onus is on BHO's supporters to explain why the accusation is incorrect or irrelevant. Example: Thoughtful people think 20 years at Trinity Church brings up legitimate questions about BHO's character. I think these questions are valid. Obama supporters must explain why they are not valid or give reasons, based in rational thought, as to why they are not valid.
When L.R. accuses BHO of lying ("my banking committee" and the Selma speech come to mind.) it is clear from this end that he's lied. It is up to Obama supporters to explain why they are not lies or to justify their support for a liar.
When L.R. accuses BHO of flip flopping - FISA etc - and questions his character it is up to BHO supporters to explain why flip flopping on major constitutional issues does NOT go to character. Screeching about the alleged horrors of John McCain does nothing to justify Obama's flip flops.
The accusations against Obama may have been tenuous at one point. They no longer are. Evidence mounts daily that he has been dishonest about his stances on issues and his past. If one feels he has not been dishonest: refute it WITH FACTS.
Finally: I will not be fair. I do not have to be. I pay for this blog. Go voice your opinions on the Daily Kos if you don't like it. Many reasonable people have been removed from that "liberal" blog. The simple fact is I'll give the anti-Obama commenters a long leash. No such courtesy will be afforded pro- Obama posters. It is only recently that the blogosphere has balanced itself a bit after a long run of mindless Clinton hatred. PODS: Support Obama and refute our accusations with facts or go away.
I spent a long time searching for reasons to get behind BHO. The only thing I discovered is that he cannot and should not be trusted. Feel free to prove that this time was not well spent. Reasons based in dislike for McCain or Clinton are not reasons at all.
When I write an angry post about Obama responding with "fight the smears" quotes and fear mongering about the opposition just won't fly here. Let me be AGONIZINGLY clear on this point: They would be fine if BHO had tangible experience worthy of obtaining the position he wants.
He does not.
They would be fine if Obama had demonstrated strength of character to go with a lengthy resume.
He has not. Quite the opposite.
Much as Kerry annoyed me it was self evident in my opinion that:
A. He was the better choice.
B. He had enough experience for the job. Ditto for Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, Dole, etc.
C. Though his character was imperfect it certainly was solid enough for the Presidency.
I am fed up with being told the reason to support Obama is because he's a registered Democrat and that he's not McCain. No. No it is not. I will not sell my soul in a craps game that a bunch of overheated college kids, George Soros, and duplicitous Democratic "leaders" insist I must play.
If Obama wins, and if Obama runs for re-election in 2012, and if he proves to be an adequate, good or great President I will not only vote for him against any imaginable GOP opponent - I will work my ass off for him. I will also refute myself on this blog. With apologies all around that will go on for months.
Until then he remains a half term, flip flopping, lying junior Senator with a murky past who emerged from a corrupt machine who then ran a skilled, but vicious, campaign.
Finally, broad, funny, insults make me happy. Read Shakespeare or read the Greeks for some of the best found anywhere. However, I will protect my peeps from personal attacks.
The most consistent and pointed satire around remains South Park.
Anyone who has suffered the Homeless Industrial Complex the city of Santa Monica has created and labeled "progressive" (- which apparently means letting alcoholics rot on the streets, and allowing the mentally ill to accost residents - ) will love this song. Santa Monica "liberalism" is the version of liberalism which has finally become ascendant in the Democratic Party with Senator No Resume's rise.
The goal is not to solve any particular problem, the goal is that people like Ariana Huffington and Tom Hayden get to feel superior on the way to the spa. Look at the homeless we allow on our streets - see we are open minded humanitarians! The slums in Obama's district and Rezko's government contracts are worth keeping in mind, as well.
Well- ideas are universal. But my ego is big enough to cringe a bit at this clip. I have been writing Obama Scriptures for a while and now everyone is doing it...Holy Satire is not exactly hard to come up with when one thinks of the Obama and the nonsense surrounding him. He is such a fraud and his cult is so deluded - this type of clip comes naturally. Enjoy.
