Cliff LyonPresident Obama. Our African Prince. Re-Birth of a Nation
For the first time in my life, I am really proud of my country.
…and congratulations to First Lady Elect Michelle Obama.
In 2004, there was talk about how “the people have spoken” and how this was a “clear mandate” that gave Bush “political capital”. However, if that was the second straight questionable election which hung on one state which resulted in under 300 electoral votes, a questionable 3% popular vote spread, then this year’s results can only be called one thing:
A total, complete and utter ass kicking - a rejection of conservative policies, republican “values” as well as politics of fear and hate. A landslide, if you will.
There is no other way to spin this, although all too many are trying to call this a call for bipartisanship and compromise and even Harry Reid said this is not a mandate for one political party.
This is a rejection of the “center-right” meme. This is a rejection of supply side economics. This is a rejection of the policies that have helped Big Oil, Wall Street, cronies and those who don’t need (or deserve) it. This is a call for change, as wel all know. This is a call for basic affordable healthcare for all. This is a call for an end to the aggressive and stupid foreign policy. This is a call to help, not hurt, the middle class. This is an overwhelming cry to get this country back on track here at home as well as abroad. This is a call to better educate our children, fix our infrastructure and most importantly, toss out the failed conservative agenda that has plagued us for the past 30+ years.
This was a call to take our country back. And while this is the first in a long series of potentially painful steps, make no mistake:
The country has spoken.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:22 am
As President-Elect Obama would be the first to point out, from here on out it only gets harder.
This morning, I turned on the TV and there was Bush still in the White House. Yesterday, while almost no one was looking, the Bush administration announced that it will open up nearly 360,000 more acres of Utah public lands to oil and gas drilling. What other last-minute tricks are they going to pull?
Our national security policy is still controlled by Bush, and the transition is going to be difficult. Many political appointees in the Pentagon are trying to keep their jobs. There will be a lot of resistance before the Obama administration will be able to re-think strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan.
November 5th, 2008 at 9:40 am
For our right-wing friends: get your IMPEACH OBAMA gear here. T-shirts, caps, lawn signs, mugs, teddy bears, thongs…
November 5th, 2008 at 9:50 am
On what grounds, Richie?
Oh! I get it!
The same grounds that you wanted to impeach Bush.
Well, that’s….
err…Vaporware…………..
November 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Richard,
Some of us will act rationally and wait to see if Obama does something illegal. If he does something illegal or unconstitutional, that would be the time to call for his impeachment.
It will be interesting to see who Obama names for the various posts. I can see Colin Powell returning to the State Dept.
November 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Bob S,
What kind of illegal act would cause you to call for Obama to be impeached?
November 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Last night Barack Obama said he wants to end extreme partisanship but the very next day he names Ron Emanuel, who once said “Republicans can “f***” themselves”, as his Chief of Staff. Obama has already showing that last nights well delivered speech was in his own words “Just words, just speeches”. I’m already disappointed but not surprised. His naming of an extreme partisan as his chief of staff and this being his first act as President elect is only going to validate our concerns of an Obama Presidency.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I never called for President Bush’s impeachment until after December 2005, when he publicly admitted to authorizing widespread illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans. If the right wing agrees to wait until President Obama also confesses to an impeachable offense, then we’re even.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Ken,
As you can imagine, it is not partisan to call a spade a spade. The republican party has aided and abetted the administration in the deliberate destruction of this country.
They supported the criminal activity of the Justice department and the white house in protecting certain accessories from oversight and disobeying subpoenas.
The list of crimes perpetrated by republicans is very long. Indictments will continue long into the future.
You must learn to distinguish between partisanship and the pursuit of justices. If you were a real patriotic American, you would stand firmly for the rule of law.
I can assure you, we the people who elected Obama overwhelmingly, will not allow republican and administration crimes against America to go unpunished.
You may call it partisanship. I call it truth, fact, and the law.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ken:
What you do not appear to appreciate is that Republicans did, indeed, go f*** themselves. They fr***ked themselves so badly they lost what was once perceived to be their impenetrable power for the next 1,000 years. Get over yourself!
November 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Ken,
Aside from an ever shrinking number of honorable Republicans, Obama’s choices for appointment can only be drawn from those who have inevitably and for very good reason, uttered those very same words.
One question: Where would extreme partisanship end and a more moderate sort begin, especially in the face of Grover Norquists’ famous metaphor likening bi-partisonship to Date-rape. Now, you wanna date? I need to talk to my friends about character questions. I’ll get back with you. Maybe.
November 5th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Ken,
It’s RAHM Emmanuel. Not “Ron”.
Cliff?
Really, now?
Show us your list.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Cliff
I do put a lot of the blame on Bush for the destruction of the Republican party. The only way Republicans will ever get back in the good graces of the American people is to get back to conservative principles and actually live them and not just give them lip service.
