More "Obama as Nixon"

This time from Althouse.

President Obama Channels His Inner Nixon

I must admit that I was wrong. I saw President Obama as a Jimmy Carter type. Who knew that he was more of a Nixon?

Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

How does this make you feel, America? At least Nixon's enemies list was born of his own paranoia. This administration, perhaps appropriately, wants to develop a wider ranging enemies list by have you all spy on each other and tattle, much like they used to do in the Soviet Union.

Arab World Lectures Obama About Lecturing

Heh.

"Obama is just a prettier face. I'm sure his intentions are in the right place but I don't expect much from the man," a Cairo electrician said on Wednesday as US President Barack Obama began his much-anticipated Middle East trip.

Newspapers, analysts and ordinary Arabs warned Obama -- whose election was hailed across the region -- against emulating the policies of Bush by lecturing Muslims on democracy, and also urged him to be tough with Israel.

Democrat Presidents have this obsession with feelings for some reason, and all of them have to come to the hard realization that the only way this part of the world is going to send America glad tidings is if we do their bidding for them. Their naivete is touching, but hopefully this president learns quickly that doing so would be an odious and futile effort.

Hope

Tonight, many of you are swelled with hope. Despite our political differences, I hope that your hope is well founded. I see no need to put political persuasion above good of country, and thus, I do not hope for the abject failure of President Elect Barack Obama. despite my opposition to much of his proposed policies. But hope does at times fade. I hope that many of you enjoy, nay, relish tonight. The next four years will be highlighted by many peaks and valleys, and those valleys will test the strength of the hope you feel tonight.

Defining Obama's Presidency

I'm sure many a reader will slide their eyes across that headline and think, "Defining his Presidency? He just got elected!" Well, hear me out on this. He will have a choice once in office. He can be the conduit for pent up liberal/progessive momentum, or he can be his own man, a leader. If chooses the former, and I fear that he will, his presidency will be a disaster. If he chooses the latter, however, he may just have a chance at a second term and a positive presidency.

Love him or hate him, Bill Clinton was more "his own man" than "conduit," and because of that, history will neither relegate him to the dustbin nor label his presidency a net negative, despite his flaws and errors. Obama has a much tougher road ahead of him than Clinton did during our vacation from history. Thus, he needs to be his own man, a leader, and a significantly better one than Clinton.

This isn't to say that it would be a presidency that conservatives would at all be pleased with. It is just to say that he can find a way to avoid being the next Jimmy Carter, and that way is by leading without giving away too much of his influence to the netroots.

Will Obama be Good for Businesses?

Probably not, especially if you are in the coal or energy business, which in an interview last January with the San Francisco Chronicle he said he'd bankrupt for building new coal plants. And this leads me to a question about this election. There have been a lot of substantive evidence that a Barack Obama presidency would not be good for America, much like there was ample evidence 4 years ago that John Kerry would not be good for America. The difference is, everything stuck to John Kerry, and something like this would have been a bombshell. When it comes to Obama, however, it seems like every piece of evidence hits a brick wall before it even gets to him. I get the feeling that a large part of the American public has invested an unrealistic expectation of what they would be getting with this man as President, evidence to the contrary be damned. And if they elect him on Tuesday, they aren't going to get what they expect.

What does this mean, Senator Obama?

I encourage everyone to ask that of Senator Obama, multiple times if necessary, in the next 5 days. I'd like an answer to this prior to election day.

"There's a lot of change going on outside of the court. The judges have to essentially take judicial notice up, I mean you've got WW II, the doctrines of Nazism that we are fighting against that started looking uncomfortably similar to what's going on back here at home."

Details, Senator. Quickly, please.

But the kid is not my son...

I'm guessing John Edwards has been offered a cabinet position in an Obama presidency and is trying to clear his affair from the news well in advance. That baby is going to follow him for quite a while unless they clear up the paternity.

They see a salute...

...I see a hand signal calling Obama a giant a-hole.

