Hillary Dissed...not really.

A Coalition of Youth Groups declined an invitation for Sec. of State Hillary Clinton to speak at a gathering in Cairo, Egypt. Surprising? No, not after the way the Administration remained conspicuously in the shadows while the demonstrations were at their precarious hight and in need of a US safety net.

The USA, under Obama, has separated itself from the international fighters for democracy and it has become obvious to those who fought the fight that they owe the US nothing because the US did nothing to help. They have every right to dis any representative of the US who shows up after the fact to take undeserved credit. in actuality, Hillary was not being dissed; it was her office as a US representative for the President that was dissed.

Albiwan..

JFK's legacy to the Democrats

In the context of JFK's foreign policy, Obama's response to the uprising in Iran was embarrassing. Here was an enemy government to the US whose people, not an enemy to the US, clearly wanted support. Obama should have climbed up and down the Iranian government’s back and used the kind of language he used against Mubarak, a former ally. Figures that Obama would chastise an "ally" and insist on his stepping down but practically kissed our enemy’s ring for not wanting to offend or upset him.
One has to be on a different planet to not perceive what happened and to not understand the obvious differences in how Obama handled the situations. Although initially clumsy, Obama eventually did the right thing in Egypt and I’m sure his words gave the Egyptian’s heart. It should have been the same with the Iranian people but O was new to the job and his ego told him he could talk with Ahmadinajad and make him change his ruthless ways. Big mistake. Had the Iranian people succeeded perhaps we and the world would not feel so threatened by the probability of a terrorist state with a bomb.
And one cannot argue that it’s not Obama’s responsibility...because it is his responsibility as the most powerful man in the world to speak up on behalf of the oppressed. It’s what America stands for and what JFK so famously emphasized in his inaugural speech, one that Democrats and President Obama apparently have forgotten. President Kennedy intoned:

“We will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty....”

Albiwan

Those Who Do Not Learn From History....

Point is, while the Iranians were protesting, the President missed an historic opportunity to pitch democracy. Any idiot could have “deplored” the Iranian government’s heavy hand suppressing the protest. Encouragement, as he did with the Egyptian protestors, could have moved the Iranians to greater achievement. Having the US support is a valuable psychological lift for the disenfranchised. The President did not give it to the Iranians so where were they to turn? Nowhere, so they gave up.

Without Obama offering US help, will the Libyan protestors seeking democracy be the next to give up?

Albiwan..

the Bush Doctrine?

As for Egypt, I am thrilled that it's military maintained its dignity and allowed the people to continue their protests. Now the good news is that the military is organizing for democratic elections. But the trick will be to keep el Baradai out of the mix because he’s not a friend of the US and would likely bring the Muslim Bros into the process. If that happens the new govt will not be secular and that means sharia law and bye-bye democracy.

What the media is not reporting, and it's no surprise, is that Egypt is an example of a benefit coming from the overthrow of Saddam and the establishment of a democratic Iraq. But that would imply that something good came of the Bush Doctrine. The liberal media would rather swallow battery acid than give Bush credit for having done anything good. He was clumsy but his policy was smart. Now that Egypt has the possibility of becoming the second Arab Democracy look for other Arab dictatorships to fall. Miracles apparently can happen.

Obama eliminates Carter's Insidious policy...

Dear readers, for family reasons I have been away for a while. This is the first of several thoughts that I'll add to this site, some of which are a few weeks old but are compelling enough to be expressed.

Breaking News Alert: Obama administration proposes higher fees, down payments for homebuyers; replacing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
February 11, 2011 8:35:09 AM Washington Post
----------------------------------------
The Obama administration on Friday proposed raising fees for borrowers and requiring large down payments for mortgages in an effort to reduce the government's outsize footprint in the housing market.

It also proposed three options for eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but warned that abolishing the mortgage giants without replacing them could have "particularly acute costs in its potential impact on access to credit for many Americans."

Well can you imagine that! After 33 years, a politician finally gets the credit for pulling his head out of his butt long enough to do the right thing and get rid of Jimmy Carter's 1978 CRA law that began the erosion at the foundations of our economy, an erosion so insidious that it nearly brought the US to the brink of economic collapse!!!

