The Coalition of the Swilling

I shuddered when I read "Weather will likely play a role."

Seeing as his campaign was kicked off in Ayers' living room, I figure it already does play a role.

Amen.

And what Erica said.

I think you speak the truth here, and brutally honest as always. Obama should and will be tested early and often, if he wins the election. There are times where i too question his blunt timid nature, his desire to make everyone happy, his seemingly too good to be true political demeanor. And i find myself entertaining doubt - republicans have mastered this fearmongering tactic. But there is nothing to false about hope, nor the spirit of senator obama's presence - change. There is something happening im america.

There is something happening im america.

Sounds like a snake oil sales ad to me.

Cynical? Why would I be cynical?

Don - well and good, but when has Obama been tested up until now? The guy won't even answer basic questions about his prior record, prior political connections, job performance, or agenda. Instead, there are two replies -

1. the warm bath of sentiments that you've just posted
2. "That's racist and hurtful!"

These are not adult replies. These are avoidance replies typical to small children or petulant teenagers.

Do you really want Obama to be tested internationally? So far, his domestic "tests" have been complete failures. He took Fannie Mae's money instead of reforming them; then he put Franklin Raines on his advisory staff. He votes "present" unless it's something about gun control and abortion - then he votes "aye." And instead of facing those things (much less learning from them) he and his sycophants in the media, academia, and celebrity worlds all front for him, shield him from even accounting for himself to the people whose votes he craves.

Do you want him to be tested? Let the press test him now, instead of shilling for him. Let plumbers ask him questions without having their jobs threatened and their lives dragged into the public forum. But whatever you do, don't let the first test be the one that really counts, when Russia arms Iran for a strike at Israel, or Venezuela attacks Columbia and cuts off their oil supplies, or North Korea lobs a missile at Japan.

Hey Don. I am so open and willing for change I could puke. I am completely disgusted by both the republicans and the democrats. And I think you're right about 'something happening in America;' I think lots of people are truly disgusted with our "ruling class" elites and how they continually screw things up and stiff us with the bill.

Unfortunately, on the national level this year these are the choices we've got; voting for a third party is the equivalent of not voting. Look, as much as it would be fun to blame the evil geniuses of the republican party for your doubts (and I think the record of the past eight years clearly shows they ain't geniuses, for gosh' sake) he is less than an ideal candidate. Had he followed his first instincts that he expressed with such earnest, honest humility right after his election, had he waited four more years to run, he probably would be unbeatable. It's very hard not to like the guy; hell, I do like the guy. I think he got dragged into running by the anti-Hillary, more radical wing of the Party against his better judgment; whether that says something about his judgment time will tell.

There's nothing false about hope, Don, that's true. Hope is a glorious gift. But one's hope can be placed in false idols or ones, however well meaning, who can not possibly live up to inflated expectations, especially when their default mode is wanting to make people happy; that's what puppies are for, not Presidents.

"...I think the record of the past eight years clearly shows they ain't geniuses..."

Mr. B, you have a flair for understatement, did you know that? ;-P

FWIW, Obama is a nice enough guy. I'd have a beer with him any day. But voting for him as President, given his past associations, statements, and actions? No way. He's just not there.

Mr. Bingley, of course it would be impossible for me to convince you that obama isn't inexperienced, he is, very. And it will definitely become a case of on-the-job training during his expected tenure. As stated, this is more an idictment of the two political parties than anything, but mccain isn't who america needs in '08.

*indictment (sorry, typing from phone). @nightfly: same goes for sarah palin, always remember that.

Surfing with your phone? At 1:30 in the morning? On a Thursday night? Dang, Don, you're burning it at both ends!

Don - re: Sarah Palin, three points:

1 - she has ten years' of executive experience as a mayor and Governor. She has also held down actual jobs in the private sector. Senator Obama has none of that.

2 - Ms. Palin is only the VP candidate. McCain could win TWO terms and serve them both fully; but Obama would have the keys from Day One.

3 - Palin's "inexperience" certainly didn't hurt her in debate with Joe Biden, who has been a Senator my entire lifetime. In fact, she pretty much ate his lunch and made him clean up afterwards. She also knew exactly what a VP does according to the Constitution, and Biden didn't.

Conclusion - I am much more concerned about Obama's naivete and inexperience in the Presidency than Palin's greater experience in the Vice Presidency.

Of course, none of this goes to character. Again, Obama and his entire campaign are extremely touchy whenever anyone talks about anything he's ever done or plans to do - but if he were proud of his record why the reluctance? If he wants to lead America, don't Americans have the right to know how? Ask Joe the Plumber how it went for him trying to find out.

I'm no McCainiac but I don't believe in simply pulling the "D" as some sort of karmic punishment for George W Bush. On Jan 20 Bush is leaving no matter what anyone does. I'd rather have McCain staring down Russia and Iran, I'd rather have Palin's energy-sector experience at work, and I sure as shootin' rather have their tax policies than Obama's. My wife and I have precious little wealth to spread around and prefer to do it ourselves.