You may want to get your bound of flesh and see every member of the Bush administration behind bars but if Obama pursues this once he is in office it will dominate his first couple of years in office. This is the reason Bush didn’t go after Clinton administration officials once he came into office. Obama could easily squander the first half of his presidency if he chooses to go that direction and he knows it.
I know some of you will be angry if the minute he is sworn into office he doesn’t point to Bush and say “Sgt at arms, arrest that man!”. But don’t be surprised if he too gives the Bush administration a pass for the sake of his own Presidency.
November 5th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
can you be more specific? what officials? what crimes?
November 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Not surprizingly it is also the reason the Clinton administration did not go after the preceeding Bush admin for such crimes as they commited. See: Iran / Contra, and more generally, the entire set of wars, in Central and South America. See, also: Somalia (a gift from George senior that Clinton refused to accept).
November 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Wait for it!
Now the republicans are going to call for bipartisanship and cooperation.
Screw that! I think we should go Christmas shopping with our political capital!
The Republicans will sit down, shut up, follow the example of the Democrats and give Obama every single thing he asks for while he’s in office!
IMPEACH BUSH!
November 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Please do.
PLEASE!!!!!
November 5th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Larry
I have no doubt the Democrats will overplay thier hand and wind up in trouble during the midterm Congressional elections. Democrats have two years and if things don’t improve or if they get worse they will get all the blame.
Obama is going to have to cooperate with Republicans because he did not get the 60 vote majority in the Senate. This means you can forget about some of the more vindictive legistlation like the “fairness doctrine” .
It has now been proven that Republicans cannot win without the conservative base so we are going to hold every Republican Senator’s feet to the fire and demand they philibuster radical judge appointments and far left legislation. If Republicans play thier cards right (and I don’t have much faith they will) they can wield great power even during the Obama administration. They just need to grow spines, ignore the press, not care if they aren’t invited to Washington DC parties, and stick with conservative principles.
November 5th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
In other words, the ‘Right’ (read: Wrong) has grown attached to feeding sh*t into the fan, and will, if not stopped some more, find ways to continue doing so. Brilliant!
November 5th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ken:
Only you could see fairness as being vindictive. The fact that being fair would end the careers of Limbaugh and Hannity is illustrative of the fact that they are incapable of arguing the truth with anybody they didn’t agree to have on the show.
November 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Ken,
When you say,
Which are you? One of the good conservatives, or one of the deficit spending, big gov’t neo-cons that just got tossed.
I always associated you will the wreckless big gov’t neocons.
I’m sooo confused
November 5th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Cliff
What do you mean I am a big government neocon. I am a traditional small government conservative. I despise big government, and deficit spending. One thing I hope is this will be the end of the neocon pseudo-conservative. What I want to see is the conservative movement get back to its traditional roots of limited government that is accountable. To be honest I will not miss George Bush. I will not hold him with the same admiration and awe that I feel for a President like Ronald Reagan. In fact if there is one man that shaped my world view it was President Reagan.
The conservative movement was high-jacked by the neo-cons that were actually ex-liberals that came over to our side but kept too much of their big government high spending inclinations. Its time to take back the movement from the neocons and get back to traditional conservatives based on Constitutional principles. True conservatism is actually classical liberalism before that was high-jacked by leftists. The type of conservatism I stand for can be found in the federalist papers and the writings of John Lock. Traditional conservatism is about individual liberty and understands that the freedom this country enjoys is always in peril and is unique in the history of Human kind. In 1776 with the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of our Constitution in 1792 something happened that had never occurred in the History of mankind, that a new government was established that was not based on the rule of men but rather the liberation and freedom of all citizens.
That is what I stand for.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Ah Ken, That explains EVERYTHING. The neocons were actually liberals. Got it.
I don’t remember you complaining about the creation of homeland security or say the deficit spending on the war and the use of supplimentals.
Honestly, I don’t remember you criticizing the Bush administration in any way shape or for until it was safe for you.
Lucky for you, there is a physical record here and on your blog.
If you could point out any evidence of your new found ‘traditional conservatism’, I’m here to listen.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Ken:
Thought you might find some helpful material for your wingnut rants in the following:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/a-childs-garden-of-right_n_141609.html
November 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Larry
The “fairness doctrine” is not about fairness. It is about destroying talk radio. While we had the fairness doctrine AM radio played mostly music and not in stereo. There were some talk stations but they were very local and mainly talked about local issues. Things have changed a lot since then. Talk radio was not a force and there were few groups that really cared enough to demand equal time. However now there are so many groups that to accommodate them all would be impossible.
Removing the fairness doctrine saved the AM band. In fact before Rush Limbaugh came along many radio and stereo manufacturers stopped including the AM band. If it wasn’t for lifting the law and Rush Limbaugh there would be no AM band today.