Reagan, Bush 41, Bubba, and Bush 43 didn’t have the courage to be the one to tell the lower income population, “sorry, but if you can’t afford to make the down payment on a house you will have to rent.” But Obama has finally done it and should get considerable credit for having done so. Hurray!

But even though Obama the liberal was the one to tie the bell around the cat's neck, don't you think it's interesting how little press was given to the story by the liberal media and also that the story broke quietly on the end of the work week, Friday, with no fanfare? I have the feeling that I am the only one who noticed.

Nevertheless, it's poetic that Carter, a stupid, bigoted old man, lived long enough to see his disastrous CRA effectively eliminated by Obama, a black man.

Albiwan..

Finally, or should I say in the nick of time?

By the way, so it shouldn’t go unnoticed because of the holiday distractions, the Democrats and the President are spinning that they had a great week prior to Christmas because they passed the three bills, DADT, START, and 9/11, all of which at least conceptually I am in agreement. But I would be remiss if I didn’t add a little perspective as I see it.

Reality is that if the tax law (is it now referred to as the Obama tax cuts?) was extended a year or more ago the economy and unemployment would be in better stead than they currently are. And the 9/11, START, and DADT laws probably would have been passed that much sooner thus relieving many Americans of the excess stress caused by the unnecessary delays due to partisan politics on both sides of the isle.

The President and his people are all smiley for the cameras this week, but for their intransigence the country would now be in far better shape. In the final analysis, it was President Obama’s and the Majority Democrat Congress’ strategy of relentlessly trying to bury the GOP politically that ultimately, perhaps unwittingly, sacrificed the well being of the country.

In fact, (yes those pesky FACTS) for the past two years the Democrats offered up bills that they knew the GOP could not vote for because of the politics or because they were lousy bills. Had the President and the Democrat Congress moved to the middle sooner, which is what frustrated citizens and moderate politicians from both sides of the isle had been imploring them to do for more than a year, this pathetic Congress could have produced far more than it finally did in the last week of its session.

Democrat partisan politics delayed actions that could have gone into effect months ago but party members were transfixed on the President’s vengeful post 2008 election words “elections have consequences and I won.” This egotistical mindset (adopted as their mantra by the Congressional Democrats) hurt the USA. And, there is no question that the Democrats never missed an opportunity to shout about “GOP obstructionism” regarding non-passage of various bills and a Congress that was on track to being labeled "do nothing."

However, the Democrats mistakenly presumed that its strategy of branding the GOP as "obstructionist" would better the Democrat's political position. Well, on 11/2/10 the Democrats learned how poorly that strategy worked because the voters clearly expressed their collective belief that in fact it was the Democrats who were the “obstructionists” to getting the work of the 111th Congress done. Proof of this is the three bills approved this past week; generally agreed upon is that it was the “lame duck” majority Democrat Party, not the GOP, that made the necessary policy moves and compromised to the middle, thus leaving the Republican lawmakers no political option but to vote with the Democrats to pass the bills into law. The Democrats could have accomplished these same compromises to the middle several months ago but didn't because even to a casual observer it was clear that their priority was the good of the their party ahead of the good of the country.

Interesting that in the wake of 11/2 the Far Left/ Progressives were outspokenly blaming Obama for the disastrous election results; in their minds and rhetoric the poor results were indicative of the President’s not being left-leaning enough. The Far Left also blamed the President’s allowing the single-payer provision to be excluded from Obamacare thus giving voters on the left yet another reason for voting against the Democrats. Of course, the Far Left was wrong on both criticisms of Obama. The 11/2 election thrashing of the Democrats, to an objective observer, was a result of voters’ dissatisfaction with the continuing weak economy, high unemployment, and, the coup de gras, the undignified passage of Obamacare through the use of unprecedented nefarious political tactics that were endorsed if not encouraged by the President. Arguably, the Democrats marginalizing, ridiculing and labeling the Tea Party members as "an unruly mob of white, right wing nuts and bigots" also energized voters to go to the polls to vote for "change." In the end, a majority of Americans entered the voting booths with a very sour taste in their mouths for Democrat candidates.

