Sunday, September 7, 2008

A Little Recap

OK, so three out of four of my siblings are Obama people. I don't know about the fourth - I don't think he has decided yet. My mother, a STAUNCH Hillary supporter, who is furious with the DNC (and has told them so because of the vote theft, etc.) says she doesn't know where she went wrong with them. Me either. But all of a sudden, they have started sending me articles and emails on why McCain/Palin are evil, and Obama is The One. I'm paraphrasing a little, but not a lot. My oldest brother sent me the piece Gloria Steinem wrote on Gov. Palin, an elitist, patronizing piece in which she diminishes people who hunt (not understanding, I guess, that many people hunt to put FOOD on the table, especially in these difficult economic times), among other smears. So, I felt compelled to write him back. A lot of this is information those who have been paying attention already know:

I am not an apologist for Sarah Palin, but I find the argument that SHE is inexperienced as Steinem said to be laughable. The DNC selected the least experienced candidate ever, one who refuses to make available ANY paper trail at all - no college or law school transcripts, no medical records, no passports, no birth certificates, and claims he had NOT ONE PAPER or DATE BOOK available from his time in the IL Senate (which is part-time service, btw). One who has no legislative accomplishments of note to his name. Never mind the LONG list of his sordid associates which throw his whole "good judgment" stance out the window. Add to that his vote for FISA, for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, for keeping Terry Schiavo on life support. Or his lack of chairing ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, which oversees Afghanistan, and now claims that we need to do more abt Afghanistan,and who wants to return to the foreign policy of DONALD RUMSFELD...If this was BUSH, the Progressives would be going batshit crazy screaming our fool heads off. But for some reason, this is all fine and dandy. Never mind all of the university professors who are now shrugging off his constant plagiarizing (and his picking a running mate who is also a plagiarizer), an act that can get students thrown OUT of universities. Why? I really don't get this infatuation with this man! Without a teleprompter, he can barely even talk!! But he is "eloquent," and has "good judgm ent." Um, no. And he is sexist as all hell, to boot.

And for some reason, Obama is constantly comparing himself to the VP pick, not the presidential nominee. Much easier for him to pick on a woman than a man, as he demonstrated time and again during this campaign. Flipping Hillary off, brushing her off his shoulder and his shoe, having "99 Problems BUt a Bitch Ain't One" playing when he won Iowa. Class act this guy. Oh, and for what it's worth - he lives 1 1/2 blocks away from Bill Ayers, who lives right down the street from the Farrakhan Compound. What a coincidence.


Oh - is now when I tell you that my brother has a PhD., and developed some major software, whose clients include NASA? Yeah. He's supposed to be smart (my younger brother and his wife - both PhDs - also are big Obama supporters, at least my brother is. My sis-in-law is a "Vote Democrat" no matter what more than anything.). Here's what he wrote back:
These are interesting accusations. Do you know these things for a fact? What is your source of information? Is there some doubt about the fact that Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review? You don't get to that place by being a flaky biscuit. Is there any doubt about the fact that McCain was at the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?

I don't follow you with the Donald Rumsfield foreign policy thing. What do you mean?

One thing I can say for sure. I have seen Obama in many interviews and town hall type conversations, besides the podium speeches. He has always impressed me with his speaking ability in off the cuff situations. This is a sharp dude.

I also like Joe Biden very much. He is a solid, decent, knowledgeable person.

At the end of the day, this is about policies, not personalities. Who do you think is going to best implement the objectives of Hillary Clinton? If you say McCain-Palin, then I don't see how you get there.


Oh, boy. And yes, he DID go there about the personalities. Here's my response:

Yes, I know these things for a fact. This is what I do every day, all day long.

True, Obama was head of the Law Review, and the ONLY Editor to never publish a single piece while editor. His tenure is the least quoted year of ANY for the Harvard Law Review. The changes he implemented were changed immediately after he left. He has only one piece that was finally uncovered just recently from his time at Harvard (it's on abortion, by the way), and is not well written at all. He never published anything as a law instructor, either. Nothing. And he wasn't a full professor, either.

Have you watched Obama in the debates? Interviews? His constant stammering has become fodder for late-night comedians, counting up how many times he says, "uh, uh, uh" in a few minutes time. Sure, give him a prepared speech, and he's great. Of course, he doesn't WRITE them - he leaves that up to three young white guys (not kidding - NY Times had an article on them).

