Well folks, told you so. (Don’t you hate that?) Recall our earlier comment - The Big Gun - that if things went poorly for the president or other prominent blacks he/they, his handlers, his party, the media, academics and sophisticates everywhere would retreat to race? Presto! Carter and Clinton were just the latest to pull that trick. But right here in Marin (surprise!), in an email from the left we are instructed that the Republican party, "...is being hijacked by small minded racists who are terrified by the concept of a black man calling the shots." Naturally. Who are these racists? And terrified of what? And why from an otherwise reasonable individual, this blatant profiling (the same individual, profiling like no other, marveled that the guy in the ACORN sting was white and the staff fell for it - oh, all pimps are black?)?
Suddenly our society is polarized over race (meaning blacks). Witness the following from one Gerald Ensley, writing for a Tallahassee paper, "So know that when you call Barack Obama a ‘socialist,’ the rest of us are thinking: ‘There goes a racist.’ Because that's what all this is about. There is a segment of the population that simply can't accept a black man was elected president of the United States. So they express their contempt by calling him a socialist because they know they can't say the N-word in public. And they think the rest of us don't know the difference.’" This is laughable; Ensley has the makings of a moron.
We don’t personally know any racists. For folks we know, including blacks, race is incidental. It’s not a big deal. Who cares? That’s true for most Americans, most of whom are sick and tired of this topic, who simply want to get on with key issues in their lives. Quit the whining. We’re all created just about the same, no better nor worse than the other guy. You’re a black, Latino, Indian or white, have a problem? Fine, look within, then get your butt in gear. You’re capable. You think you need special treatment? You think folks are picking on you cause of your color? Come on. Take a look at the color of our president. Get a life.
There is an element however which by its very need to survive must convince a segment of our society that it in fact does need help, that it is handicapped, persecuted and that only this element can provide succor. This element has just kicked its operation into high gear. This element is the Democratic Party. Our view is that Democratic party policy is key to understanding this "problem" of race.
DNC policy is racist. Not of course the in-your-face variety but in a sickly-sweet, obsequious, pandering sort of way. In singling out the black community as one in constant need of protection and dumbed-down standards, as a community which gets a pass on bad behavior for something that happened 150 +/- years ago, the DNC is practicing the most insipid, the most nefarious form of racism imaginable. They are using blacks as pawns. The "problem" is manufactured by the DNC. They lose blacks as a constituency and they’re out of luck. Unfortunately - many blacks fall for it.
Some moderate Democrats see through this nonsense, but adherents from the far left (Marin County for example) simply parrot what’s fed them by a party owned by extremists.
Naturally the left will deny such a thesis, that it is absurd and a lie on its face, that it is the Democrats which have husbanded the black population all along. How dare we? Well, let’s take a look at this good ‘ol party.
The truth can be difficult. The Democratic party’s racism through the 19th century was not abstract at all - slavery was literally part of the platform (The Republican party was formed as the anti-slavery party.). These slavers were up front, not phonies as they are now. One of these was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slaver but also the most brilliant cavalryman of all time. He was a Democrat; he got rich trading slaves; and, he darn near saved it for the South (he would have if Jeff Davis had listened). Then slavery would continue to be part of their platform.
To distinguish Forrest from modern day Democrats - he was honest. Forest has been replaced in the party structure by the likes of Pelosi, Bates, Carville, Rangell, Wright and now - Carter and Clinton. These clowns know that race provides a great backstop in case all else goes wrong - our Big Gun. And these types also know that they enable, and then fetch a good portion of the black population by taking this stand. Thus, in the fine style of J. Jackson, they proceed.
Forrest and Calhoun are gone now, only to have been replaced with race baiters. For them, blacks provide the vehicle. They have a higher purpose. And, they’re disgusting.
Robert Craven
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Swept Away
Many of our acquaintances are Democrats. These friends are hard workers, good citizens, good people, and patriots. As patriots they love their country; they would never entertain a notion of doing her harm.
