Buchanan on Obama
July 30th, 2008 at 2:04 pm by David FarrarPaul Buchanan had a perceptive article in yesterday’s Herald on Barack Obama’s foreign policy challenges:
Barring some unanticipated event, Barack Obama is set to become the 44th President of the United States.
I think it will take something quite big to remove his lead.
Obama has sounded off against free trade agreements in order to court domestic constituencies. He has railed against Chinese dominance in the US consumer market and called for measures to stop the export of US jobs. This puts him at odds with Senator McCain and leading sectors of the US business community as well as foreign trading partners such as New Zealand. He will therefore have to reverse the US’s commitment to free trade, or betray his protectionist promises and abandon his working class supporters once in office.
This will be fascinating. We probably have not had a protectionist in office since Jimmy Carter. Arguably Bush was semi-protectionist in action if not in rhetoric. McCain would be the most pro free trade President the US has had. I suspect Obama will drop much of his protectionist rhetoric in office, but will not see out any free trade opportunities. I see very little hope for a successful WTO round under Obama.
The same is true for Obama’s stance on Israel. He claims that he will break the deadlock in US Middle Eastern policy by taking a fresh critical look at its relationship with Israel, but then pledges that his administration will never do anything to compromise the special bond that the US has with the Jewish state. He promises to address the Palestinians as full partners in the peace process, then speaks of a unified Jerusalem, contradicting the Palestinian stance on the sacred city. He cannot have it both ways. He will have to backtrack on at least one of his promises which augurs poorly for the prospects of real change in the status quo.
I can’t see him sticking with his undivided Jerusalem pledge.
Senator Obama, like so many others, speaks of eliminating oil dependency. Yet he opposes offshore and land-based drilling in the US. Although the Saudis, Kuwaitis and various smaller Emirates understand that election rhetoric destined for domestic consumption does not mean a shift in ongoing relations, it does mean that continuance of these relations could have negative domestic repercussions down the road.
Obama may find, like Kevin Rudd, that people blame the Government for a lack of supply.
Over-reliance on the military because of the failure of “soft” power or multinational approaches makes the president and his foreign policy advisers beholden to the uniformed command. Obama’s limited and tenuous relationship with the US armed forces means that he assumes office having to establish a rapport with the military leadership before asking them to fulfil their obligations to the country and constitution. Obama’s refusal to recognise that the so-called “surge” strategy has borne fruit in reducing levels of violence and promoting indigenous political solutions to post-invasion nation-building efforts in Iraq only complicates the picture. This leaves the possibility that the military will obey his commands, but that does not mean that it consents to his authority.
It will be interesting for how long Obama will be able to stick to his line that the surge has failed.
All of which is to say that contrary to the hopes of many inside and outside of the US, an Obama presidency will not necessarily bring with it an immediate change to more positive international relations. The way he handles his first policy crisis will determine whether that becomes fact or fantasy.
I think Obama will have more positive relations initially than Bush (or McCain). But as Paul says the test will come with his first crisis. What does he do when North Korea starts building nukes again? Or when Iran declares itself nuclear capable?
Related posts:
- Obama delays P5 trade negotiations
- President Barack Hussein Obama
- Obama is to be the 44th President
- US goes more protectionist
July 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Monica’s ex-boyfriend’s wife would be a better President, but yes, Barrack Hussein Obama was be the better candidate. Hope we can change, or whatever.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
i thought the latest polls showed obama and mccain as even?
long way to go yet. choice of VP will be interesting..
what if mccain goes with rice? or colin powell?
never underestimate the GOP. nasty bunch they are! they would spit nz labour out in about 3 mins..
oh yeah.. obamas middle name is what? his school was muslim??????
the polls are one thing.. people saying who they would vote for when asked in PUBLIC… but once they are in that little booth with no one else around.. we will see who they really vote for..
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Obama’s middle name is Only Fucking Morons Care What People’s Middle Names Are. He shortens it to “Hussein” for PR purposes.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
So drilling for oil would not reduce oil dependency then, would it. I suspect it should be something like foreign oil dependency…
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
DPF:
“Senator Obama, like so many others, speaks of eliminating oil dependency. Yet he opposes offshore and land-based drilling in the US.”