Obama said if he was elected president, he would want to return to the Foreign Policy of George Bush the first. Those policies were courtesy of Donald Dumsfeld. He said this shortly after he lauded Reagan as a transformational president, and tore Bill Clinton down. Here's a LINK. It was at Huffington Post, too.

I agree that this is not abt personalities, yet that seems to be the ONLY reason people are voting for Obama. Many of the people I know who support him seem to know NOTHING abt him except he gives a good speech, and he claims he had good judgment for giving an anti-war (not all wars, mind you) speech in front of an anti-war crowd in Hyde Park. He wasn't even the main speaker - Jesse Jackson was! In fact, his speech wasn't even recorded. They went back and did it in a studio. He got everyone thrown off the ballot right before the election when he ran for IL senate, thus running unopposed. Oh, including his mentor, Alice Palmer. His manager, David Axelrod, exposed the Republican opponent for US Senate's sealed divorce records, revealing he had an affair, so he had to drop out at the last minute. So they brought in Alan Keyes, who is NUTS. That's how he got into the Senate. He has missed almost 50% of votes in the Senate. And like I said, he has not held ONE subcommittee meeting on European Affairs, the committee that oversees Afghanistan, NATO, and Europe. He said he was too busy campaigning, after only being in the US Senate ONE YEAR. If anyone else had tried this, with such a flimsy record of legislation both in the IL Senate and US Senate, they would have been laughed off the stage. He claims to be on committees he isn't, claims he assisted in legislation he didn't (even in the Saddleback Forum - he claimed he worked with McCain on campaign finance reform - McCain has a letter he sent to him apologizing for taking him at his word that he really DID want to work on it - it's powerful stuff, and reveals early on how duplicitous Obama is). How is it you don't know ANY of this? His relationship with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist? The one with whom he worked at the Annenberg Challenge at which $110 million kinda disappeared? And from which he gave people like Jeremiah Wright big chunks of change (the fund was supposed to be for education)?

Look at his associates: IL State Senator James Meeks, close personal friend and spiritual mentor. Not only is he actively anti-gay, but he works with Focus on the Family and other groups to try to end separation of church and state (which is what made Steinem's smear on Palin abt James Dobson ironic). Tony Rezko - convicted. Kwame Kilpatrick - convicted. Gov of IL - under investigation. Oh, and his church is associated with Hamas and Louis Farrakhan. New politics? Nope - Chicago-style politics.

Personally, I don't like BIden at all. He's also a plagiarizer, and stood with Bush a great deal after 9/11, always appearing with him in the Rose Garden. Doesn't bother you he said Obama is too inexperienced to be president?

I would have thought after 8 yrs of Bush, someone else everyone claimed was too inexperienced (he was actually MORE experienced than Obama), people would not want to take such a risk again, and with someone who is more secretive than Bush EVER was. His birth certificate is important, since apparently, he was adopted by his mother's second husband - if he had dual citizenship EVER, it excludes him from being president (and all of this "I grew up with a poor single mother" is just CRAP. She was remarried to a wealthy Indonesian business man when he was quite small. He went to the most prestigious school in Hawaii - his grandmother, the "typical white person," was a bank vice president at the largest bank in Hawaii. They were not poor people. His father was a polygamist who was abusive to his wives, and who had a number of DUIs,and died in a drunk driving accident.).

So, I agree - it shouldn't BE about personalities, but that's exactly what it has been. And I am not voting for him just because of all of the above. I am not voting for him because I will not, cannot, condone the Democratic Party engaging in voter fraud, theft, and disenfranchisement. When the DNC starts taking votes cast for one person and giving them to another, they have lost their moral compass. It is immoral at best, and likely illegal. That was the ONLY way Obama got the nomination. That and the DNC treating FL and MI more harshly than any other state because they knew they were going for Clinton. So they took away 100% of their votes. Their RULE is 50%, same as the RNC. But they did not use that, and they SHOULD have for SC, IA, and NH, too. ALL of those states violated the rule. The purpose was to thwart Clinton's momentum, same reason Obama took his name off the ballot in MI. He encouraged others to do so, too, as a way to try and embarass Clinton when she won, and as an ass-kiss to IA. To then give him votes not cast for him, when "Uncommitted" is a recognized presidential candidate in MI party rules, as well as to take away delegates Clinton won from votes cast for her by American citizens is reprehensible. I will not support the DNC with my money or time or VOTE anymore until they clean house and regain some semblance of integrity.