If the fairness doctrine comes back there will be no more talk radio, conservative or liberal. One misconception about the fairness doctrine it is not about having a liberal talk show host for every conservative. It actually works like this, Say Rush says something controversial that some group, or organization disagrees with. Every Radio station in the country that plays Rush would be required by law to give that organization time to refute what Rush has said. This would be impossible for radio stations to comply with and stay in business. They would have to drop all political commentators and run gardening shows. This would also effect liberal talk show hosts as well. Talk radio will cease to exist and the AM band will go away.
During the election it was one thing for Democrats to threaten to bring back the “fairness doctrine” but now that they are actually in power if they actually do try and bring it back then they have become tyrannically that seeks to silence the opposition. Now that they are in power it is there Constitutional duty to protect the rights of those with opposing viewpoints, especially the viewpoints of those out of power.
I vehemently oppose liberalism but I would just as vehemently oppose any government action that seeks to silence liberals. If you truly believe in freedom of speech then you must believe in the freedom of all speech especially the speech that is un-popular. It doesn’t mean you have to like it and it doesn’t mean the persons speech is valid or even worth listening to or their speech should be free of consequences to their reputations but you should never be so arrogant as to say someone has no right to say something or to try and silence them via government action.
November 5th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Ken, you will never understand the fairness doctrine or the concept of fairness. You are the poster child for liars!
November 5th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Cliff
Here is some light reading for you.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTlhN2UxNjY0YmFhMmM4NGIyYjM3NjRjMGZkMmU4N2I=
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080812160747.aspx
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/fairness_doctrine.aspx
November 5th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Wow. Ken, those last two posts are the most lucid I’ve seen from you.
And both were excellent explanations of the difference between traditional Goldwater/Reagan conservatives and Neo-Cons and a great write-up on the vapidity of the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Kudos.
Cliff, your misunderstanding of the fact that the NeoCons WERE former liberals says it all. Once again, you’ve proven that you have no f”in idea what you are talking about. Geez, Man….just a quick look at Wikipedia before you open your yap.
Or, is it somehow in your interest that people think you are a clown?
November 6th, 2008 at 12:38 am
If AM radio can only succeed by having pigs like Limbaugh on making greedy people feel better about themselves, then let it die. FM sounds much better and has NPR which is very popular and educational. Personalities on NPR actually try to tell the truth, which means you might learn something important while listening.
Other then the fact that George W. Bush put cronies in charge of some areas that affected the programming on NPR, it had a policy of fairness built in, because they saw their purpose as serving the community and nation. They must be giddy at the thought they can serve us better now that Obama is going to put people with integrity back where they belong.
November 6th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Dick Cheney was a liberal?
Who could have imagined.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
No. But Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick and David Horowitz were.
Socially, at least.
Neo-conservatism is a pretty interesting movement. It’s worth some research.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jd, before I actually do the researsh, I’ll suggest that these individuals’ involvement in liberalism was, in their opinion, something of a youthful folly. Their true niche and calling came in the Con (conversion) part of their lives.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Socially? JD Socially WHAT? Socially, Republicans are drunks who pick their president using “drinking buddy” standards.
Socially what JD?
Are all beer drinkers conservatives?
November 6th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Socially as opposed to fiscally, Cliff. I’m starting to think that your reading skills are as laughable as your math skills.
And we’re not talking about Republicans. We’re discussing NeoCons.
Cav - many are still social liberals. NeoCons are a little more libertarian on the social issues. They don’t care about Gays or God. Guns, maybe (that’s a libertarian issue for them).
Check out the Wiki entry.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I MEANT socially meat head. You are the one that didn’t finish the statement.
I see you are not conceding on the diff between approval ratings and voting. Is that because you are too embarrassed to admit being wrong? Or because you are half in the bag already?
November 6th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
You’re cross posting, Cliff. Put down the Strawberry Hill.
In what context do you mean “socially”. Social in a political sense, or a convivial sense?
And of course I’m not conceding. Your proposition is laughable. Not even Larry is leaping to your defense.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
JD,
I really cannot stopp to debating whether or not the neocons were at some point liberal.
This is more of the same BS. Like ascribing all of Ayers characteristics to Obama, and in the next sentence blaming him for ACORN, or any of a million associations.
I imagine you pecking away in a state of hysteria over the collapse of you sick world view.
Where else do you blog?
Who really loves you?
November 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
NeoCon - by definition - means former liberal.
You did attend those PoliSci classes, didn’t you?
November 6th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
“Moved to the right”. What does that mean?
I know: Sell-out asshole (neocon = republican).
What you don’t get Jd is that we are not a tribe like you. It’s about what you think not what you obey.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I feel like I’m arguing with a third-grader.
Cliff - do some research on the terminology. Some basic reading (start with Wikipedia) and get back to me.