Cycles and/or Circles

I have wanted to say this for many years but the ignition to fire just never worked until I found your site through a hotlink in another Blog. These words jumped out of the keyboard after that and I don’t quite know where it is going but I hope it contributes to the debate on hand and to a solution somewhere.

The fortunes, the rise and fall, the good and the bad of Nations, Countries and Dynasties happen in cycles. Sometimes one can pick up the start of a cycle or it’s end quite clearly; at other times one cycle [or a circle] goes into another never ending circle.

Let me handle the latter first and get done with it. Africa has been running in cycles of turmoil and one upheaval after the other. Apart from the Colonial cycle they just never made it, with the exception of old Egypt where they had their moment of glory once and have since stabilized. The rest moves from one circle to the next. Some could have made it but never did; most just never had a chance because they didn’t want it.

Similarly, though not exactly identical, the World knows about other old empires [the Turks had their time, Greece had their moments of glory; there are many, suffices not to have to mention more] but I want to concentrate on what is generally described as Western Civilization. Again though, I want to mention only a very few to limit the actual discussion to America and the United Kingdom.

Almost all “Western Countries and Nations” shared the Colonial Cycle in some way or another, either as the Colony or as the Colonial power. Cycles were almost always cultural or economic [trade] or a combination of the two. It was the two main driving forces for America; the United Kingdom developed out of their Colonial Times and the main difference with America was the right of America to trade independently. Culturally the two nations developed in parallel streams with very little to clash; once the War for American Independence ended [having been a war for trade more than anything else] the two countries developed as natural friends more or less.

They both went through the industrial development cycles, the Wars with France and Germany and the clashes with Communism and remained natural Allies.

Then [I must cut this short for now] 1960 came along and brought in its wake a thing called Liberalism. That in its “founding years” was not a bad thing at all. In fact there is still nothing wrong with the original idea of Liberty; it is when it became mixed up with human rights, technology and politics that it went wrong, to become the monster it is today.

But meantime one must understand Krutchev’s Russia, China, Japan and lately India developed without being affected by Liberalism. It is not something that concerns them much; whatever the humanists may say, these countries are getting stronger. Putin’s Russia is even stronger now that they have adopted capitalism and Japan is on the rise again with China going even faster. All these countries are building their strength in Trade and Technology. Please keep this in mind and that they are also by and large homogenous Nations though one may debate the point whether India is [I will leave that for another day because it suffices for this discussion to call them homogenous, certainly to a much greater degree than America or the United Kingdom].

This is the point where a friewd's concerns about America’s future role triggered in to turn the ignition on for this rambling.

These and the other homogenous Nations of Scandinavia are on the rise while Liberalism as it exists today has dragged America down into a hole from which escape is becoming more difficult every day. The United Kingdom has gone trough the same pain but they are managing it more efficiently [even seems as if they may get out of a never ending circle and actually enter a new cycle of expansion] but America has been loosing her direction.

In comes Obama [remember this is not a doctoral thesis and I am keeping it short] but in comes Obama to redefine homogeny and nationhood at a time when America is struggling to redefine her Identity, at the exact time when the great homogenous Nations I have mentioned are rising.

America’s obsession with Liberal Ideology, and its acceleration by Obama may lead to her doom.

I hate to say this because my heart goes out for the 46% who voted with their heads and hearts in the right place but that is where the decision has to be made.

Communism never got off the ground in America [it eventually also fell in Russia and China for the very same reason] because it was an outdated ideology before it started and Americans just never fancied the idea of Social [commercial or economic] Communism. In fact today even the idea of military Communism is pretty much something to laugh off; when Communism failed economically it also failed for military purposes.

But Liberalism became what some new scholars call Liberanarchism and this is the risk America does not even seem to grasp.

On that I will leave it for today but along with Michael, and adding a bit of my own, with utmost respect for him and my heartfelt abiding love for the 46%, I have to add that America must start to face the fact that it does not any longer occupy the Number One Leadership position in the World, nor can Obama assume He is now the Most Powerful Person in the World. He is not! China and Japan won’t laugh in his face [they do things quietly with stealth and certainty] but the mad Arab and the African tyrant will do the laughing; they are that way inclined.

Forgive me, but I had to say this. The homogenous Nations are on the rise, in economic terms and moral fiber [whether American Liberals squeal about human rights abuses in China or not] [Liberty does mean equality but Liberty eventually goes by the wayside if equality does not go hand in hand with equal responsibility] and these Nations will assume [and share] the Leadership role between them. America is falling apart at the seams; the great cycle has ended. Well, it really ended when Liberalism took over in 1960 but it managed to survive [through two people named Bush and one named Reagan, and one named Nixon] [don’t ever forget the last one] but it has now ended.

Others have fallen too [that is not new] and many have picked themselves up by the bootstraps to rise again. Others who were defeated in War remained unvanquished and fought again and won. Some have fallen through moral decay [someone else once said the Roman Empire sodomised and whored themselves out of an Empire] but I know of no other great Nation, Country or Dynasty who just threw it away for the ego of One Man. It is hard to understand why America wanted to be the first to do it.