Nor is there any umbrage directed towards their neighbor. They don’t for example feel an obligation to email their neighbor’s thoughts on health care to the White House. Instead, they believe - to each his own.
To them, color and creed are incidental. They are not racists and cannot imagine any system or party platform based on subjugation of a race or religion. They are not race baiters. They believe, as Lincoln said, that, "You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred."
They accept responsibility for their lives, its errors and successes and expect others to do likewise. They have learned to make tough decisions. They are not victims and do not respect those who pretend to be. They’re honest; they pay their taxes. They are not union thugs, felons or community shake-down artists.
They believe in a strong national defense. They support the US military’s role.
Most believe in personal liberty and initiative. Most understand that, as Lincoln said, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich," and that, "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." Thus, they do not believe in strong-arming free enterprise to meet quotas set by Washington.
They want control over their prodigy; they love their kids and feel it is their responsibility, not some bureaucrat’s, to parent. Being parents, they have learned to respect life.
What then for goodness sake do they have in common with what has become the Democratic Party!? Are they confused? Are they naive? If not, the only other answer would be that they are phonies. We can reject that. Truth is they are caught in a rip tide, a gentle tugging but something stronger than they are, even though they don’t realize it yet; their fate, unless they are smart enough to call for help, is to be swept away.
Their party was hijacked years ago by the far left. Most with any sense of history whatsoever acknowledge that. Yet there is a disconnect. They are in denial. The present Democratic party machine is arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans - people just like them. They pretend it is their party. This is a fantasy. It is the party of an upper class elite, top heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers who believe in big government solutions to every problem, and, KEY - all of whom know better than the unwashed.
From our own personal experience, it is clear that these middle class Democrats are complacently servile toward this group, toward DNC party authority; they automatically believe, or pretend to believe everything party leaders tell them. That may have worked before when the Democratic president governed from the near center. With an extremist at the helm, they had better know how to swim.
Robert Craven
Nor is there any umbrage directed towards their neighbor. They don’t for example feel an obligation to email their neighbor’s thoughts on health care to the White House. Instead, they believe - to each his own.
To them, color and creed are incidental. They are not racists and cannot imagine any system or party platform based on subjugation of a race or religion. They are not race baiters. They believe, as Lincoln said, that, "You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred."
They accept responsibility for their lives, its errors and successes and expect others to do likewise. They have learned to make tough decisions. They are not victims and do not respect those who pretend to be. They’re honest; they pay their taxes. They are not union thugs, felons or community shake-down artists.
They believe in a strong national defense. They support the US military’s role.
Most believe in personal liberty and initiative. Most understand that, as Lincoln said, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich," and that, "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." Thus, they do not believe in strong-arming free enterprise to meet quotas set by Washington.
They want control over their prodigy; they love their kids and feel it is their responsibility, not some bureaucrat’s, to parent. Being parents, they have learned to respect life.
What then for goodness sake do they have in common with what has become the Democratic Party!? Are they confused? Are they naive? If not, the only other answer would be that they are phonies. We can reject that. Truth is they are caught in a rip tide, a gentle tugging but something stronger than they are, even though they don’t realize it yet; their fate, unless they are smart enough to call for help, is to be swept away.
Their party was hijacked years ago by the far left. Most with any sense of history whatsoever acknowledge that. Yet there is a disconnect. They are in denial. The present Democratic party machine is arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans - people just like them. They pretend it is their party. This is a fantasy. It is the party of an upper class elite, top heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers who believe in big government solutions to every problem, and, KEY - all of whom know better than the unwashed.
From our own personal experience, it is clear that these middle class Democrats are complacently servile toward this group, toward DNC party authority; they automatically believe, or pretend to believe everything party leaders tell them. That may have worked before when the Democratic president governed from the near center. With an extremist at the helm, they had better know how to swim.