Doesn’t matter. The US is only at 60% of its 1970 production peak – and production is declining all the time. The best thing adding new, smaller fields can do is slow the production decline.
Besides, there are millions of acres where companies already have drilling permits that are not currently being exploited.
Ultimately the US is goign to have to stop growing energy consumption by 2% per year (doubles every 35 years), and find ways to reduce energy demand.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
It has got to be said that I am glad to see some input from Patrick Buchanan. Coupling this with the earlier words of wisdom from David Horowitz gives me real genuine hope for the future of the New Zealand right if they are finally allowing the intellectual vigour of US conservatism to inform them.
I can’t stand the idea of Obama getting to the Presidency. It would be a disaster for the whole world but not just for New Zealand. I am pretty sure the liberal whiners and leftist defeatists will eventually realise the value of America’s protective strength when the Islamists come creeping in the night and the eagle of freedom is suddenly absent since the commander-in-chief and leader of the free world is too busy babbling about ‘change’ and chatting with Iranians to do anything about it.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ryan,
Vote:No one really knows just what his middle name is cause he will NOT release his birth certificate. All we have to go on at the moment is his word, there is a growwing suspicion in The USA that he might not even of been born there which will disqualify him from office.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
“the Islamists come creeping in the night and the eagle of freedom is suddenly absent”
RAOTFLMAO! :-O
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Nome, you might think Bin Laden & co. are your friends and worthy of a good chuckle but much as they might find your particular brand of left-liberal defeatism useful it won’t grant you any reprieve that is not tactically necessary for them.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
He’s a bloody hippy, well spoken but a screaming lefty.
Iraq may or may not have been the greatest idea but at least Bush, with the world abusing him, had the balls to carry it through and go well down the path of fixing the massive cock up of trying to do regime change on the cheap (not enough boots on the ground). Whatever your views on Iraq it is incontrovertible that the US changed the situation there dramatically and as a result there is a serious need for rebuilding of governance and security. If you support or supported (it’s a bit bloody late to change your tune now) the war then you support finishing the job. If you don’t support the war then you have an obligation to clean up your shit before you go – so you must support finishing the job. Obama wants out and has no clear idea of how to do it.
I actually wonder if he ran to build profile and experience not expecting to win. He has painted himself into some corners that are just not realistic (or at least plain dumb) policy to implement. He has started to twist and turn a bit on Iraq (thank goodness) – almost if he is looking for wiggle room in case he wins.
He might be popular in Europe but that is hardly a ringing endorsement. Inept bludgers with over inflated sense of self worth that they are. Hell, the other NATO countries (save for UK, Canada and, to a lesser extent, the Dutch) still can’t quite take their role in Afghanistan seriously and realise that they are meant to be fighting a war not just talking about Nato’s role in world affairs.
Obama is a lightweight. One can only hope that McCain will pull off a second miracle akin to that in the primaries.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
“…growwing suspicion in The USA…”
fascinating. Where?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Token John Key parallel – substitute him for Obama and ‘a land of milk and honey’ for ‘positive international relations’.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
partial birth abortions anyone? tough sell over there!
if he does win office, just hope no chick gets assassinated in pakistan again! cause the hope of america.. the candidiate of change wanted to invade hahaha
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Or when Iran declares itself nuclear capable?”
Well if he’s anything like our reactionary Kiwiblog conservative friends he’ll start screaming “they’re going to wipe out Israel”, after the Iranian President says that he wishes that the current Israeli ruling regime were “wiped from the pages of history”.
Let’s face it, if you’re a country in the Middle East that wants to run its affairs independant from US control, you have to be able to defend yourself against invasion.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
“Nome, you might think Bin Laden & co…….”
Well, George Bush Senior didn’t think they were that bad….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/jun/16/features.magazine57
Also why isn’t the US investigating the man who financed 9/11? Is it because of the fact that the CIA appointed him to his position of “Pakistani ISI director” by treaty?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html
Or could it be conected to the fact that….
Chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11.
Maybe there’s more to this whole “terrorism” thing than you can learn through the American MSM?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Roger
Let me get this right, is it fair to say that you subscribe to the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when it comes to the USA?
If so can you please tell me all the good and great things that Osman bin Laden has done for the world?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Bruv:
“please tell me all the good and great things that Osman bin Laden has done for the world?”
Well he helped lead the muhajedeen to victory against the Russians in Afganistan didn’t he?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
who supplied the funding for that operation roger? do the US get any credit?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“It will be interesting for how long Obama will be able to stick to his line that the surge has failed.”
Disingenuous statement to make there Mr Farrar.
In a debate held during the Primary season Obama said this:
“I think it is indisputable that we’ve seen violence reduced in Iraq. And that’s a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. In fact, you know, the First Cavalry, out of Fort Hood, played an enormous role in pushing back al-Qaida out of Baghdad. And, you know, we honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.”
So y’know, it’s not so black and white as to whether he says the surge has failed.
And Nigel201065 ya big mental, why don’t you go here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert or here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg
In fact, holy shit! John McCain wasn’t born in the USA. He was born in Panama.
However he is still a naturalised American meaning no biggie.
If that’s all you got on him, then for shame.
And Ryan, I think you’ll find Obama’s middle name is actually “I’m a secret Muslim communist hell bent on Jihading the world”
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
We’ll learn about Obama’s ability to respond to crisis sooner than we think; some time in late August/early September the GOP attacks will begin in earnest and his capacity to manage the damage inflicted on himself and his campaign will determine whether or not he becomes president.
I’m guessing the avenue of attack will be slightly more sophisticated than the birth certificate/covert muslim canards – these are compelling to the intellectually handicapped but not terribly interesting to anyone else. I’m guessing the scandal will involve Obama’s early career in Chicago and revolve around criminal or financial improprieties connected to his work as a community organiser (accusations of sexual impropriety are possible but less likely).
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Danyl spare us your patronising leftist twaddle-wankery. Those who have realistic concerns about Obama’s religion and upbringing are not the intellectually handicapped, rather it’s those like you who attempt to wave off justifiable fears for the future of America at the hands of a muslim President informed by militant atheism that show a profound lack of the ole grey matter.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Yeah, his Chicago ties will be the easiest to exploit. Chicago is a political cesspit.
“But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.”
Is he saying that the Surge was a blunder or the whole invasion? It looks like he means the Surge, and that the actions of the 1st Cavs was the tactical victory.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
“muslim President informed by militant atheism”
lol – stop it man; my sides hurt.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
david c – obama rallied against the surge big time. he was wrong.
the fact that he can now admit it was the correct move.. doesnt umm make him correct…
“that wont work”.. it did work.. “told ya it would work?” wtf?
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
That’s not what he said Dime.
He said: “this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder”.
I read that to mean that he views the surge as a nice tasty cherry put atop an aborted foetus.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Those who have realistic concerns about Obama’s religion and upbringing are not the intellectually handicapped
I’m sorry, I meant to say cognitively challenged. Don’t let anyone tell you you’re not a whole person.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
So does this mean that any hope NZ might have of a free trade deal with the US goes out of the window with the election of President Obama?
Answer … is Winston Peters a hypocrite.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“i thought the latest polls showed obama and mccain as even?”
They do. What’s this stuff about Obama being a shoe in? I mean that’s what the left and/ or their mainstream media plants both want, but the man is in reality an incredibly hopeless blatherer and it amazes me that he’s managing to stay level with McCain, even given McCain’s own unforgivable weaknesses.
It is a measure of the hypocrisy and shallowness of the left that after almost eight years of whining about George Bush being dumb, they all support this utter dufus Obama, who truly makes Bush look like Einstein.
If the American people are actually dumb and uninformed enough (or like perhaps Danny, ‘cognitively challenged” enough) to fall for the gimmicky crap and transparent propaganda that underpins this drooling idiot’s campaign, and elect such a fraud and charlatan as President, then they deserve everything that will befall them.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
david c
McCain was born in Panama, to American parents, so therefore he is not a naturalised American.
