The Obama Temptation

[Barbara Branden]

I believe this is one of the most important articles written during this presidential campaign, If you agree that it's important, please, while there still is time, distribute it as widely as possible.

Barbara

The Obama Temptation '

by Mark R.Levin

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

10/25 09:29 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Z...I0MDRkOWFlMDQ=T

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I agree with about 99% of this analysis and 100% with your assessment.

I do not agree with the insinuation that the motive of most people supporting Obama is envy. I see it in some, but in the vast majority I detect fear and distrust preceding their capitulation to deifying Obama.

I remember that Hitler came to power during a time of intense economic upheaval. This always causes fear. Hitler provided a clear bogeyman for all of Germany's woes, the Jews. Germany believed him and it got what it got.

Obama has cashed in on the the subprime mortgage meltdown to use greedy businessman as that bogeyman. His rhetoric is not as virulent as Hitler's, as befits the American context, but his appeal to an "us against them, the evil ones" fear is just as strong.

I don't think this would have happened, even with the present meltdown, if Bush had not practiced The Big Lie so often and stonewalled the criticism. If Bush were to run for reelection today, he would be buried. Many Americans simply don't trust conservatives to tell them the truth. They think all conservatives are neocons. Public credibility was the most precious value that Bush sacrificed in terms of conservatives and I believe he is totally unrepentant. People sense that.

I believe the masses of people are good people. They are not envy-ridden, but I agree that they are not fully rational. The envy-ridden are their current mentors and when the masses finally open their eyes, there might be an enormous mess to clean up and enormous personal loss to deal with. (There will be if Obama is elected and the Democrats gain total control over Congress.)

But who has the morale to make that argument after Bush's mess: his expansion of government and constant dismissal of individual rights when he wanted to do something? And then not owning up to his proven errors? People will always see that as lying, whether it is or not.

I think the best shot at stopping Obama is to promote McCain as someone who reflects American values but who is vastly different than Bush. The good news in this, albeit a small benefit at this stage, is that McCain actually is vastly different than Bush.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "I do not agree with the insinuation that the motive of most people supporting Obama is envy. I see it in some, but in the vast majority I detect fear and distrust preceding their capitulation to deifying Obama."

But why has fear and distrust not caused people to turn to McCain, instead of to the man who promises to penalize "the rich" and redistribute their wealth? Envy and the promise of more entitlements are surely significant factors.

Rand often spoke of the fact that benevolence toward one's fellow man is possible only to free men and that it disappears to the extent that we approach a totalitarian state. Free men know that what other men have is not taken from them, but is earned; but to the extent that a society is ruled, the concept of "the earned" ceases to have meaning. Obama's' policies create envy. He is not promising to give the poor (whom he calls "the middle class") what they have earned, but what they have not earned. If they vote for him, that's what they want.

You say that "the masses of people are good people." I'm not sure what you mean by "good" in this context. But I would say that the masses, like most individuals, are a mixture of good and bad, and that both aspects can be appealed to. Obama appeals to the very worst in them. And if he is elected, it is the worst that will be in the ascendancy. I predict that apart from economic chaos, we will see the return of a virulent racism -- directed against whites, blacks, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, immigrants, against any group that can be made a scapegoat. (Yes, I omitted Muslims; that will not be allowed.) Even now, Jewish organizations are reporting a steep rise in anti-Semitism worldwide since the beginning of the financial crisis, as Jews, as always, are being blamed for our economic woes, (They control the banks, do they not?)

Economist Tyler Cowen pointed out that there is a direct link between statism and the persecution of minorities. He wrote: "The history of the Jewish people illustrates the relatively favorable position of minorities in a market setting. Hostility toward trade and commerce has often fueled hostility toward Jews, and vice versa. The societies most congenial to commercial life for their time -- Renaissance Italy, the growing capitalist economies of England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, and the United States -- typically have shown the most toleration for Jews."