The Media Love Fest for Obama

One big topic of chatter this week has been the McCain camp's complaint that the media is spending way too much time on the Obama pilgrimage and way too little time on the Sorta-Straight Talk Express. Frankly, the McCain camp should be thankful. For the press, familiarity breeds contempt. The more time they spend with him now means the earlier they'll turn on him like half-starved cannibals.

Motivations Behind the Iraq Plans

The great debate is on again: When should we leave Iraq? In this corner, we have Barack Obama's 16 month plan. And in this corner, we have John McCain's longer range plan, one that could see a substantial U.S. presence in Iraq for years and basing rights for our children's lifetime and beyond. But really, what are the motivations behind each plan?

For most Americans, the 16 month plan is very seductive. Americans are not a war loving lot despite their willingness to fight for security and liberty. The Long War has been exactly that, and the fatigue in the general populace is palpable.

In addition to fatigue, there is this notion that pulling out now, while Iraq is stabilized, is a chance to make a legitimate claim to victory over the insurgency in Iraq. A quick pull out may very well allow that claim to be staked.

The long range plan proves to be a much more difficult sell. A fatigued public cannot fathom a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq that lasts until 2012 or 2020. Long term military deployments such as this are just not something that Americans have historical experience with.

If you listen to Iraq's Defense Minister, that long range presence is exactly what we will need in order to claim a victory that the history books will recognize. He says that it will be 2012 before Iraq can even handle all of its own internal security, and that it may be 2020 before the country can reliably protect itself from external threats. If his estimates are correct, a 16 month pull out, while possibly giving the U.S. a tenuous claim to victory, would leave the current Iraqi state horribly vulnerable to internal and external calamity.

So which plan is best? Well, the answer just may lay in your motivation. If you have a short term outlook, then getting our troops out of harms way with a veneer of victory is likely the goal. The future of the nation at the crossroads of the Middle East is wrought with peril in this outlook, but it is nothing if not expedient.

On the other hand, if a stable, allied state in the heart of the Middle East is the goal, then there is little choice but to stay until such time that the Iraqi government can successfully provide it's most important service to the Iraqi people: Providing internal and external security for the Iraqi people. Additionally, if Iraq's long term viability and prosperity is a goal, then long range basing rights a la Germany and Japan must be negotiated with the Iraqi government. The presence of a U.S. base(s), while perhaps not always popular, would have a tempering affect on internal Iraqi instability while acting as a very obvious trip wire to deter external threats to the nation.

So when you consider the plans of the competing presidential candidates, ask yourself this: What motivates my support of one plan over another? Do I just want this over because I'm tired of it all, or do I want us to make the effort to do this right so our presence today is appreciated by future generations of Iraqis, not regretted.

Litmus Test for MSM's Obama-Crush

This is rather clever:

This is my proposed Quayle Test. Ask yourself: How each time Obama says something stoopid, would the press would have crucified Dan Quayle for it?

Each day, each new gaffe from Obama, imagine Dear Old (supposedly) Dumbsh*t Dan saying it. Then compare what would have happened to him compared to the response Sen. Obama gets from his cheering gallery in the Press.

It is undeniable that Obama is getting a pass from liberal media sources, and this is a great way of illustrating it.

The age of the retreads

The San Francisco Chronicle is raving about a new YouTube video, Hillary 1984.

It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.

Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic "1984" ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.

I find very little groundbreaking about that video. It is a blatant rip off of a comercial that hasn't been interesting in 20 years. YouTube itself is hardly groundbreaking anymore. The video adds nothing to the fight between Hillary & Obama. Frankly, I'm tired of watching things that are remade. My kingdom for a fresh idea. Unfortunately, we are in the age of the retread, where a lame remake of an old commercial is considered groundbreaking because it is on the net. Please. That commercial, and ones like it, are unlikely to sway new voters. If anything, they serve as boosters for those already in a politician's support base.