A naturalised American cannot become the President of the USA, hence why Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become President.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Ha! Semantic madness!
That’ll learn me for using big words that I’m unsure of.
Isn’t that right Redbaiter?
“Shoe in” indeed
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“I read that to mean that he views the surge as a nice tasty cherry put atop an aborted foetus.”
I strongly disagree. After reading it again I am very confident he meant that the actions of the 1st Cavs in pushing AQ out of Baghdad was the tactical victory, but overall the Surge was a strategic blunder. The Surge was strategic afterall.
All he was doing there was criticising the Surge, without wanting to appear as if he was disrespecting the servicemen involved. He was saying “yes violence is down, but the credit goes to the troops on the ground, not the people who made the decision to increase the number of troops on the ground.”
And then he can accuse anyone who points out that his statement was complete nonsense of being anti-troop.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
What lead? After a week of wall to wall fawning media coverage and a series of killer photo ops and the two most reputable polls of LIKELY voters (a far more reliable indicator than Registered Voters) Rasmussan has Obama at +1 and Gallup/USA has McCain at +4. A slew of recent polls in battleground states has McCain gaining on Obama.
I laughed at Buchanan’s “baring some unanticipated event”. I guess his choosing to go to the gym and not see the wounded troops might be one of those unanticipated events. If this is the best Obama can do with a gale force media tail wind, wait until the GOP roll the ads Danyl anticipates. One of these could be the ‘whitey’ tape unearthed by the Guliani campaign and reportedly being kept on ice until the last 3 weeks. Michelle Obama is allegedly caught on video at a Louis Farakhan sponsored event railing against whitey. If true this will get Jeremiah Wright style coverage. GOP insiders I know call Obama the target rich candidate and that they have so much material to use against him (much of it his own contradictory positions all on tape) that they have to be careful to match the material to the right target demographs in key swing states.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
What is wrong with that?
Olavo de Carvalho
Laigle’s Forum, July 9, 2008
Translated by Donald Hank
Olavo de Carvalho is a philosopher and the author of several books. He writes for three very influential dailies in Brazil. His articles can be found at [url=http://www.olavodecarvalho.org]http://www.olavodecarvalho.org[/url] and [url=http://www.midiasemmascara.org]http://www.midiasemmascara.org[/url]
“Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.
For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.
With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”
Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?
Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?
Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”
Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.”
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Did you write that then pushmepullu2?
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/10015.html
*snort*
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I’m with Redbaiter, it’s a long time to go until the elections and while the foreign press has been fawning all over Obama, voters will only start thinking about the election in September and then the polls with start to show the real picture (as far as polls can).
Vote:I still think that by the time people will come around to vote Obama’s complete inexperience and shallowness will be glaringly obvious, that coupled with McCain’s traditional appeal to moderate Democrats could well see people decide to go for a moderate and experienced Republican president over an inexperienced and light weight Democrat.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
“I’m guessing the scandal will involve Obama’s early career in Chicago and revolve around criminal or financial improprieties connected to his work as a community organiser (accusations of sexual impropriety are possible but less likely).”
the Reps might very well try something like this but I don’t think there’s a lot of amunition. We’ve already had the Mad Preacher (x2) and the Crooked Property Developer. That probably puts him on par with most US politicians. As for sex scandels, I doubt it. It’s probably the only thing that sets him apart from Bill Clinton.
His Chicago early days should have given some of his more worshipful lefty supporters cause for concern but there really isn’t a lot there.
But the Buchanan piece is pretty good. There’s very few commentators out there that are saying much intelligent on all of this.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
What is wrong with that?
Olavo de Carvalho
July 9, 2008
Translated by Donald Hank
Olavo de Carvalho is a philosopher and the author of several books. He writes for three very influential dailies in Brazil.
“Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.
For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience – and with below-minimal political experience – to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.
With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”
Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?
Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols – the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed – Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?
Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system – which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”
Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.”