Barbara

P. S, You've mentioned many times your view that Bush "has practiced the Big Lie." For the record, I strongly disagree with you.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I don't say envy is not involved. As you know, I generally think things are a mix of motives and emotions.

I also agree with you that all people have good and bad in them. For a generalization, I just go from the principle that people try to do the reasonable thing with what they have in front of them and generally try to be good to each other. From what I have observed in life, most of them don't even think about the big picture enough to develop the kind of social envy I used to believe in. I have only seen that in intellectuals and, I admit, when I have seen it, it is vicious.

I have lived in a repressive socialist society. Sure it was under a right-wing military dictatorship, but if socialism is defined by the government owning the means of production, judging by the sheer number of government-owned companies, Brazil was the most socialist country in the world. I mean that literally. They once did a count and Brazil beat all the other countries in number of government-owned companies by a large margin, even Russia and China. If the envy thing were true (as an essential human driver, not as a secondary component), that would mean that Brazilians back then should have been the most envious in the world.

They weren't. They were just mostly good people trying to make the best of a bad situation. The problems I saw occur were different than envy.

For example, people sought a government job because of job security and benefits, and because it usually paid more than they could get in the private sector. They generally took it for granted once they got it since it was near impossible to be fired, so the competence level was not too high. However, I did not detect envy in them (the ones I knew) while seeking the job, nor envy in them once they had it. Laziness or complacency or trying to take the easy way out would better describe what I saw.

As to whether Bush practiced The Big Lie or not, irrespective of who is right, this is how the public views him. Just look at the numbers and look at his present influence. No one can do what he did, lying or not lying, but filling the pockets of his cronies while constantly dishing out a ton load of wrong information to the public, and keep his reputation. All this is on record.

Anyone can talk the people down if he repeats something often enough or even stonewalls tough questions like Bush and his supporters have done, but the people won't be convinced. Too many acts contradict the words and too many people see it. Even I, a person predisposed to like Bush—I want to approve of him—can list a bunch and cite sources.

Michael

EDIT:

Rand often spoke of the fact that benevolence toward one's fellow man is possible only to free men and that it disappears to the extent that we approach a totalitarian state. Free men know that what other men have is not taken from them, but is earned...

I had not thought about this for a long time, but once again, this is not borne out by my own observations up close. The Brazilians I knew were very generous people, even back then. I used to joke that, excluding impoverished people in geographically difficult places like the sertão (desert and bush), the Brazilian poor was some of the healthiest, well-fed poor people I ever saw.

I agree that benevolence is encouraged and nurtured under freedom, but not that it is "only possible" under freedom. That's an exaggeration.

(I seem to be in a contentious mood these days. I think the election is getting to me. )

[L W HALL]

As to whether Bush practiced The Big Lie or not, irrespective of who is right, this is how the public views him. Just look at the numbers and look at his present influence. No one can do what he did, lying or not lying, but filling the pockets of his cronies while constantly dishing out a ton load of wrong information to the public, and keep his reputation. All this is on record.

Whether is was outright lying, manipulation to make things appear as he wanted them or just buying into some poor information the outcome is the same. Many many people put a lot of trust in him and many many people feel totally betrayed by him and the Rep party.

I have been a registered Republican for over 35 years after starting out with the Democratic party. In all my years of voting I have never regretted casting a vote for anyone as much as I have the two I cast for GWB. That is coming from someone who crossed party lines and voted for Carter and I never thought I could make a bigger blunder than I did then. If I could go back to 8 years ago I would most definitely change my vote to Al Gore.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

LW,

You have my total sympathy.

Please consider that Obama might be the fat lady in the wings.

That's an old opera joke. A tenor is singing terribly and people start booing and throwing tomatoes. He stops, then says to the audience, "OK. I'm going. But now you have to deal with the fat lady who's waiting to come on. If you think I was bad..."

Don't think it can't get worse. It can.