But, after all is said and done, I give President Obama credit that he finally, or should I say in the nick of time, saw the light, probably realizing that if he did not move quickly and significantly to the middle that his presidency would surely end in 2012. Nevertheless, the damage he and his Party did to the country by wasting precious time is done, and you can't turn back the clock or take back stupid; but, because of his policy moves to the center his presidential future has probably been saved unless he gets caught with a White House page in the Oval Office, or the GOP miraculously produces an electable candidate in the next few months.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!

Albiwan..

Maureen Dowd-"Myth and Madness" Sept. 19,2010

I love to read Maureen Dowd’s columns because she is so literary and because she is a window to the world of the farthest left progressive thinking, something difficult for me to understand because to me today's progressive ideology seems irrational.

When I read columns such as Myth and Madness (it is pasted below) what I see is someone tearing people down because of beliefs they might have now or might have had in a previous life. The irony in a writer doing this especially in the context of politics is absurd because the current state of US politics could not be any worse thanks to the past 20 months, ten years, 18 years, 22 years, etc. pick a time frame. The upstanding citizens/ members of the Congress over the past pick a time frame have run the gamut from unethical, immoral, illegal, child abusers, extortionists, embezzlers, thieves, tax evaders, wife abusers, you name it; yet Maureen Dowd wants me to be concerned about some young woman (Christine O'Donnell) who did silly things in her life who now twenty years later thinks she has matured and wants to do something positive for the country or for herself. What am I missing here?

Actually when one considers the performance of the Congress over pick a time frame perhaps a little witchcraft and magic should be introduced into the process, which is currently not working, in order to improve it. :-)

Dowd wrote: “She’s (O' Donnell) right that there’s an untamed beast rampaging through American politics. But this beast does not seem blessed; rather it has loosed a kind of ugliness and wildness in the land.”
Has Dowd ever read a book about American History? And Dowd thinks Christine O’Donnell is in a fantasy world?
Dowd wrote: “Christine O’Donnell is in a fantasy world. Literally.” Please, Maureen... Obama, now that was a fantasy, probably even in his own estimation, until he wasn’t.

Dowd wrote: “Obama’s bloodless rationality has helped spawn the right’s bloodletting of irrationality. His ivory tower approach to the nation’s fears and anxieties about the economy gave rise to a tower of angry babble. Tea Party is basically a big tent for anger.” What the captain(Dowd) means is, if you disagree with the captain you are irrational and angry, which is the Progressive mantra for the day. I do not suppose that the Right would attack its opposition any differently were it in power.

On a personal note, I am not angry with President Obama; I simply think his policies could have been better conceived, expressed, and executed. My logic tells me that if I do not like his record I should not support him or those who voted for his policies. Anger has nothing to do with my thinking.

And, the Tea Party is not doing anything that has not already been done before by political activists over centuries, but it has been made to look extreme by a vilifying liberal media. That’s life... it's hot in the kitchen. Moveon.org is a liberal activist organization that was instrumental in electing President Obama. It was far better organized and funded and perhaps pushed the envelope much further than the TP, yet the press didn’t touch Moveon. C’est la vie, again.

I have said it before and I will say it again, politics is infested by slimy people and the slimiest of them rise to the top because they are capable of sliming someone without the unsuspecting/naive slimee even knowing it. The one liner most often used to describe lawyers also suits the politician...”how can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” Perhaps politics has reached the level of absurdity but the “angry” reaction (to me it's simply a non-violent protest) against today's absurd politics from the populace is probably better than if this majority remained "silent."

Maureen makes politics more interesting to follow, but there is no special wisdom in this column, just special writing.

Albiwan..

Myth and Madness-Maureen Dowd

The pretty Palin Mini-Me identifies with the women of Middle Earth, comparing herself to the female characters in the “Lord of the Rings” novels by J. R. R. Tolkien.