Robert Craven
Monday, September 7, 2009
Vetting and Obama
This young administration has been plagued with vetting problems. (Webster defines vet the verb or vetting as,"to inspect or examine with careful thoroughness.") The latest in a long line, the appointment of the racist and fruitcake Mr. Van Jones certainly failed that criteria. But where resides the most glaring vetting failure of all? In the lap of those who voted for Obama. NOW WAIT. My cousin usually has to edit out these parts but this time, stay with us friends of the left, don’t change pages, hang on for just a sec. You’re up to the challenge. None of us is perfect. You can handle it. No offense intended but you screwed up royally and got us all in a hell of a mess.
Obama’s behavior has been entirely consistent with his past. He is no charlatan in that respect. The problem is that most who voted for him failed to do their homework, or, willfully blind in the voters both, did not care. It is crystal clear now that these types simply made someone of whom they knew very little, into someone else - a fictitious character the press ushered to market with the help of a sour economy and political correctness - a someone they wanted him to be.
It is the duty of every citizen of age to vote responsibly; it is an affront to the Constitution, the XV and XIX Amendments and an insult to the Founders if they do not. But how could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing his surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist? How could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing that Obama served as a committed trainer for Community activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky? How could most vote for Obama when they knew he sat for nearly two decades at the feet of the racist "Rev" Wright, an angry anti-American? How could any American vote for Obama knowing his close relationship with 1) convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, or 2) with PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi?
How could anyone not a mobster vote for Obama when they knew he was in league with the Chicago community shake-down machine? And before, he and his wife as one observer put it, were nothing if not quintessential Ivy League "Oppression Studies majors" with (carefully concealed) "attitudes." Is that what they voted for?
How could anyone vote for Obama knowing Obama's voting record in the Senate, and as part of that, knowing he stonewalled intended reform of the twins (Fannie/Freddie) which would have prevented our financial crisis? How could anyone but a socialist vote for Obama when Obama has demonstrated he is a socialist through and through, or as Vic Hansen observes, "When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed ‘spread the wealth’ comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,’ we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others."
Did they know? A slim few who voted for Obama did know, did know what they were doing but socialists and anarchists thank goodness are still a rare commodity in these United States. The rest, maybe 85%? They failed to vet, our guess.
Robert Craven
Obama’s behavior has been entirely consistent with his past. He is no charlatan in that respect. The problem is that most who voted for him failed to do their homework, or, willfully blind in the voters both, did not care. It is crystal clear now that these types simply made someone of whom they knew very little, into someone else - a fictitious character the press ushered to market with the help of a sour economy and political correctness - a someone they wanted him to be.
It is the duty of every citizen of age to vote responsibly; it is an affront to the Constitution, the XV and XIX Amendments and an insult to the Founders if they do not. But how could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing his surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist? How could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing that Obama served as a committed trainer for Community activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky? How could most vote for Obama when they knew he sat for nearly two decades at the feet of the racist "Rev" Wright, an angry anti-American? How could any American vote for Obama knowing his close relationship with 1) convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, or 2) with PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi?
How could anyone not a mobster vote for Obama when they knew he was in league with the Chicago community shake-down machine? And before, he and his wife as one observer put it, were nothing if not quintessential Ivy League "Oppression Studies majors" with (carefully concealed) "attitudes." Is that what they voted for?
How could anyone vote for Obama knowing Obama's voting record in the Senate, and as part of that, knowing he stonewalled intended reform of the twins (Fannie/Freddie) which would have prevented our financial crisis? How could anyone but a socialist vote for Obama when Obama has demonstrated he is a socialist through and through, or as Vic Hansen observes, "When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed ‘spread the wealth’ comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,’ we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others."
Did they know? A slim few who voted for Obama did know, did know what they were doing but socialists and anarchists thank goodness are still a rare commodity in these United States. The rest, maybe 85%? They failed to vet, our guess.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Health "Reform" - As The Dust Settles
All but the far left (those who hijacked the Democratic party 35 years ago) are now running from Obama’s beast, many of these claiming they never really were fond of the now-infamous "public option" in the first place. Hah! What we have just witnessed folks, that demonstration from the masses that they don't like being taken - a truly magnificent event. There are many features of BO’s bill voters don’t like but the stealth single payer option was too much. Obama’s effort was such an obvious lie that its perfidy palled after it ceased to be amusing. The American people have done a tremendous job in educating their elected leaders of the fact that they have no desire for government-run health care. The unwashed, bless their hearts, knew BO’s attempted end run would do exactly that. Distilled to the core - THEY DON’T WANT RATIONING.