Michael

[L W HALL]

Michael,

I agree things can get worse. My mother has recounted too many times to me what it was like growing up in the Great Depression. My father did not have it as bad, but it was no cakewalk for his family either. I don't think (hope?) that we are going to go that far down however I don't believe we have seen the worst of it yet.

With respect to voting I am going to write in Ron Paul simply because I do not care for the policies of either of the two major party candidates.

If you want to look at the culprits for the rise of Obama look no further than the leaders of the Republican party. The Reps had a very strong base and managed to screw it up so badly it may take years to overcome it. Maybe instead of recovering a viable third party will finally come about but I really think that is just wishful thinking on my part.

Anyway nice to speak to you again.

[Roger Bissell]

[...]

As to whether Bush practiced The Big Lie or not, irrespective of who is right, this is how the public views him. Just look at the numbers and look at his present influence. No one can do what he did, lying or not lying, but filling the pockets of his cronies while constantly dishing out a ton load of wrong information to the public, and keep his reputation. All this is on record.

Anyone can talk the people down if he repeats something often enough or even stonewalls tough questions like Bush and his supporters have done, but the people won't be convinced. Too many acts contradict the words and too many people see it. Even I, a person predisposed to like Bush—I want to approve of him—can list a bunch and cite sources.

Michael, I'd like to see your "bunch" and your sources. What "ton load of wrong information" did Bush "constantly" dish out?

Also, ~if~ the people are "onto" Bush -- and it's not just the MEDIA'S "Big Lie" repeated over and over ("Bush lied, people died") -- and ~if~ it is accurately reflected in his horrendously low popularity ratings, then WHY??? is virtually the entire ruling clique of the Congress going to be ~easily~ re-elected to office, ~despite~ the fact that the popularity rating of Congress is even 10 points ~lower~ than Bush's??

About the only good excuse I can think of for wanting Obama to be elected is so that, when he and Pelosi and Reid have destroyed the economy and instituted nationalization of industry and suppression of dissent in 2-4 years, SOCIALISM will get the blame for it, and not some mangled caricature of capitalism and libertarianism. But do we ~really~ want the Galtian rug-pulling catastrophe quite yet??

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

We can start with Bush selling the invasion of Iraq to the USA Congress and the public based on scare tactics about weapons of mass destruction, then saying "Oops!" and finger-pointing all over the place after the military was mobilized.

btw - I am not against the Iraq war, nor finishing with victory. I also made a thread on Sept. 11 praising Bush for the achievement of keeping America safe from another terrorist attack the size of 9-11. But I am against the level of deception or incompetence in a USA President I have seen with the consistently wrong information Bush feeds the public (as just one issue).

Don't tell me that Bush is an angel, though. Tell the majority of Americans, who see the same thing I do. Think you will convince them that A doesn't have to be A when a President wants something?

Don't even get me started on the pork barrel crap or budget excesses constantly sold as different than what they are.

The plain fact is that people are scared to death about the economic meltdown and do not trust Bush to tell them the truth about what happened and what to do about it. Based solely on his endorsement, the first 700 billion bailout pushed by Bush was roundly defeated in the House because of public outcry. The Democrats (and some Republicans) took advantage of that to grease the thing with 3 digit billions of pork fat to get it passed.

Even now, people don't believe Bush's initial reasons for promoting the bailout, even if they agree with those reasons.

Aligning McCain with Bush has been one of Obama's most successful campaign tactics. I do not believe that this is because the American public is evil. I think they are fed up and don't know what to think and Obama sounds good—like he knows what he is talking about. They bought it, partially because of Obama's skill, but also because they felt betrayed.

Thank goodness this spread the wealth think is coming out so clearly here at the end of the election. The American public may not know what to think about being fed up, but they know what to think about that. I believe in the American people. I came back after 32 years abroad and stayed by choice.