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“Obama is so utterly weird …”
I disagree. What has been very very weird and patholigical has been the sort of worship he got from some left-wing pundits. He was a Saint and Hillary was “evil”. Whereas in reality they were much of a muchness. And Obama has pointed this phenomemon out on numerous occasions. But so many pundits for some odd reason, even here in NZ where one would hope to have a more dispassionate view on the US political scene, were determined to mytholigise Obama.
he’s a regular centre-left politician.
Vote:July 30th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
It will be good to see McCain win the presidential election. Nice of the democrats to put up such a lightweight candidate.
At the end of the day America will do what America wants to do. The rest of the world to varying degrees doesn’t like that but are powerless to stop them.
It’s like that and that’s the way it is.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:15 am
“I think it will take something quite big to remove his lead.”
Obama hasnt got much of lead. 2.5% according to Real Clear Politics average of polls. And he hasnt come under the blow torch yet. Clinton showed how vulnerable he is under attack.
“This will be fascinating. We probably have not had a protectionist in office since Jimmy Carter. Arguably Bush was semi-protectionist in action if not in rhetoric. McCain would be the most pro free trade President the US has had. I suspect Obama will drop much of his protectionist rhetoric in office, but will not see out any free trade opportunities. I see very little hope for a successful WTO round under Obama.”
to be honest, I don’t think he has strong views either way. He doesnt come from a working class background, so protecting blue collar jobs won’t be a priority. He went anti-nafta during the primaries because thats where the votes were but at same time signalled to the Canadian ambassador he didnt really mean it.
His position will probably be whatever the NY times is
“I can’t see him sticking with his undivided Jerusalem pledge.”
Well, it was really a pledge – just saying he supported Israel’s demands to annex the palestinian parts of Jerusalem. Since Bush senior american presidents have virtually surrendered any moral authority to pressure Israel, so it really doesnt matter what he thinks.
Israel will only concede whatever Hamas can pressure it into conceding.
“Obama may find, like Kevin Rudd, that people blame the Government for a lack of supply.”
Oil prices have probably peaked for a little bit.
“It will be interesting for how long Obama will be able to stick to his line that the surge has failed.”
a. There wasnt a surge in the first place. Increases in US troop numbers barely balanced those of allies pulling out.
b. Much of the reduction in violence happened before the surge with the socall Anbar awakening. Basically the US bribed a whole lot of Sunni tribes to stop attacking them but instead pretend to attack a phantom entity called AQ in Iraq. As the first inducement was wads of cash, and the 2nd inducement was that being non-existent AQ in Iraq didnt fire back, even the most fanatical Sunni sheik was going to find that combination hard to resist.
There is no reason to think that the surge without the piles of cash funneled to Iraqi warlords would have had much effect.
“I think Obama will have more positive relations initially than Bush (or McCain). But as Paul says the test will come with his first crisis. What does he do when North Korea starts building nukes again? Or when Iran declares itself nuclear capable?”
NK have done some rather extensive deconstruction of its facilities, so with even a modicum of diplomatic thought is unlikely to start building nukes.
IAEA can find no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is anything but what it claims – a civilian program. I would be far more comfortable with Iran having nukes that a flakey country like Pakistan. In a nutshell, any country with a strong central government can probably be trusted with nukes, any country that is fragmented and liable to fall apart or be talibanised, like Pakistan, is a bit more worrying.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
“he’s a regular centre-left politician.”
Yup. Just with a whole host of intangibiles that people like.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:27 am
As the previous post about the annoyed columnist showed, the newspaper editing process can be fraught for both editor and author. In trying to condense the original think piece to meet the Herald’s Dialogue page requirements (+/- 900 words), much was left on the cutting floor. Scoop has kindly agreed to publish the original full length essay, which for those who may be interested is located at:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00345.htm
The thrust of the argument is that as an inexperienced first term president, Obama can expect a foreign policy test early in his tenure, whereas McCain would not. The reasons are detailed in the Scoop article.
Also, for the record: I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
“I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him”
Not familally perhaps but I think your concerns about Obama’s policies to make America less strongly defended are very much in line with the criticisms Buchanan would make
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Buchanan: “Also, for the record: I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him.”