As the dust settles around this issue we find a changed America, both in the general sense, and the specific. As to the first, from the David Brooks Op-Ed column in the NYT’s : "The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."
As to the second, more and more Americans simply want an improvement on what they’ve got. Few claim we have a problem with the quality of health care for the simple reason that we don't. They do want better insurance prices and better availability - competition for goodness sake will see to that in a jiffy. There are a legion of observers who have suggested ways that the delivery of insurance can be improved (detailed in earlier blogs). And any fool knows that the first step to better cost control is tort reform, always blocked by the Democrats. Don’t take our word for it. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC and an enthusiastic backer of Obama's health reform initiative, gives us this, "The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on," Dean said at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week. Too much.
Sure, the Democrats will try another way to get government between you and your body; they can’t help it. This stuff is pre-programmed in them. Some fear they will be successful. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Robert Craven
As the dust settles around this issue we find a changed America, both in the general sense, and the specific. As to the first, from the David Brooks Op-Ed column in the NYT’s : "The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."
As to the second, more and more Americans simply want an improvement on what they’ve got. Few claim we have a problem with the quality of health care for the simple reason that we don't. They do want better insurance prices and better availability - competition for goodness sake will see to that in a jiffy. There are a legion of observers who have suggested ways that the delivery of insurance can be improved (detailed in earlier blogs). And any fool knows that the first step to better cost control is tort reform, always blocked by the Democrats. Don’t take our word for it. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC and an enthusiastic backer of Obama's health reform initiative, gives us this, "The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on," Dean said at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week. Too much.
Sure, the Democrats will try another way to get government between you and your body; they can’t help it. This stuff is pre-programmed in them. Some fear they will be successful. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Robert Craven
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Ted revisited
We are reminded that "Ted changed so many lives," and in so doing resurrected himself in the image of an advocate for the little guy; therefore he should be forgiven for that "mishap on the bridge".
An advocate for the little guy? Really? He fought welfare reform for goodness sake. How did that help the little guy? He opposed low-income parents’ choosing effective schools for their kids. That was a real help. He did demand taxpayer funding for abortions. You mean that kind of advocate?
Know what? We don’t care if his supposed concern for the masses was genuine (plenty of those "masses" in Hyannis Port aren’t there?) because where we grew up no one tolerates cowardly acts from men. You cross that line and you’re an outcast. What kind of real male was this guy? He wasn’t. He was an east coast elitist, a gutless wonder, a drunk, effeminate like most of his kind; he had no respect for women and was likely useless in the sack to boot. (The lefty women rave about this guy but no way they would make the trade for this bottom feeder if they had a cowhand in tow, just in from the roundup - a gentleman, genuine, strong and virile, right ladies?) Now the adulation, remiders of all the good this clown's done for Americans, lives he's changed, is crap. The real Ted Kennedy was in plain view that night in 1969 - drunk, felling sorry for himself, looking for cover, while a human being slowly exhausted that oxygen left to her. As Mark Steyn noted recently, "I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."
Have the left no limits, no standards of acceptable behavior? I think we all know the answer.
Robert Craven
An advocate for the little guy? Really? He fought welfare reform for goodness sake. How did that help the little guy? He opposed low-income parents’ choosing effective schools for their kids. That was a real help. He did demand taxpayer funding for abortions. You mean that kind of advocate?