I even believe they will turn hard on Obama over time if he gets elected for the same reasons they turned on Bush.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

About the only good excuse I can think of for wanting Obama to be elected is so that, when he and Pelosi and Reid have destroyed the economy and instituted nationalization of industry and suppression of dissent in 2-4 years, SOCIALISM will get the blame for it, and not some mangled caricature of capitalism and libertarianism. But do we ~really~ want the Galtian rug-pulling catastrophe quite yet??

REB

If we become fully Socialized during Obama's term (I rather doubt we will) how long would it take to become de-Socialized?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Roger Bissell]

Roger,

We can start with Bush selling the invasion of Iraq to the USA Congress and the public based on scare tactics about weapons of mass destruction, then saying "Oops!" and finger-pointing all over the place after the military was mobilized.

btw - I am not against the Iraq war, nor finishing with victory. I also made a thread on Sept. 11 praising Bush for the achievement of keeping America safe from another terrorist attack the size of 9-11. But I am against the level of deception or incompetence in a USA President I have seen with the consistently wrong information Bush feeds the public (as just one issue).

Don't tell me that Bush is an angel, though. Tell the majority of Americans, who see the same thing I do. Think you will convince them that A doesn't have to be A when a President wants something?

Don't even get me started on the pork barrel crap or budget excesses constantly sold as different than what they are.

The plain fact is that people are scared to death about the economic meltdown and do not trust Bush to tell them the truth about what happened and what to do about it. Based solely on his endorsement, the first 700 billion bailout pushed by Bush was roundly defeated in the House because of public outcry. The Democrats (and some Republicans) took advantage of that to grease the thing with 3 digit billions of pork fat to get it passed.

Even now, people don't believe Bush's initial reasons for promoting the bailout, even if they agree with those reasons.

Aligning McCain with Bush has been one of Obama's most successful campaign tactics. I do not believe that this is because the American public is evil. I think they are fed up and don't know what to think and Obama sounds good—like he knows what he is talking about. They bought it, partially because of Obama's skill, but also because they felt betrayed.

Thank goodness this spread the wealth think is coming out so clearly here at the end of the election. The American public may not know what to think about being fed up, but they know what to think about that. I believe in the American people. I came back after 32 years abroad and stayed by choice.

I even believe they will turn hard on Obama over time if he gets elected for the same reasons they turned on Bush.

Michael

Michael, the WMD "scare" was perpetrated and believed in by all the chief Democratic figures, including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Pres. Bill Clinton. Bush did not make it up. He just pushed an agenda based on the same misinformation they ALL had, and that they ALL trumpeted repeatedly, in the media and the Congress. So, if you want to cast Bush as the SCAPEGOAT, the Christ-figure, for the sins of ALL (or many), that's fine.

But I return to my second, and more insistent, question: why does the Congress get a pass on all this? They postured and bellowed about WMD at the time -- and currently (and for some time), their popularity rating has been even further in the dumps than Bush's. Yet, they will get to keep their jobs. No one has prominently called for a complete "turn the rascals out" in Congress -- which would seem to me to be a logical corollary to "no more Bush" (i.e., anti-McCain).

Can you explain that, Michael? Anyone? Why isn't Congress hoisted by the same petard as Pres. Bush (and McCain)?

REB

[Roger Bissell]

About the only good excuse I can think of for wanting Obama to be elected is so that, when he and Pelosi and Reid have destroyed the economy and instituted nationalization of industry and suppression of dissent in 2-4 years, SOCIALISM will get the blame for it, and not some mangled caricature of capitalism and libertarianism. But do we ~really~ want the Galtian rug-pulling catastrophe quite yet??

REB

If we become fully Socialized during Obama's term (I rather doubt we will) how long would it take to become de-Socialized?

Ba'al Chatzaf

How long -- and how -- did Germany become de-Socialized (or did it?) after Hitler took power? With the intervention of the U.S., it still took over 10 years. That may be a fair estimate.

On the other hand, there is the case of Soviet Russia. It took them over 70 years. And they're really not free yet, just somewhat less socialized, and far from "out of the woods."

Perhaps a median figure of 40 years, give or take? Two generations...