This letter appeared in the I Own My Vote newsletter in response to the DNC treasurer Andy Tobias's request for money. Many of you also saw it on NoQuarter. It is worth re-reading. The writer lays out the case against BHO with clarity and frankness. The real case against Obama is damning. I repeat - AT BEST with Obama we are taking a massive risk. At worst he is every bit the charlatan he appears to be.
Dear Andy,
So you want to know what is taking me so long to "get on board"? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.
As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The "plots" change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.
After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went of.
In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors' faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.
The fact that I became successful is not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.
So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.
Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama's standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.
I would not choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors, not for political reasons or any other reason. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; and for him the ends justify the means. He lacks character.
Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people’s accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.
In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago's. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.
It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.
Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?
Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do.
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the latter part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.
Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.
At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,wink.
Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.
You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say…. the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?
Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what’s up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don't agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not willing to just say anything to get elected.
I can't say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.
But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.
Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the microphone over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.
All this might not bother me so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.
Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,
Way off topic- but this clip is over the top hilarious. Thanks to Jay for sending me this...Enjoy!
Thoughts for later posts either tonight or Friday:
* Obama Pod contempt for the working class and how it expresses itself.Further: How to identify it in self described "liberals."
This came up in a comment on a post last night. Some pod could not or would not respond directly to my post about BHO using a terrorist organization for security - he/she attacked me personally (Typical. This person wrote as if he/she knew me - they do not - and it is a comment full of inaccuracies.)
HOWEVER: he/she tried to insult me by insulting those who do clerical work. This is typical Huffington/Geffen/Dean/Obama - faux liberalism. A true contempt for workers ALWAYS appears eventually. It is a liberalism based in entitlement and "we know better than you" condescension. There is nothing egalitarian or classically liberal about what these frauds want. In fact, they hate the working class. More later...
or
* The arrogance of the trip overseas - will there be a backlash? I wonder.
Cannonfire is doing a masterful job of compiling all Obama Cultist Comments. Again I warn you if you click here - it is ghastly reading. The sexist vomit from the Pod People is thick and rank. The 2 words we do not allow on this blog are in these comments - many times over. Even after all this time I find it disorienting to think that these people are in the party I once called home.
These people are monsters - there is no reason to pull punches on this. Obama is a poisonous figure in American life and his presence has unleashed rage and insanity on the Left. We must oppose this mob and and their dear leader.
For over a year I've been blogging about the derangement of the Obama wing nuts. They are a mob- I've said over and over again. The overriding impulse is not adoration of BHO or desire for change. It is pure, undistilled hatred of women and a mad desire for control. Adhere any excuse you like on top of this hatred. Scratch an Obama Pod enough and you get to a power mad sexist. This hatred is blinding. (I REPEAT - I am not talking about those who came to Obama later for reasons that are more about McCain. He is polling in the 40's and all those people are not lunatics. I mean Obama's arrogant, over educated, snotty base.)
They are bigots dressed to look like liberals. The pungent whiff of totalitarianism surrounds them. Their way or the highway. The worst part: "their way" is malleable. "Their way" is whatever results in power. At the very least, true conservatives operate from a core set of values. These people are out for a personality projection. A man who works shadows and light to present whatever you want to see. How do I know he is not doing this as a true agent of hope and change? Tactics. Evolved leaders don't resort to trickery and lies.
The Obama mob is dangerous. Why "dangerous?" Because they have no sense of their hatred. They never overhear themselves. Whether is it the mindless adoration of the empty suit or vicious attacks on the Clintons, self awareness is nil with these zombies. The most recent letter from the DNC is a case study in arrogant stupidity. No apology for the sexist Obama campaign. No humility. No gratitude for Clinton energizing the old Democratic base. Just "pony up." Followed by a thousand contradictory salvos of "Get Out!" and "You're Republicans!"
Screw you, DNC. Go beg Americablog's hacks for cash.