So - it's not that it isn't Clinton. If Obama had won fair and square, I'd vote for him like I did for Kerry, whom I also did not like. But he didn't. His campaign engaged in a tremendous amount of dirty politics, especially in caucus states- TX alone had over 2,000 documented cases of fraud to which the DNC turned a blind eye. Clinton supporters were being locked out of the caucuses, numbers were changed when they were called in, peopel were bused in from out of state, they stole packages in TX and had people sign in when they voted rather than having them come back at night...It made NO sense that Clinton would WIN TX by as much as she did, then lose the caucus by as much as she did. There are already a number of reports and documentaries out about this, but the MSM is not covering them.

And that's another thing - Clinton was outspent up to 4 -1, was trashed regularly NOT for her policies (which were similar to Obama's because he would take them WHOLE CLOTH from her, like the 5 million green jobs initiative), while praising Obama up one side and down the other WITHOUT EVER VETTING HIM.

I do not think for a second Obama will work for the same policies Clinton did. I think he will go whichever way the wind blows. He has already demonstrated that time and time again. Why he isn't being held to any of his votes is beyond me - and which just reinforces my point that people are not paying attention to WHAT he says, just how he says it (by the way - he didn't have that folksy Southern-churchy accent when he was running for IL Senate). Look at his flip on FISA. Offshore drilling. Public campaign funding. Just to name a few.

I don't know if I will even vote this year, so don't assume I am voting for McCain/Palin. I can say that McCain is an honorable man, and has given his entire life i n service to this country. That means something. He is also moderate, and a reformer, something Obama will NEVER be (oh - today's BIG report is about Obama raging on Palin, particularly about the Bridge to Nowhere, which she did get rid of afterall - and which HE VOTED FOR TWICE!!! He claimed, "Palin Can't Just Make Stuff Up!" No, that purview belongs to Obama alone.). But Obama will never get my vote. He should never have assumed he would.


So that's how my morning started - not at ALL about what I was going to write today. But you never know what is going to come up, I reckon. And I know there is evern more about Obama, but I figured I was pushing my luck with him actually reading it this far.

Ah, families...

5 comments:

Mike J. said...

I don't think Obama is picking on Palin because he thinks it's easy. I think he's doing it because the fact Palin is running and, in effect, calling him out, galls him to no end. He can tolerate other men attacking him, but a woman doing the same brings out his ugly side.

I recall reading or hearing somewhere that it is remarkable that, even though Obama had practically no knowledge of his father, he nevertheless dedicated a whole book to him, while all the women who actually did all of the work of bringing him up get no such treatment. If they are mention, it's as the "typical white (i.e., racist) person".

The guy has woman issues out the wazoo, and he's barely able to contain himself.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Oh, no doubt he has woman issues - I agree wholeheartedly. But the thing is, he doesn't argue against the men. He has barely said ANYTING abt McCain, and McCain is at the top of the ticket! Obama started all that crap abt Palin's being a mayor didn't count toward experience (but his having a part-time IL senate job did). So, yeah - she's responding and it is pissing him off. How dare that woman talk to him that way?!

But - why is he consistently going after the BOTTOM of the ticket instead of the top??? Why is he trying to claim HE is more experienced than the VP choice?

Frankly, Mike J., I don't think he can take ANYONE criticizing him. Remember how mad he got in the debates whenever the moderators would go back to him on something or push a point? Oh, he didn't like that ONE bit.

But bottom line, you are right. Why did he focus on a father who abandoned him, was abusive and a drunk, rather than the family who reared him, clothed, fed, and educated him? Never mnd that a bunch of the stories in there were "fairy tales" and never happened (or at least, not the way Obama wrote it).

Mike J. said...

Well, I think he's going after the bottom of the ticket because it is represented by a female. The line he used to love was how McCain was George W. Bush's third term. I haven't heard that one in a while, now it's all about Palin. It seems like an obsession.

Right, I forgot about the debates, and there was some petulance with the media, so the guy has got some thin skin. But I think women really get to him.

So, in other words I don't think he's going after female competitors because he thinks they are weak and therefore an easy target, but rather because he perceives them to be better and stronger than himself, and that he cannot tolerate. He needs to put them down, cut them down to size.

Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy said...

Hey, Mike J - interesting point! Yes, I can totally see that abt his motives...Hmmm.

And you are right - he HAS stopped saying the whole Bush III thing.

Frankly, if he thinks Clinton and Palin were better and smarter than him, he's right! :-D

bluelyon said...

Damn girl! I'm bookmarking the post. You've said everything I want to say and then some.