Obama is smooth and devious, as those of us from Illinois are well aware.

I hope you’re right that he’s just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation who won’t make it past first base. But if he’s not, I want to know more about who he is and what he believes.

This is that time after the elections and ahead of the winter holidays, lots of bla, bla, bla. It will pass and much more serious matters will be on the radar, aside from some novice dreaming and smart-allecking on night-shows, and the media thinking/wishing this is/will be the first Black Kennedy.

Republican strategist Ed Rogers is a skeptic too because he thinks Obama is little more than a blank canvas onto which voters can project their hopes.

Dude… the first time I read that, I though you called him a “black canvas.” I was about to ask to see your “absolute moral authority” card. ;-)

Thanks for the pseudo-apology, but you just lobbed a couple more grenades without reading what we actually wrote! Bradky actually gave me a spanking for “embarrassing” this blog a loooooong time ago–he never defended what I said.

And I didn’t make anything up. I told you already that I knew he wasn’t a Muslim. Again, I was saying that it’s worth asking if his father’s religion has influenced him at all. I just want to know if having Muslim heritage might make him less willing to prosecute the War on Terror. I never said he was Muslim, just that he has Muslim heritage.

So please at least get your facts straight before attacking the non-trolls. ;-)

Sorry for the bomb toss, but we’ve all been laughing at the rats from the Fever Swamps of the left for years for talking smack and getting it all wrong.

My point was simple: the guy’s name is Barack Hussein Obama (I guess), but this does not make him a Muslim, or an Islamist, or a terrorist, and suggesting any of that without getting slapped for it makes us all look ignorant, if not racist.

Broad brush, Bradky? Deal with it. aero’s out there making stuff up, and you’re defending it. Let’s at least get the facts straight before attacking the House Troll.

A counter argument could be “why bother if it only earns 15% of the vote? Could it be that the Republicans are sincere about trying to be inclusive?

Being inclusive in my mind doesn’t mean “appointing people who don’t look like us.” It’s a nice gesture to play for the media, but I don’t think it makes a certain party more popular.

Loyal Democrats may not like the appointees but shouldn’t be surprised Republicans are appointing people with similar political philosophy, just as the Democrats could/would.

Agreed.

Even if your view is correct and mine is not I think it is fair to wonder when the question “Okay we’ve been loyal for a generation, when do we get the payback and trust to lead?” starts to become a demand.

The primaries are where the next Democratic Presidential nomination comes from. I don’t think you’ll see minority Democrats (or Republicans) demanding that the public vote for them because their race helped elect some people in their party.

BTW I’m still waiting for those names.

I’m not going to look back 6 to 28 years to find out what minorities Democrats appointed to positions of power for the reason I already mentioned: to do so would be to treat them as a commodity to be paraded in front of the public.

The only thing he has going for him is being mixed race and attending Harvard — he is a media creature pure and simple. The blogosphere needs to start looking at and publishing his Illinois State legislative record and where he gets his funding.

Margaret McC on December 2, 2006 at 4:42 PM

On a purely personal level I am interested in how he handles the mixed race issue. Pride in one’s heritage and upbringing is great but a balancing act since his Mom is white. Tough minefield to maneuver without putting off some group of people.

As for his voting record and positions the primaries and debates will bring those to the forefront. His competition will address them and it won’t be pretty.

From a purely academic analysis, this election will be a fun one to watch because there are no incumbents (pres/vice).

The fact that you’re treating black appointees like a commodity to be used to win blacks to the Republican side might be a microcosm for why blacks vote more than 85% with the Democrats in general elections.

– nonfactor

A counter argument could be “why bother if it only earns 15% of the vote? Could it be that the Republicans are sincere about trying to be inclusive? Loyal Democrats may not like the appointees but shouldn’t be surprised Republicans are appointing people with similar political philosophy, just as the Democrats could/would.”
Even if your view is correct and mine is not I think it is fair to wonder when the question “Okay we’ve been loyal for a generation, when do we get the payback and trust to lead?” starts to become a demand.
BTW I’m still waiting for those names.

What gaffe did Obama make that rolled up the red carpet? Perhaps baldilocks or Entelechy can explain.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM

Sorry naliaka, I don’t understand your request abd don’t follow his comings/goings.

I agreed with baldilocks on not harping on Mr. Obama’s heritage too much. I agree with you entirely on the lack of experience and all other you wrote.

He is hard-core Leftist, even supports partial birth abortion — not one of the good guys.

The only thing he has going for him is being mixed race and attending Harvard — he is a media creature pure and simple. The blogosphere needs to start looking at and publishing his Illinois State legislative record and where he gets his funding.

This applies particularly to the Democrats. The republicans don’t have an 80% lock on any voting group. Black voters are the only group that identifies with one party in percentages that high.

For a reason.

Powell, Rice, Steel are three prominent blacks appointed by Republican administrations/voters. I note that you didn’t name three that were appointed under Clinton or Carter.

The fact that you’re treating black appointees like a commodity to be used to win blacks to the Republican side might be a microcosm for why blacks vote more than 85% with the Democrats in general elections. The truth is, is that Republicans can appoint however many black people they want to, they won’t win over the population until they change their position on issues and make people forget about the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

The debate is about fitness for presidential office. Obama is being pushed heavily by the media, on evidently not much more than basis of his ethnicity.

naliaka on December 2, 2006 at 3:21 PM

That of course makes him unique, but that’s like saying that Hillary is only considered a frontrunner because she’s a woman. I see criticisms of Obama for “not having enough experience,” by the same people who prop up Mick Romney, and the same people who propped up George Bush in 2000.