As Obama bumbles across the globe it is important to remind ourselves that his "netroots" back home are still slaving away with the insult and innuendo.
So let's repeat again and again and again: Obama is a dangerous, naive, fraud. This is proven everyday now. Shit canning the 4th amendment. Fake Presidential seals. Promises to Afghan war lords. Lies about Aryres and Rezko and Wright and his own birth. The list is endless.
This man is beneath us. Even after 8 years of Bush. Even after this mishandled war. Even after Katrina, and the rout of civil liberties, and and and - we deserve better than Obama.
His supporters are beneath even him. They are beneath contempt.
Remember, back in the day, when Democrats were all united against Bush & Co?
I wrote a post about torture and that if we are torturing in order to defeat the terrorists we have become the terrorists.
What I see now is that many, many "democrats" in order to defeat the GOP have become the GOP.
Damn our Principles, full steam ahead.
Senator Obama lies to win the nomination stating in writing he'll take public financing if the Republican nominee does the same. Garners the support of Newspapers and progressives for his stance.
Turns out he can really raise the dough so he declines public financing in lieu of outspending John McCain.
His faithful Obamanation think it's great. He is using public financing because the money comes from the public. He's not using tax payer dollars, isn't he great? Yeah, ok, but he lied.
Senator Obama put a statement up on his web site in February of this year stating that he will never support a bill on Fisa that includes Telecom Immunity.
What happens when the bill comes up? He and Harry Reid will "try" to take immunity out but we have to fight the terrorists, by giving up our rights. Oh, and he'll change it once he's president. And isn't it terrible that the House Democrats put him in this position? Why couldn't they have waited until he's President?
He's willing to gamble with your fourth amendment rights. But the Obamanation knows what he really means, because, well, he's a constitutional lawyer/professor. And McCain is worse! If McCain wins he'll have all this power that Senator Obama will vote to give the president so we have to vote for Obama because he'll give it back because he says he will.
Does your head hurt? Are your eyes crossed?
Glen Greenwald has a story up on Salon about Olbermann. You know, that crazy guy who had a special comment about Fisa and telecom immunity a few short months ago? How it was the end of the world as we know it? Until Senator Obama says it not.
One of the comments was - this is where I draw the line in the sand. I cannot vote for Obama if he votes for the bill with immunity in it. I cannot vote for him if he doesn't filibuster.
Does the Obamanation have a line in the sand? Right now, I'm going with no. They trust his "words" even when his actions say the opposite.
Back when I was still a Democrat I was accused repeatedly of being a Republican because I cannot vote for Obama.
Turns out the Obamanation are the Republicans. They are no different from the Bush faithful who back their man no matter what. Nothing can make them question their faith in Dear Leader.
Obama No! written by Adolf Reed, Jr in The Progressive is linked here. He writes with grace about a what so many liberals like myself find disturbing and distasteful about Obama. I have said what I thought in a point blank fashion (He is a fraud. He is a liar. He is a front man.) then challenged my readers to look more deeply at Obama. Obama is not a leader. His campaign is not the vanguard of a movement. Obama is a brand. He is a marketing concept. The Got Hope? stickers that play on the Got Milk? campaign express this perfectly. As does the "Warhol" poster of Obama - a rendering in which his supposedly intelligent followers see no irony.
Obama is - to quote the great Brando in Apocalypse Now - an "errand boy, send by grocery clerks, to collect a bill." Errand Boy: Obama Grocery Clerks: Dean, Brazille, Pelosi. To collect a bill: For large Chicago concerns, Wall Street Investors, and George Soros.
Two quotes: the hysterically indignant reaction to Geraldine Ferraro's statement that much of Obama's success stems from the fact that "the country is caught up in the concept" of a black candidacy are no different from the campaign's touting its "historic" character.
There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp's young minions' enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others' criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin.
Whatever else happens I know this: Obama is bound for failure either as a candidate or a President. He has created a scenario that allows no other outcome. There is a difference between milk and hope. Products don't make good leaders.