Know what? We don’t care if his supposed concern for the masses was genuine (plenty of those "masses" in Hyannis Port aren’t there?) because where we grew up no one tolerates cowardly acts from men. You cross that line and you’re an outcast. What kind of real male was this guy? He wasn’t. He was an east coast elitist, a gutless wonder, a drunk, effeminate like most of his kind; he had no respect for women and was likely useless in the sack to boot. (The lefty women rave about this guy but no way they would make the trade for this bottom feeder if they had a cowhand in tow, just in from the roundup - a gentleman, genuine, strong and virile, right ladies?) Now the adulation, remiders of all the good this clown's done for Americans, lives he's changed, is crap. The real Ted Kennedy was in plain view that night in 1969 - drunk, felling sorry for himself, looking for cover, while a human being slowly exhausted that oxygen left to her. As Mark Steyn noted recently, "I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."
Have the left no limits, no standards of acceptable behavior? I think we all know the answer.
Robert Craven
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ted Kennedy - A Real Man
We’ve been "reminded" by friends on the left that Ted Kennedy redeemed himself after that little mishap on the bridge, done a heck of a lot of good since for the down-and-out and that we should all be proud of this American as he joins most of the rest of his clan in the hereafter. Wherever they are, let’s hope that driving, flying, boating or skiing are outlawed or their companions are in trouble. I can’t even imagine Ted trying his wings out. But then it’s unlikely he’ll be assigned any where he’s going.
Sure, good ‘ol Ted abandoned his girlfriend with a few minutes of oxygen left to her in an air pocket inside a submerged Olds. After partying, and then driving off a bridge (that act itself should have been enough to disqualify the guy from ever holding public office again) this useless male freed himself, leaving 28 yr old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate as the air ran out. He rested at the creek’s edge, then walked back to the party house. One of his "associates" took him back to his hotel. Poor devil. When you’re in a hurry to find a alibi, it can be stressful. Sure it can. Then nine hours later and after conferring with political advisers and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. We rarely resort to crude language in this blog but in the case of Kennedy we think the guy is a cowardly so-and-so. There. Feel much better now.
After murdering Kopechne and escaping with a suspended sentence (connections??) Kennedy took a breather, re-emerged and was promptly re-elected. Wonderful country, the good ‘ol USA. She never holds a grudge. (Neither does Harvard - Kennedy was readmitted there after being expelled for cheating.)
What kind of real damage has this guy done since? As the National Review editors put it, "...he mistook power for wisdom, and he very often left things worse than he had found them. He meddled in Northern Ireland to no good end, contributed mightily to the politicization of the federal courts, sought to regulate and restrict political speech, appeased the Soviets, contributed to the American defeat in Vietnam, and attempted to apply the Vietnam template to Iraq. A child of privilege, he worked energetically to deny school-choice scholarships to poor black children in Washington, D.C. His ideas on taxes, immigration, and social welfare were reliably counterproductive."
That about sums it up for this evening folks. What more is there to say when a left wing rag like Time describes Kennedy as a "Palm Beach boozer, lout, and tabloid grotesque." Can’t argue with that.
Robert Craven
Sure, good ‘ol Ted abandoned his girlfriend with a few minutes of oxygen left to her in an air pocket inside a submerged Olds. After partying, and then driving off a bridge (that act itself should have been enough to disqualify the guy from ever holding public office again) this useless male freed himself, leaving 28 yr old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate as the air ran out. He rested at the creek’s edge, then walked back to the party house. One of his "associates" took him back to his hotel. Poor devil. When you’re in a hurry to find a alibi, it can be stressful. Sure it can. Then nine hours later and after conferring with political advisers and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. We rarely resort to crude language in this blog but in the case of Kennedy we think the guy is a cowardly so-and-so. There. Feel much better now.
After murdering Kopechne and escaping with a suspended sentence (connections??) Kennedy took a breather, re-emerged and was promptly re-elected. Wonderful country, the good ‘ol USA. She never holds a grudge. (Neither does Harvard - Kennedy was readmitted there after being expelled for cheating.)
What kind of real damage has this guy done since? As the National Review editors put it, "...he mistook power for wisdom, and he very often left things worse than he had found them. He meddled in Northern Ireland to no good end, contributed mightily to the politicization of the federal courts, sought to regulate and restrict political speech, appeased the Soviets, contributed to the American defeat in Vietnam, and attempted to apply the Vietnam template to Iraq. A child of privilege, he worked energetically to deny school-choice scholarships to poor black children in Washington, D.C. His ideas on taxes, immigration, and social welfare were reliably counterproductive."