Man, I'm depressed.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If we become fully Socialized during Obama's term (I rather doubt we will) how long would it take to become de-Socialized?

Bob,

Interestingly enough, I lived through this in Brazil. If you have the time, read this: Fernando Collor de Mello.

To answer your question, the short cut to de-Socializing a country is to elect someone completely nuts, like Mello, with a pro-capitalist orientation, then watch as he makes a mess so great in his first week of office that it can't be reversed.

When Collor was sworn in, right after he took the oath of office in the ceremony, a butler-like assistant came on stage with an enormous pile of documents and he started signing them right in front of everyone. The documents were executive orders extinguishing government departments. He also froze everyone's money for 18 months. (The inflation rate in Brazil when he did that was 30,000% a year. It worked, but there were people all over Brazil who literally died of heart attacks when he did that.)

After all this, there was no way to undo it. Not even after the corruption of his administration was exposed and new people took over were they able to go back to the old way.

I believe this is called creative destruction, but I have never seen it on such a massive scale going toward capitalism.

Michael

[L W HALL]

Michael, the WMD "scare" was perpetrated and believed in by all the chief Democratic figures, including Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Pres. Bill Clinton. Bush did not make it up. He just pushed an agenda based on the same misinformation they ALL had, and that they ALL trumpeted repeatedly, in the media and the Congress. So, if you want to cast Bush as the SCAPEGOAT, the Christ-figure, for the sins of ALL (or many), that's fine.

But I return to my second, and more insistent, question: why does the Congress get a pass on all this? They postured and bellowed about WMD at the time -- and currently (and for some time), their popularity rating has been even further in the dumps than Bush's. Yet, they will get to keep their jobs. No one has prominently called for a complete "turn the rascals out" in Congress -- which would seem to me to be a logical corollary to "no more Bush" (i.e., anti-McCain).

Can you explain that, Michael? Anyone? Why isn't Congress hoisted by the same petard as Pres. Bush (and McCain)?

REB

Here's the problem I see with the argument you are advancing Roger:

Rather than ask who went along let's ask who really pushed the agenda. Was it the Dems or was it Bush and his cohorts? I believe you will find the answer to that is it was the neo cons. Those in Congress who went along with it don't get a pass in my book but then I didn't vote for Hillary or a lot of the others who did vote in favor the war. I did however vote for Bush and that is why I am taking him to task. He was the one I put my trust in, not Hillary Clinton.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway nice to speak to you again.

LW,

The pleasure is mutual.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Michael, if Bush would say what he will not say, perhaps this would be his response to the essence of your accusations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don 't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the

Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not.

That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done

here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off..

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

It's a point of view, I suppose. I personally would not buy a used car off of Bush. I don't like people who say one thing and do another.

I admit I get some information off the MSM, but it should be clear that I don't get my opinions and evaluations off of it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The election will determine if the inmates take over the asylum.

Barbara, it's too bad that statement you quoted was beyond Bush. It's actually a plea for the election of John McCain.

Michael, if you can't or won't lie you aren't qualified to be President. The policies are the bottom line.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Barbara,

It's a point of view, I suppose. I personally would not buy a used car off of Bush. I don't like people who say one thing and do another.

I admit I get some information off the MSM, but it should be clear that I don't get my opinions and evaluations off of it.

Michael

So, basically, Michael, you think that the Bush tax cuts -- which he promised to give us -- were insignificant.

Would you say that Nixon was similarly awful, because he was a crook and a liar? He is the one who pledged to end the draft and did. On the other hand, MANY more American soldiers died in Vietnam during his Presidency than did soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush Jr. On the other hand, there was Bush Sr. and Gulf War I, with hardly ~any~ American casualties, but with a broken campaign promise not to raise taxes.

So, exactly what broken promises or lies from Bush Jr. are you most upset or scornful of? I'm much more upset about his profligate spending, including prescription Medicaire for seniors as well as the current bailout(s). "Compassionate conservative" my ass. He's a big spending moderate Republican welfare-statist who goes to church. And an overactive "hawk" to boot.