“Look at the significance that he gives to Eowyn, the Lady of Rohan,” O’Donnell said on C-Span in 2003. “She was a warrior spirit and, to me, that’s who I love. I mean, I aspire to be soft and gentle like Arwen, but realistically, I’m a fighter, like Eowyn.”

O’Donnell said she liked Tolkien’s outlook on gender: “On the one hand, there’s the attitude that’s normally on the conservative side — as a conservative woman, I feel I can say this — that stifles women. There’s almost the stereotypical attitude of, to be a true woman, you have to stay at home. And I’ve actually had people say to me, ‘Why do you choose a career over marriage?’ Honestly, I’ve had only a few significant relationships, and they’ve broken up with me. And one of the things I’ve been told is, ‘If you weren’t so strong, you’d be married by now.’ ”

This anti-abortion, anti-masturbation, anti-premarital-sex, anti-stem-cells, anti-gay-marriage, dubious-about-evolution Christian conservative has rocked politics by snatching the Delaware Republican nomination for the Senate away from the seemingly sure-thing moderate Mike Castle.

At the Values Voter Summit here on Friday, the 41-year-old O’Donnell cited another fantasy world to conjure up a Christlike image for the Tea Party.

“We’re rowdy, we’re passionate,” she told the enraptured crowd. “It reminds me of the C. S. Lewis Narnia books, where the little girl asks someone about Aslan the lion, who represents God, and she says with a little concern over such a fearsome lion, ‘Is he safe?’ And her friend says, ‘Safe? Who said anything about safe? Of course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.’ ”

She’s right that there’s an untamed beast rampaging through American politics. But this beast does not seem blessed; rather it has loosed a kind of ugliness and wildness in the land.

Speaking to Sean Hannity on Fox, Karl Rove dismissed O’Donnell as an absurd choice with a sketchy background and dubious character. He alluded to facts in The Weekly Standard that chronicled her lawsuit against her former employer, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a conservative nonprofit based in Delaware.

Although O’Donnell said in 1998 that wives should “graciously submit” to their husbands, her 2005 suit charged that she suffered “mental anguish” after being demoted and fired because the institute’s conservative philosophy deemed that women must be subordinate.

We the People in the Ruling Class Elites do think O’Donnell comes across as alarmingly loopy. But maybe she’s smart as a fox in doing a Single-White-Female, Fox anchor makeover to look more like her queen-maker, Sarah Palin.

She’s also smart to think of politics in terms of passion and myth — two elements Barack Obama was able to summon during his campaign that are sorely missing from his presidency.

She might have gone a broom too far, though, when she once told Bill Maher that she had “dabbled into witchcraft” and went on a date with a witch that included “a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

Obama’s bloodless rationality has helped spawn the right’s bloodletting of irrationality. His ivory tower approach to the nation’s fears and anxieties about the economy gave rise to a tower of angry babble. Tea Party is basically a big tent for anger.

The president’s struggle to connect and inspire passion is a dispiriting contrast to, as Yeats said, the worst, full of passionate intensity.

The first African-American president, who wrote in his memoir that he trained himself as a young man not to let his anger show in a suspicious white society, now faces anger on an unprecedented scale from a mostly white movement.

He seems weary of crisis management, conveying the attitude of the hero in “The Incredibles” who has to keep saving the world: “Sometimes I just want it to stay saved!”

The president seems put upon and impatient with reality while his foes seem happy to embrace fantasy.

Obama can connect with policy. He just can’t connect with the objects of policy. Empathy seems more like an abstract concept than something to practice.

He has never shaken off that slight patronizing attitude toward the working-class voters he is losing now, the ones he dubbed “bitter” during his campaign. There is no premium in trying to save people’s jobs and lift them up and give them health care if they feel that you can’t relate to them. That’s how Mayor Adrian Fenty lost his job, despite D.C.’s progress on schools and crime.

The insane have achieved political respectability while the sane act too good for it all. The irrational celebrate while the rational act bored and above-it-all.

When Rahm Emanuel leaves to go run for mayor in Chicago, all the blood will drain out of the White House. And Obama can go to Ben’s Chili Bowl for lunch every day and it won’t matter.