Until then - I’ll just have to assume that the noise coming from you is fueled by Boones Farm.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
I thought they were adherents of the Straussian notion that: (paraphrasing) The masses were asses, and our sort, if shrewd enough and merciless enough, could install ourselves at the top with little risk, and much to gain.
Wheather or not they were ever ‘liberals’, a time and impetus came to move on their greed to power,…voila…the modern republicans!
I’m glad they’ve been swatted, even though I know full well they’ll be back for their “Due”.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Ah. Cav reads…. Could you show Cliff the pretty pictures?
Yes, in part. There’s that whole “make the world a better place and ensure America’s place in it by spreading Democracy” thing, too.
And for the most part, they were the driving force behind the Republicans (paleos like Buchanan were left behind).
Did they do it exclusively for power? If it makes you feel better - go ahead and believe that.
But in the majority, they were liberals who became disenchanted by the excesses of the New Left.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Maybe some of both?
I mean, did not the question, “What’s in it for me?” ever cross their minds? That’s a stretch.
November 7th, 2008 at 12:55 am
‘Check out the wiki entry”. Did it and it just hurts my head.
First, the seeming altruism is a lie, plain and simple. Spreading democracy! = Accountability Moment. Works for them, I guess. Now bring in the guns and rapers.
Second, and here’s the funny part, I have seen Wiki entries spun, ammended and laughably contorted - so much so that it gave new meaning to ‘LOL’. Bumping entries can be a lot of fun, especially when done in the fashion of fast-paced blogg entering, where the definition grows from the just entered platform, quickly leaping to preposterous reaches.
I’m not saying there’s any of that related to the ‘NEOCONSERVATISM’ entry, but it’s often far from definitive.
I did not see any of the pretty pictures you referenced. Is my demanding a link unfair? Are there any Mushroom Clouds?
November 7th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Here’s a web site I haven’t visited in awhile: Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the home site of American neo-cons.
It doesn’t appear to have been updated since 2006. But I learned something interesting with today’s visit. Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s foreign affairs advisor, is a Director of PNAC. So much for the maverick.
Anyway, peruse the site, read the letters and the names signed to them. It’s straight up and for real.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Becky, PNAC is defunct, along with their ideas– I heard their site was taken down a while ago. But never fear, Bill Kristol wants to bring it back.
Randy Scheunemann is a professional warmonger. Ahmed Chalabi was his client from the late 1990s, and with Scheunemann and Senator McCain’s help he steered the USA toward an invasion of Iraq. A current Scheunemann client is Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who started a war this year in the hope of dragging America into it. McCain played along with that stratagem, too, grandly declaring “we are all Georgians now.”
November 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Richard, I doubt the Leo Strauss theories will die so easily. They will emerge again in a different form, no doubt. But the PNAC website is certainly an interesting read in retrospect. They did accomplish their goals in Iraq, albeit with far different results than they anticipated. Most of the original signers to those statements have faded from public view and recent history has already refuted their grand schemes.
Incidentally, isn’t it interesting how Bill Kristol loves to use the term “elitism” to describe liberals? Those neo-conservatives were the ultimate elitists.
November 7th, 2008 at 8:07 am
I forgot to mention that another Scheunemann client is the government of Colombia, which nearly started a war with Venezuela last summer. McCain visited Colombia during the campaign.
If McCain made it to the White House, how many wars would Scheunemann have been able to start? Iran and Syria are on the neocon list too.
Barack Obama could bring sane Republicans such as Chuck Hagel into his administration as a way to marginalize what’s left of the neocons.
November 7th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Sorry, Cav - I was trying to lure Cliff into some knowledge seeking with the “pretty picture” comment. The way you treat a dog when teaching it to heel…
There are some great books about the NeoCons. Try “Rise of the Vulcans”. No pictures - so Sorry, Cliff.
Becky’s right (for the most part about PNAC). It’s not as nefarious as it seems. It was never secret - but a lot of it is “inside baseball”. It’s the sort of conversation that friends have with friends, with frank opinions uncluttered by the need to assuage feelings or remain politically correct.
Richard’s take on Scheunemann is rank hyperbole (as usual). Are you sure that Scheunemann isn’t also the anti-christ? Didn’t he also ruin your steak at the Sizzler?
McCain was never a NeoCon. He never saw the utility. Trying to make him out to be one is simply guilt by association (remember that conversation, Becky?).
November 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Brad at Sadly, No! explains how the neocons helped sink the GOP (emphasis added):
November 7th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Wouldn’t it be easier to just loop Brad in here instead of always having to deal with you as middleman, Richard?
What are you? OneUtah’s Technorati?
Honestly, you take a digital function and turn it analog and what’s the benefit? You appear smart because you can cut and paste?
November 7th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
jd– Brad said it better than I could. So I quoted him. Deal with it.