You say (elsewhere) that there is no difference whether Bush lied (and people died), or he simply unwisely trusted his Neo-Con advisors. I do. It is all the difference between whether Bush was negligent (which is bad enough) or deliberately malevolent.

You say that you "trust in the American people". Well, if they don't turn out the Democratic leadership of the Congress -- which has an even lower approval rating than Bush Jr. -- then will you revise your faith in their basic wisdom and goodness? Sorry, I think you're being naive, as well as applying a double standard here.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You say (elsewhere) that there is no difference whether Bush lied (and people died), or he simply unwisely trusted his Neo-Con advisors.

Roger,

Where did I say that?

I said that it doesn't matter for a good public reputation. To be clear, being a liar or being incompetent are both negative images. Neither is a positive one, so it doesn't matter. Wrong is just as wrong by intent or by mistake. And a whole lot of wrong is still a whole lot of wrong regardless of the reasons.

I personally believe Bush arrogantly thinks the public doesn't need to know the truth, that he knows better for everyone, and lies. I think he is too smart to be incompetent.

But I also support some of the things he has done. I just don't trust him to tell the public the truth. I believe the majority of Americans feel this way, also. At least the numbers reflect this.

Michael

[galtgulch]

If we become fully Socialized during Obama's term (I rather doubt we will) how long would it take to become de-Socialized?

Bob,

Interestingly enough, I lived through this in Brazil. If you have the time, read this: Fernando Collor de Mello.

To answer your question, the short cut to de-Socializing a country is to elect someone completely nuts, like Mello, with a pro-capitalist orientation, then watch as he makes a mess so great in his first week of office that it can't be reversed.

When Collor was sworn in, right after he took the oath of office in the ceremony, a butler-like assistant came on stage with an enormous pile of documents and he started signing them right in front of everyone. The documents were executive orders extinguishing government departments. He also froze everyone's money for 18 months. (The inflation rate in Brazil when he did that was 30,000% a year. It worked, but there were people all over Brazil who literally died of heart attacks when he did that.)

After all this, there was no way to undo it. Not even after the corruption of his administration was exposed and new people took over were they able to go back to the old way.

I believe this is called creative destruction, but I have never seen it on such a massive scale going toward capitalism.

Michael

Michael that is certainly something to strive for here. We may just live to see it when the campaign for liberty CFL grows into the tens of millions of members nationwide. You may say that will never happen but those of us who are involved are determined to make it happen by spreading the words of von Mises, Ron Paul and a few of us would add Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, etc.

Worth the effort. Join us at www.campaignforliberty.com

Wm

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, if Bush would say what he will not say, perhaps this would be his response to the essence of your accusations.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don 't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the

Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not.

That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done

here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off..

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Thanks, Barbara. I've read this before, but it bears repeating. Those who repeat the canard "Bush Lied" forget that implicit in that verb is that ones lies to someone about something. Those variables always remain unstated, unsupported and unexplained. The only lie here is the Big Lie - a falsehood repeated so often even some Objectivists end up repeating it.

[Roger Bissell]

You say (elsewhere) that there is no difference whether Bush lied (and people died), or he simply unwisely trusted his Neo-Con advisors.

Roger,

Where did I say that?

I said that it doesn't matter for a good public reputation. To be clear, being a liar or being incompetent are both negative images. Neither is a positive one, so it doesn't matter. Wrong is just as wrong by intent or by mistake. And a whole lot of wrong is still a whole lot of wrong regardless of the reasons.

I personally believe Bush arrogantly thinks the public doesn't need to know the truth, that he knows better for everyone, and lies. I think he is too smart to be incompetent.

But I also support some of the things he has done. I just don't trust him to tell the public the truth. I believe the majority of Americans feel this way, also. At least the numbers reflect this.

