Rodham-Clinton, a clarifying statement by firstname.lastname@example.org
by ponderthis84, Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 06:55:49 PM EST
I recently published a diary on your site that some people completely and utterly misunderstood.
In offering this clarification, I make no apologies for my conservative ideology or even my penchant for getting under people's skin -- and, yes, I acknowledge my rhetoric can be over-the-top.
I am a Ronald Reagan conservative. I have a college education, work in marketing and in real estate.
My opposition to President Obama resides EXCLUSIVELY in the political arena. My core convictions are President Reagan's.
Since the following issue was raised by others, I'll answer it: On the question of Obama's personal security there is no difference between my position and that of his strongest supporters.
A president's personal security must be vigorously guarded and never compromised.
I'm sure no one needs to be reminded that we live in a very dangerous world. The president of the United States represents us all. He's responsible for our security.
Primarily for that reason I wrote in a Nov. 6th diary, entitled "President Hussein anyone" by bitterethnics, published on "DailyKos.com" (I don't recall if it was also published on your site):
"So on this night, knowing in the future I'll have numerous opportunities to point out the foolishness of the radical left, I thought I'd conclude by simply saying to President Barry, 'Godspeed and I wish you well.' And to his supporters, 'Congratulations on a job well done.'"
There were two areas of misunderstanding in my recent diary: First, in the final paragraph of my poorly-composed hastily-written post I wrote: "It's gonna be a long four years. Or maybe not." The last sentence should have read, "Or maybe not... "if Republicans can stop him" -- or words to that effect.
The last sentence was supposed to be a note of optimism -- from my perspective, of course.
It was connected to a number of ideas circulating in my head, including a sentence in the previous paragraph, where I had written I would remind President Obama that "in America there is always another election approaching."
Politicians are always mindful of the next election, theirs and those of others. If they forget, I'm more than willing to remind them. It is from that perspective that I believe it's possible to force Obama, kicking and screaming if necessary, to include Republicans in policy-making.
Indeed, the very next election will be the midterms in approximately 1 and 9/12ths years, in which Republicans have a chance to re-take the Senate and House.
If Republicans win, then we'd have a divided government and Obama would be reigned in. Moreover, even before the next election, as I stated in a previous diary, Democrats do not currently have a filibuster-proof Senate majority -- another way for Republicans to assert themselves. There are a number of conservative Democrats and independents, like Joe Lieberman, who I believe can be trusted not to give Obama a free hand -- yet another potential cause for optimism.
Moreover, in previous posts I've stated explicitly that, in my opinion, Obama should be "impeached" -- a long shot, but conservatives are allowed to hope, too.
A second misunderstood sentence, which some people erroneously concluded was meant to be "racist", was the title.
I wrote, "Rodham-Clinton, who's that black guy in the White House?"
Now clearly, I'm willing to verbally-bash President Obama unmercifully. But that comment wasn't directed at Obama at all. It was directed at Rodham-Clinton and Bill Clinton, who said during the primary that Obama "couldn't win!" Translation: America wouldn't vote for a black man so Democrats should give the nomination to ORC.
How can that question be called "racist" unless it's now racist to verbally-bash Rodham-Clinton?
The big problem, of course, is that Mr. Obama is simply not prepared for the rigors of the presidency.
A couple of examples:
-- He's issued multiple executive orders, including one that would close Gitmo, where the worst terrorists are currently housed. And it turns out, he has no idea where they will be relocated. As a result, some will be repatriated overseas where, eventually, some will be released. We already know a number of past Gitmo-releasees have returned to jihad! An experienced hand would've announced he's closing Gitmo AFTER he determines where to place them, not before.
-- Obama recently traveled to the White House PRESS OFFICE -- now his advisors did tell him he'd probably meet actual press people in the "press office", right? -- only to be shocked and stunned by someone finally asking a substantive question?
(It can hardly be described as a "gotcha question" or an inappropriate political attack -- the guy asked Obama how he could justify hiring a lobbyist to serve in his administration after spending his entire campaign promising to weed out lobbyists from government.)
The problem, I think, is the president's so accostumed to a fawning press, a star-struck public and messianic descriptions of his abilities, that an actual probative question throws him off his stride.
And what of his reaction?
He marches right up the reporter, almost goes nose to nose with him, clearly appearing angry and, in my opinion, he seemed to be attempting to use the powers of the presidency to intimidate him. To the reporters credit, he never backed down!
I've NEVER seen a president do that before! And much of the country and world saw the video of Obama doing it on Drudge!
Presidents -- all presidents -- realize that tough questions will be asked at inappropriate times from their perspective, and they keep their wits about them. Ronald Reagan used to cup his ear pretending he couldn't hear the question. If you don't want to answer it you make a joke, change the subject or move on -- you do not attempt to physically intimidate your interrogator.
Later on, the president confronted Republican lawmakers, who objected strenuously to his massive "stimulus package" and told them, patronizingly, "I won!" He then said, "I'll trump you on that" which sounds like political-speak for "I'll thump you on that."
Apparently Obama believes that because he won the presidential election, all his proposals should just sail through.
Well, that's NOT the way things operate in a representative democracy. The congressmen and senators to whom he spoke also "won." A president has to lobby for his proposals on a daily basis -- and do it with tact and diplomacy. He has to allow the minority to be heard. He has to put his proposals up for a vote, not issue controversial executive orders. He's not a king.
MY MODUS OPERANDI
I deliberately headline most of my posts "Rodham-Clinton..." which is intended to both identify me from previous posts and convey that there is a continuing thread of my published commentary, of which most of you seem to be aware.
I often publish hastily-written diaries on your site first, allowing you, the readers, to serve (unintentionally, I'm sure) as my editor, pointing out grammatical, spelling, typos and factual errors, and then I publish on other sites like dailykos.com, reaching a wider audience.
And I read all your responses, including the kooky cat-picture posts (give me a break!). But I do like the verbal combat.
Lastly, I promised early on, no matter what happens, I would never adopt the hate-filled tactics of the far-left, who frequently compared George Bush to Adolph Hitler, a genocidal maniac.
So who WOULD I compare President Obama to? Well, Bugs Bunny, actually! That's right, a cartoon character. Like Bugs, Obama is personable, charming and he has really big ears!
But neither Bugs Bunny nor Bugs Barry is ready to serve as Commander-in-Chief -- and that's becoming pretty obvious!!!