I guess no one wants to mention that Obama is a hard core socialists, or that his father was and mother actively worshipped Islam, or that as a child his mother ran off with another Islamist to Jakarta and spent age 6-12 in Islamic schools. Incidently ages 6-12 are the most impressionable years of a child. Non of this information seems important to the MSM’s as they hype up their propaganda engines for their new Presidential hopeful.

Egfrow on December 2, 2006 at 2:16 PM

I believe he also has some culpability re global warming. Bastard MSM.

I don’t understand these types of statements, or what this one has anything to do with the subject. Peel off 10-15% of a group from any side and they’ll get beaten. Your point is?

This applies particularly to the Democrats. The republicans don’t have an 80% lock on any voting group. Black voters are the only group that identifies with one party in percentages that high.

If you think blacks will flock to the Republican side because they’re put into high positions of office you’re sadly mistaken. Once Republicans start adopting the policies of the Democrats and manage to erase the policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s from the voter’s minds then you might see blacks trending Republican.

Powell, Rice, Steel are three prominent blacks appointed by Republican administrations/voters. I note that you didn’t name three that were appointed under Clinton or Carter. At some point the question of “Just when do you think we deserve the chance to be front runner of the party?” is going to be asked.
You are correct about flocking to the Republicans and I don’t expect that to happen. Trust is earned not given as I mentioned. But as more people from the Black community enter the middle class economic brackets, I think the more they will be enamored of conservative policies. This is where the 10-15% begins to come into play.

As for your second sentence – we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t think that is the direction the Republicans should go.

Oh wait… just had a vision of the future… yes a nap is in my future within minutes. :)

You are the one who guaranteed how he would be accepted, not me. I offered two possibilities for consideration (1) he would be accepted by one and all as “The Great Black Hope” or (2) Some would not agree with his politics.

That’s an either-or fallacy, and I didn’t say that he would be accepted by all, I just rejected your assumption that blacks wouldn’t like him because he was different.

Statistics show that the black community votes 80% or more on average for Democratic candidates. Peel off 10-15% of that vote and the Democrats will get wiped out in a general election.

I don’t understand these types of statements, or what this one has anything to do with the subject. Peel off 10-15% of a group from any side and they’ll get beaten. Your point is?

To be fair, the Republicans have been lousy in their PR efforts to show their policies may benefit the interests of black communities more than the proposed Democrat policies AND to establish more trust in what they say.

I think the reasons they can’t demonstrate it is because they aren’t there. Unless you can name me a few, but I do recall House Republicans recently trying to stop the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act because it showed that the South has a racist history.

Name three people the Democrats have put in real positions of power when they held office. My point is that eventually the 80% I mentioned will begin to fall off because of promises not delivered.

If you think blacks will flock to the Republican side because they’re put into high positions of office you’re sadly mistaken. Once Republicans start adopting the policies of the Democrats and manage to erase the policies of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s from the voter’s minds then you might see blacks trending Republican.

This is the first part of your post I need to address. Popular belief? Are you projecting or do you really think most people in politics think blacks are “herds of sheep”? And don’t even try to accuse me of saying blacks have no indivuality, it’s pathetic and rude.

You are the one who guaranteed how he would be accepted, not me. I offered two possibilities for consideration (1) he would be accepted by one and all as “The Great Black Hope” or (2) Some would not agree with his politics.
Two different outcomes, two debating points.

Statistics show that the black community votes 80% or more on average for Democratic candidates. Peel off 10-15% of that vote and the Democrats will get wiped out in a general election. To be fair, the Republicans have been lousy in their PR efforts to show their policies may benefit the interests of black communities more than the proposed Democrat policies AND to establish more trust in what they say.
Name three people the Democrats have put in real positions of power when they held office. My point is that eventually the 80% I mentioned will begin to fall off because of promises not delivered.

If you can see the future then I apologize.

Nonfactor on December 2, 2006 at 2:19 PM

Accepted. Knew you would come around.

Contrary to popular belief the black community is not a herd of sheep with the same opinion. Implying that they are implies a bit of patronization on your part.

Bradky on December 2, 2006 at 8:00 AM

This is the first part of your post I need to address. Popular belief? Are you projecting or do you really think most people in politics think blacks are “herds of sheep”? And don’t even try to accuse me of saying blacks have no indivuality, it’s pathetic and rude.

a. He has a white mother, black biological father, and Muslim Stepfather. He was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii and spent much of his early years being raised by his white grandparents. This is in wikipedia if you care to look it up. I think it is safe to make the observation that his upbringing was not that of most black Americans – say for example Condoleezza Rice, Jesse Jackson, or Michael Steele.

Yes, he’s different. But you think because he didn’t have a “typical” upbringing (for blacks or whites) he won’t be “recieved” well? And you’re basing this off of what?

b. The speculation was on how he would be received not how I think he will be.

No, it’s based off what you think, unless you already know how blacks feel about him and why. If you can see the future then I apologize.

Dean, forget about him. Agree on Richardson.