That about sums it up for this evening folks. What more is there to say when a left wing rag like Time describes Kennedy as a "Palm Beach boozer, lout, and tabloid grotesque." Can’t argue with that.
Robert Craven
Fatal Flaw
Well, the fun’s about over. We’ve exposed this health care scam from the beginning. Obama and the rest of the left-wingers of his party offered up a monster of a bill which none of them read but which BO thought he could ram through in a few weeks - "trust me". Pretty quick, a few citizens called him on it, knowing they were about to be had. Neither he nor any of his cronies could explain or defend their bill, while most of the unwashed knew it was nothing more than an effort to emulate the failed Canadian system.
Want to understand the source of BO’s failings? Then recall our warning of last year - his critical flaw is that he has consistently demonstrated a lack of judgement. It is that simple. Take away the glib talk and slick presentation and you have near emptiness - a lack of preparation, a lack of research, a lack of focus. Couple that with his radical progressivism, and you know you’re in trouble. He does not understand America; he does not understand Americans. He gave the party’s far left the chore of sculpting the so-called stimulus bill. Stupid. He outsourced the health plan to the partisan left-wingers of his party who are key House chairs. Stupid.
Now BO looks to emulate and celebrate Senator Kennedy’s late presence in the effort the resuscitate his failed bill. This is no wonder - Kennedy anointed BO as the Fifth Kennedy Brother during the campaign. This will prove to be only one more mistake. From Michael Beran, a contributing editor of City Journal and author of The Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy, "Obama may find it to his credit -- and his country’s – benefit to fix his gaze not on Ted, but on Jack. For in addition to his more superficial graces, President Kennedy possessed a degree of wisdom, which might be defined as grace of judgment. John Kennedy’s sentiments were liberal, but he knew that a wise president must have the country in his bones, must feel, as by instinct, the temper of the people, and must know what they will bear and what they will not. He was annoyed by those who, like Arthur Schlesinger Jr., urged him to be another FDR. Schlesinger, he said, wanted him to act as if it were 1932. But ..... the mood of the people, President Kennedy knew, had changed." For Obama, "At so critical a juncture he needs to emulate, not the intoxicated extravagances of the late senator, but the sober moderation of his older brother....."
Well put Michael.
Robert Craven
Want to understand the source of BO’s failings? Then recall our warning of last year - his critical flaw is that he has consistently demonstrated a lack of judgement. It is that simple. Take away the glib talk and slick presentation and you have near emptiness - a lack of preparation, a lack of research, a lack of focus. Couple that with his radical progressivism, and you know you’re in trouble. He does not understand America; he does not understand Americans. He gave the party’s far left the chore of sculpting the so-called stimulus bill. Stupid. He outsourced the health plan to the partisan left-wingers of his party who are key House chairs. Stupid.
Now BO looks to emulate and celebrate Senator Kennedy’s late presence in the effort the resuscitate his failed bill. This is no wonder - Kennedy anointed BO as the Fifth Kennedy Brother during the campaign. This will prove to be only one more mistake. From Michael Beran, a contributing editor of City Journal and author of The Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy, "Obama may find it to his credit -- and his country’s – benefit to fix his gaze not on Ted, but on Jack. For in addition to his more superficial graces, President Kennedy possessed a degree of wisdom, which might be defined as grace of judgment. John Kennedy’s sentiments were liberal, but he knew that a wise president must have the country in his bones, must feel, as by instinct, the temper of the people, and must know what they will bear and what they will not. He was annoyed by those who, like Arthur Schlesinger Jr., urged him to be another FDR. Schlesinger, he said, wanted him to act as if it were 1932. But ..... the mood of the people, President Kennedy knew, had changed." For Obama, "At so critical a juncture he needs to emulate, not the intoxicated extravagances of the late senator, but the sober moderation of his older brother....."
Well put Michael.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