Oh dear, there goes pushmepullu2′s “real genuine hope for the future of the New Zealand right if they are finally allowing the intellectual vigour of US conservatism to inform them.” Really, Pat Buchanan intellectually vigorous?! LOL
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Pete, I know this will come as a shock to you but advocating dragging down the successful and rewarding the lazy is actually NOT a prime sign of intellectual vigour
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:34 am
“Oh dear, there goes pushmepullu2’s “real genuine hope for the future of the New Zealand right if they are finally allowing the intellectual vigour of US conservatism to inform them.” Really, Pat Buchanan intellectually vigorous?! LOL”
Snigger away Mr. Smugness. You’re not immune to the odd gaffe or two yourself, and its interesting watching you and other soldiers of the left trying to cheer on Obama on the one hand and criticise John Key on the other, when their style and strategy is in some ways so similar. You’d have to step pretty carefully I reckon.
..and at least ol’ Patrick hasn’t been nasty to any poor little Saudi girls.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Redbaiter I don’t see any similiarity between Key and Obama myself. One is an energetic entrepreneur and self-made man who has worked for his money, the other is a waffling intellectual whose every success has been due to affirmative action. One wants a robust defense against Islamic terror the other wants to surrender just at the moment of victory because he lacks the personal courage to order a continuing war. One wants to liberate the economy from stifling restrictions and one wants to smother enterprise under a mountain of purposeless interventions aimed only at assuaging the liberal faithful and their environemntalist-communist religion. Sorry, but they are as different as night and day.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 11:48 am
Danyl
>
??I’m guessing the avenue of attack will be slightly more sophisticated than the birth certificate/covert Muslim canards – these are compelling to the intellectually handicapped but not terribly interesting to anyone else.
>
Then these are the way to go! The great unwashed (voters) in the USA are generally regarded as being intellectually handicapped (yo bro wasup like really) so these are the things that will influence their vote!
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Re PAT Buchanan, it’s amazing how much he and the anti-war, anti-free trade Left AGREE on……..
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
From Thomas SOWELL’s latest column:
“Although most of the mainstream media are still swooning over Barack Obama, a few critics are calling the things he advocates “naive.” But that assumes that he is trying to solve the country’s problems. If he is trying to solve his own problem of getting elected, then he is telling the voters just what they want to hear. That is not naive but shrewd and cynical.”
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Journalistic Presumptive And Real Journalistic Demise
By Paul M. Weyrich
July 30, 2008
“It was an unusually warm January day in Washington as President-elect Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office administered by longtime Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Stevens already had administered the oath of office to Vice President-elect Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who had been picked by Obama because he was perceived to be a middle-of-the-road man. Recent reporting has revealed that Bayh shares most of Obama’s radical views on issues. The packed Capitol Plaza waited with eager anticipation as now President Obama was about to deliver a rhetorical masterpiece, for which he had become famous.
Have trouble recalling how Obama had bested Senator John Sidney McCain, III? Was it the Electoral College which elected Obama or the popular vote or both? No one seems to remember.
No one seems to remember because there was no election. It began with the presumptive nominee’s trip to the Middle East and Europe. The Obama campaign began referring to the candidate as if he already were president. That, while politically risky, is certainly understandable. What is not understandable is how many in the media went along with what the campaign fed them. They began to treat the Senator from Illinois as if he already had been elected president. These are media types who believe that perception is reality. If they can convince the electorate that Senator Obama already is president the election will become a mere formality. In fact, the election is a sort of tolerated nuisance in their eyes.
It might have worked but for the contempt the electorate has for the media. I saw at least half a dozen interviews on cables over the air networks. In every case voters said, “He is behaving as if he were already elected.” Most said, “That isn’t right.” What shocked the reporters, who were stuck hanging around with McCain as he campaigned in small-town America while their anchors reported live from Obama’s trip, was how the voters got it. A number identified themselves as Democrats. One even said he was an Obama supporter. The tracking polls confirmed what these voters told the reporters. The campaign believed this trip would give Obama a big bump, putting Senator Obama permanently ahead in what has been up to now a surprisingly tight race with Senator McCain. It didn’t turn out that way. In every tracking poll Senator Obama actually lost support. He had opened a six-point lead at the beginning of the trip. Depending on which tracking poll one prefers, Obama’s lead decreased to either four, three or two points. Individual states were even more dramatic. In no state did his support increase. In some states where he had gone ahead substantially his support either reversed the trend or is now behind. They include Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan, among others.