Michael

In post #9 of this thread, Michael, you wrote:

We can start with Bush selling the invasion of Iraq to the USA Congress and the public based on scare tactics about weapons of mass destruction, then saying "Oops!" and finger-pointing all over the place after the military was mobilized.

btw - I am not against the Iraq war, nor finishing with victory. I also made a thread on Sept. 11 praising Bush for the achievement of keeping America safe from another terrorist attack the size of 9-11. But I am against

the level of deception or incompetence

in a USA President I have seen with the consistently wrong information Bush feeds the public (as just one issue).

I interpret you to mean that either Bush knew the truth about the WMD and lied to Congress to get them to approve the war, or he unwisely (i.e., incompetently) trusted his neo-con hawk advisors (incl. Cheney) who wanted the war and urged him to proceed with the WMD rationale (not knowing whether it was true) -- and that it doesn't matter whether he was dishonest or unwise/incompetent. You affirm the latter above, Michael, when you say that "wrong is wrong by intent or by mistake." Try selling that one to a court of law. Yes, the tort aspect -- the wrongfulness of the voluntarily caused result -- is the same, but the criminal aspect is vastly different.

LBJ, who is ~known~ to have lie us into the Vietnam War, was a viciously evil President. Bush Jr. was, in all likelihood, a bumblingly destructive one. I think you could safely have a beer with Bush Jr., but you would have had to watch your back with LBJ. He was a first-class bastard, in more ways than one, may his soul rot in hell...

If "Bush lied, people died" accounts for Bush's below 30% popularity rating, then why didn't LBJ, whose dishonesty caused 11 times as many American deaths, not have a popularity rating of 3% (rather than one similar to Bush)? I'll tell you why. Because despite LBJ's starting an unpopular war, he was not ~understood~ or ~believed~ to have lied to get us into the war, because the media and the Democratic Congress, who loved him for his Great Society socialist policies, would not go that far and portrary him that way to the American people. Bush had neither the mega-socialist track record nor the media and Congressional support to fall back on.

He has not been a great President, but how anyone (not you, Michael, but people in general) can rank him significantly lower than LBJ who sacrificed 55,000 American lives for a lie, or Carter who trashed the economy much worse than Bush, is simply beyond me. History will vindicate him -- again, not as a great President, but as not nearly so bad a President as you and others make him out to be.

REB

[Barbara Branden]

Roger: "He has not been a great President, but how anyone (not you, Michael, but people in general) can rank him significantly lower than LBJ who sacrificed 55,000 American lives for a lie, or Carter who trashed the economy much worse than Bush, is simply beyond me. History will vindicate him -- again, not as a great President, but as not nearly so bad a President as you and others make him out to be."

Agreed, Roger. And remember that this is the man who tried to privatize Social Security.

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I hadn't thought about comparing Bush to LBJ, but they do have one thing in common: Texas.

In my quote above, I was not affirming my own view. I had already done that. I was respecting the Barbara's view in light of my real point: "consistently wrong information Bush feeds the public." That's my problem. If a person makes one mistake, or even a short string of mistakes, OK. I can cut slack. But there has been just too much. I can't see any reason for that volume other than lying or incompetence.

I will grant a remote possibility of Bush not being a manipulator, but still, I find the idea of incompetence worse in a USA President mobilizing a force as large as the USA military over months and years. I actually prefer him to have a plan he believed in and an elitist old-boy attitude.

I don't chant the slogans you mentioned (literally, I saw for the first time the "Bush lied, people died" slogan in your post on this thread). I also don't think Bush only listened to his hawkish advisers. I think he is man enough to be hawkish all by himself without any help from anyone.

There are many, many stories on record about his advisers pushing employees for the supply of a certain kind of information from the USA information gathering/analysis services and for shelving information that contradicted it. I think this came from the top and Rumsfeld eventually took the fall. He was doing exactly what Bush wanted.

Anyway, here is reality: Bush will not stop the election of Obama. On the contrary, his reputation is helping to elect Obama.

Michael