There are lessons here for both campaigns and the media. Campaigns must be respectful of the America voter. Campaigns which put their candidate ahead of the candidate’s actual position run the risk of appearing arrogant. It would take something cataclysmic for both Obama and McCain not to receive their party’s nomination. Yet the voters want to see that it really happens, in Denver and Minneapolis. Lesson for the media? If the media has any chance to regain the credibility it has lost with the American voter it ought to pounce on any campaign which markets its candidate as if he already were president. The media which goes along with this planned deception will hammer its own nails in its own coffin. Extremely partisan voters might like it but the average citizen will be angered by media partisanship.
You can bet that the presidential candidates’ handlers have watched what happened on this trip and I am willing to wager that they will not repeat this mistake again. The real question is: did the media learn the lesson of treating an un-nominated candidate as if he already were elected? I am willing to wager the media has not. 2008 forever will be remembered as the year real journalism died in the USA.”
—
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pm
O’s Tour De Farce
By Amir Taheri
New York Post | Wednesday, July 30, 2008
“TERMED a “learning” trip, Sen. Barack Obama’s eight-day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe turned out to be little more than a series of photo ops to enhance his international credentials.
“He looked like a man in a hurry,” a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week. “He was not interested in what we had to say.”
Still, many Iraqis liked Obama’s claim that the improved situation in Iraq owed to Iraqi efforts rather than the Gen. David Petraeus-led surge. In public and private comments, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would’ve achieved the same results even without the greater resources America has poured into the country since 2007.
In private, though, Iraqi officials admit that Obama’s analysis is “way off the mark.” Without the surge, the Sunni tribes wouldn’t have switched sides to help flush out al Qaeda. And the strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad.
Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician wants to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than the man who may become the next US president.
Iraqis were most surprised by Obama’s apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq simply to prove that he’d been right in opposing the 2003 overthrow of Saddam Hussein. “He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States,” a senior Iraqi official told me. “As far as he is concerned, this is Bush’s war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat.” ……….”
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
phil-the-inferior is a thread-killer beyond par..eh..?
..and i’m sure it came as somewhat of a shock for paul buchanan that a rabid rightie reading his words..
..thinks he’s ol’ (rabid) pat buchanan..
(brilliant..!..)
phil(whoarconz)
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Yeah, brilliant, philu.
Can your addled intellect follow THIS sequence of exchanges?
Paul G. Buchanan (16) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 10:27 am
“……….for the record: I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him.”
# pushmepullu2 (13) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
“I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him”
“Not familally perhaps but I think your concerns about Obama’s policies to make America less strongly defended are very much in line with the criticisms Buchanan would make”
# jafapete (652) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 10:43 am
Buchanan: “Also, for the record: I am not Patrick Buchanan (as pushmepullyou2 2:43Pm July 30 seems to believe), nor am I ideologically or familialy related to him.”
“Oh dear, there goes pushmepullu2’s “real genuine hope for the future of the New Zealand right if they are finally allowing the intellectual vigour of US conservatism to inform them.” Really, Pat Buchanan intellectually vigorous?! LOL”
# pushmepullu2 (13) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Pete, I know this will come as a shock to you but advocating dragging down the successful and rewarding the lazy is actually NOT a prime sign of intellectual vigour”
# PhilBest (2064) +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“Re PAT Buchanan, it’s amazing how much he and the anti-war, anti-free trade Left AGREE on……..”
If you don’t understand by now, I don’t care, anyone else reading this, will.
Vote:July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
understand what..?..moron..!
that you can copy and paste from the very thread you are on..?..as well..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
philu (2519) Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“understand what..?.”
I rest my case.
And the “moron” is not me.
Vote: