A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk   (musing about Lake Erie West and beyond)
From babbleman's workspace   

Change, Hope, Yes We Can!!

Ba'rorschach Obama
by A.J. Rice

The Barack Obama juggernaut continues as he trounces the Clinton Machine in primary after primary across the nation. In state after state he enters arenas of adulators like Caesar returned from his winter encampment.

While most Americans cannot recall one Obama achievement in all of his years of political activism...they seem to be mesmerized by his didactic "preacherman" speeches that repeat the words "hope" and “change” as if he invented them.

But hope doesn't cover a Marine’s back in Ramadi: his brothers-in-arms do. Hope doesn't keep a Border Patrol agent alert in El Paso, or assist the captain of a Coast Guard cutter off the coast of Charleston. Hope is a thing for children, and when a country is at war, the Oval Office is no place for nursery rhymes.

The ladies and gentlemen of the press can't help but express their infatuation with him. Like a Holy Ghost-filled Pentacostal preacher, Senator Obama has the masses entranced by the rapture of bromides and platitudes. MSNBC's Chris Matthews -- in an unintentional self-parody -- said that an Obama speech caused a shiver to travel up his leg. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, in a recent televised debate asked a question that implied an Obama/Clinton combination would be a magical 'dream ticket.' And yet, for all the media attention directed his way, Ba'rorschach Obama's admirers still seem to be unable to define their messianic savior without a string of substance-free adjectives.

Senator Obama tickles the fantasies of the Starbucks soy latte crowd, but this mass infatuation appears to have infected the nation's working stiffs across many hitherto Clinton-locked demographics such as women and Hollywood’s elite. To newly-eligible voters Obama holds the key to the kingdom of milk and honey, where no welfare state promise is kept unmet.

Obama is a Rorshach test: liberals see in him whatever they like. They are free to assign to him whatever belief they hold most dear because he has no record, no substance to limit their fantasies. He enables bratty child armies of baby boomers to place their political wishes beneath their pillows and dream of a 'post partisan' future, whatever that means.

What most Americans -- even the psuedo-intellectuals who inhabit our nation's newsrooms -- fail to comprehend is that Senator Obama's grip on the masses is another historical throwback. We're supposed to believe that Ba'rorschach Obama is a revolutionary and a reformer. He’s Dr. Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and JFK combined.

Why? Because you've looked into the ink blot and saw it. Because It manifested itself like animals in the clouds? And yet what proof do Obama’s believers have to validate that it's JFK and not Mussolini that they see within the ink? Rhetorical flourishes? What else is there? In truth, nothing.

When a voter asks Senator Obama if it's feasible to enact legislation based on his campaign promises, he simply responds, "Yes, we can!"

Can we eliminate poverty? "Yes, we can!" Confiscate and redistribute wealth? "Yes, we can!" Appoint more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs to the Supreme Court? "Yes, we can!" Abortions on demand? "Yes, we can!" Socialized healthcare? "Yes, we can!" Driver's licenses for illegal aliens? "Si se puede!" Capitulation to terrorists with nothing to lose and heaven to gain? "Yes, we can!" Is this how senator Obama defines 'change'?

For some middle-class families, change could mean eating-out one less night per month. For others, it could mean driving the old car for one more year. But make no mistake about it: 'change' under an Obama presidency for hardworking Americans who sacrifice to achieve wealth, may mean forking over more of their income to a modern-day New Dealer who plans to use $150 billion to create so-called 'green collar' jobs, and another $60 billion to pay for some monstrosity called the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. To the average taxpayer that kind of 'change' will leave very little in their wallets.

Above all else, we are electing a Commander-in-Chief. Obama's plan to protect Americans -- what little there is -- should send a shiver down our backs. He wants to withdraw from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences. Perhaps abandoning it to al-Queda doesn’t bother him.

As Commander-in-Chief, Obama would surrender us to a UN global tax. He recently introduced a bill that, as one report described it, “…would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.”

In researching Ba'rorschach Obama's political history, attempting to discover something of substance, is an impossible task. He won his campaign for the US Senate against an outsider -- Alan Keyes -- whose campaign was as unserious as Dennis Kucinich’s bid for the presidency. Obama's only qualification seemed to be that unlike his original opponent, Jim Ryan, he was never discovered at a sex club. (Maybe he should add that distinction to his anti-Clinton stump speeches.)

There's nothing new about Barack Obama. He's the latest in a long line of foppish flim-flam men who offer verbal enchantment to the voters in order to achieve power. If he wins the Democratic nomination, come November he'll face Senator John McCain, a moderate Republican with his own set of problems to be sure, but a candidate who has proved that he will see the Iraq mission through to victory.

If Obama vanquishes the Clintons and ends up the nominee, he'd better be ready for a campaign fight in the lobby of the Hanoi Hilton. Nothing in his life story has prepared him for it. And nothing in our history has prepared us for the effects if he wins.

created by babbleman on Feb 19, 2008 at 10:29:30 pm     Comments: 29

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

get over yourself, redneck.

posted by jhostetler on Feb 19, 2008 at 11:26:22 pm     #



copy and pasting from a joke of a right wing website doesnt do much to get dialog going. id love to hear in your own words why obama is a bad idea for the country. not that i agree with your viewpoint... but i think its much more interesting to hear what toledoans thinks about this than someone on a national level

posted by upso on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:13:24 am     #



Old ideas have failed. Old strategies have failed. New is a risk I am willing to take.

Simplified, but in a nut shell, that'll do it.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:20:52 am     #



OK, I'll go.

Obama is coming across more and more eerily Bush-like in his messiah-complex-backed-up-by-nothing-much. It's worrisome.

Also worrisome, in my POV as a Democrat, is the swiftboating that's sure to come Obama's way in a general election. I doubt he's prepared; and the Dems may well see their wonder boy flapping in the wind.

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton's campaign has done nothing to prepare Obama for the Republican machine. Of course she can't. Because when a male candidate goes on the attack, it's strategy; and when a woman candidate goes on the attack, she's a desperate, emotional bitch.

(Sigh.) John Edwards was my guy so my enthusiasm for the primary process might be at a cynical low point, admittedly.

posted by jmleong on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:42:55 am     #



copy and pasting from a joke of a right wing website doesnt do much to get dialog going.

Oops. Sorry upso. Copying and pasting from left wing websites is at least 80% of the content of this site and it seems to keep things going pretty well. I was under the naive impression that dialog was a two way street.

id love to hear in your own words why obama is a bad idea for the country.

Thanks upso.

Unlike the left wing copy and paste crowd, I actually have logged a good deal of my own words in the last 4 or so years. And most of my posts exceed one or two sentences.

I'm not sure there is anything unique to say about Obama. To me, he embodies everything about liberalism that is a lie - from the stolen name "liberal", to the promise of change when the country has not changed its fundamental direction in 75 years to the promise of bringing people together when centrally controlled economic egalitarianism is, by any observation, divisive.

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:05:00 am     #



I post a lot of stuff from communist aristocratic sites/ news sources to balance the bar room brawl.

Obama is just a guy. He's not going to do anything to get himself killed like strengthen the constitution, print treasury notes, or address real economic issues.

He's a guy trying to move up the ladder, just like McCain and Clinton and the rest of them.

Business as usual, rhetoric as usual.

posted by charlatan on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:55:57 am     #



Gee, when hasn't a politician promised change and didn't deliver?

posted by tommy1 on Feb 20, 2008 at 03:22:12 am     #



Gee, when hasn't a politician promised change and didn't deliver?

When it comes to the "change" mantra specifically - my problem is that I don't see what there is for a liberal to change. Is the assertion that somehow the country has been moving to the right for the last 8 years years? No way.

Since the 1930's, year over year, the country has been moving to the left and there hasn't made a single year in which there was a step backwards. The easiest way to see this is through taxation. Get a graph of government spending as a portion of GDP over that period - up every year. Now get a graph that shows the proportion of social spending versus every other category as a portion of overall spending over that time. The former up, year after year, the latter down. This is moving to the left - there is no other way to interpret it. So the only way, in the last 80 years, any one could "change" is if they reversed the trend.

Reagan didn't reverse it, the Rebuplican revolution didn't reverse it, Bush didn't reverse it. All of them may have slowed it - but we have never actually had a net change to the right.

So when I hear liberals chanting about "change" I am confused. If you are on the left, the country has been tipping, with only brief hesitations once every decade, your way for four generations? What in the world is it that you want to change? Do you just want it to tip faster? Is that the problem?

It seems like "Let's Keep it up America, We're Almost There" might be a better slogan for the left.

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 07:30:07 am     #



Just to comment on all of Obama's winnings last nite and his speech...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23232655/

I love the fact that he would like the elderly to NOT pay taxes say if income below $50,000.00...with that, that does NOT include the bulk of USA population whose earnings are less than $36,000.00 per year...*confused* totally with the tax ideas...

I love the fact that he will give BIG BUSINESS a tax credit to keep JOBS IN THE USA...with that...have we not had TAX ABATEMENTS for sometime now bribing business to stay in America. And...they still relocate South, China, India.
Don't get me wrong...I like Obama, he delivers a wonderful speech, he is always polite during debates (in my opinion speaks volumes as Hillary tends to ATTACK)...

I love the fact the Obama doesn't like WAR...who really does? Yet, claiming to END this war in my opinion is NOT going to happen for a very long time...we simply cannot just get up and leave...that would be devastating for all involved.

Again, I like Obama...I actually like and respect McCain, Hillary...I am not sure what to think other than I felt she was working her way up to this day the whole time she was FIRST LADY to Bill...

I will close my confusing post with...does it really matter who wins...what can any one of them single handly do...

Appreciate some feedback...

posted by MARIELORA on Feb 20, 2008 at 09:54:07 am     #



It's not that the country is drifting to the left, it is that the country is making progress. All the great programs of the 20th century: The New Deal, Social Security, minimum wage the Civil Rights Acts were brought about by folks you would call liberals. Ask most Americans if they would like a return to 1900, and they would say no thanks.

posted by Ace_Face on Feb 20, 2008 at 09:56:45 am     #



It's not that the country is drifting to the left, it is that the country is making progress.

See, Ace, I think this is a big problem. For whatever reason, there is an obsession with changing names so that we can deny the underlying facts.

Those on the left do not want to be socialists - that's such a strong term. Let's completely reverse political science definitions and call them liberals. Ahh, that's better.

Now, let's not call collectivism and anti-free markets the left - that's such a strong term. Let's call it progress. Ahh, much better.

You are engaging in marketing.

I am engaging in literal political science. And from that perspective, the economic and political reality is just that - real numbers and real laws. And by any literal and rational political science definition the unchanged direction that the country has been going in for 80 years is known as leftward and its destination is known as socialism.

I have found this marketing thing to be very effective for you guys. If you can create an argument over the fundamental physics, you will never have to engage in substantive discussions about its effects. Don't argue the efficacy of different types of economic or political policy - just refuse to deny what type your policy is - then you never have to face discussion of its outcome in terms of observed history or in contrast to the ideas that founded the country!! If you can create uncertainty at step 1, you never have to deal with step 2.

Regarding your idea of most Americans returning to 1900 I think you are dead wrong. In fact, the current tension is exactly that. Half of us do want to return to the direction of 1900 in terms of policy (that would be known as the right or individualism - however you are free to skin it anyway you like). And a significant portion of those that want to move towards 1900 would like to go all the way.

You know - the irony on your side never ceases. Consider this:

On the one hand, you give the impression that everyone is a big supporter of the political direction that is consistent with all of your great programs of the 20th century - but then you turn around and do everything you can to avoid the literal political science definitions that describe political direction. What's up with that?

If everyone is so gung ho about your ideas, why don't you guys just stand up and say socialism is your direction? Why are you so afraid of that word? Why don't you use terms like central control, government allocation of resources and redistribution of wealth?

Why is your argument not a passionate defense of your principles instead of a paranoid evasion of being identified with them?

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44:16 am     #



This is the problem with so many on the right. You are absolutists. Either you are a free market libertarian or you are a socialist. No in between.

Are the great social programs of the 20th century along a leftist trajectory or conservative trajectory? Certainly the former. Progress is anathema to conservatives. It's right there in the name conservative. "Half of us do want to return to the direction of 1900 in terms of policy"? I don't think so. If you ask most Americans if they are willing to forego the safety nets of programs like Social Security, Medicaid, free public education, etc., they would say no thanks. Does that make them all socialists? Or that they want a communist state? I don't think that is true anymore than someone who wants to eliminate the income tax wants to eliminate any form of central government.

But that brings up a good point. I have asked before what your America would look like and have not heard a response. All I hear is railing against "liberals." Tell me what a government in your utopia would look like. Would the elderly be provided with medical care if they could not afford it? If a particular state decided that ethnic minorities should be placed in internment camps, would the federal government intervene? Give me something.

posted by Ace_Face on Feb 20, 2008 at 11:25:46 am     #



All I hear is CHANGE! I want to know how any of them plan on change. I want details. I'm tired of speaches and fighting between all of them, left, right and in between. Someone needs to step-up and tell me/us what they are going to do about. I want to know their plans on each and every issue.

posted by Eastsider on Feb 20, 2008 at 11:53:21 am     #



Speaking of changing definitions, babbleman does a great job of accomplishing this. Here is the definition of socialism:

Socialism--socioeconomic system in which the means of production are owned collectively

Now seriously, who is advocating this? Babbleman would like to redefine socialism so that it means "regulated capitalism". Well if this is the case, Adam Smith was indeed a flaming socialist. The problem with market fundamentalists, is that instead of applying their unregulated free-market manifesto strickly to the means of production, it also must be applied to all facets of society (education, healthcare, etc).

posted by Chris99 on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:05:48 pm     #



All I hear is CHANGE! I want to know how any of them plan on change. I want details. I'm tired of speaches and fighting between all of them, left, right and in between. Someone needs to step-up and tell me/us what they are going to do about. I want to know their plans on each and every issue.

Eastsider, do some homework. The media will not tell you. The media wants to maintain the status quo. They are more interested in horseraces than Democracy

posted by Chris99 on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:08:07 pm     #



I have democratic tendencies, but I will probably vote Republican. I want that party to be in power when the chickens come home to roost. The "right" wing of the party doesn't like McCain (not "fascist" enough for them). Hopefully, he will win. I don't want a Democrat in the White House to take responsibility for the crap Bush has left after eight years. I don't think there is little the Democratic Party can do except raise taxes to pay for the debt incurred by Bush's "tax cuts". I want a Republican in the White House when that happens. I want a Republican in the White House when those who own our bonds loose faith in them, and taxes have to be raised for "revenue". I want a Republican in the White House when Medicare has to be cut, and we give the elderly a "death sentence". I want a Republican in the White House when there are no more "pension plans", only 401-K's that are raided by businesses to keep their CEO's in wealth. I definitely want a Republican in the White House until all this happens.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:13:38 pm     #



Chris99- That's my point. I shouldn't have to do Homework. I seen Obama's speech last night. Instead of quoting JFK and stating that Education should be a main concern, Duh, (more or less, I'm not quoting). I want to hear him and every other candidate say, " This is the problem and this is what I plan to do". So far as my count, I've only heard Mcain on some issues and get slammed for it, and Hilary on fewer issues and get slammed for it. As for Obama, last night he did say he would keep American jobs in America, but how? Is he afraid to get slammed to? So far I haven't really made my decision, although it didn't sit well with me when Michelle Obama said "For the first time in my life I'm proud to be an American".
Well now, I believe that the day your born an American or become a legal Citizen, is the day you should be proud.
I'm going to give my vote to the first one that can give straight detailed answers even if I don't agree with some of their "plans". That's the one candidate that's not afraid to stand up for what they believe in, like it or not. And that's an American to me.

posted by Eastsider on Feb 20, 2008 at 12:58:48 pm     #



Pardon my mis-quote. This link gives the more accurate one.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/19/cindy-mccain-michelle-obama-in-patriotism-flap/
See, Chris99 I can do homework :)

posted by Eastsider on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:08:37 pm     #



I agree Eastsider. I think when we get to the general election debates we'll hear more about specifics. There's not much differences in some of these primary candidates' policies. It doesn't help when dumbasses like Tim Russert ask people about UFOs.

posted by Chris99 on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:15:03 pm     #



Btw, I meant no disrespect. My point was to stress the need for people to look into the candidates stances themselves vs getting the info from NBC, ABC, CBS, etc.

posted by Chris99 on Feb 20, 2008 at 01:17:19 pm     #



Your right Chris99, we shouldn't get our info from the media but from the horses mouth. That's what I meant by us doing our homework. One of them are going to lead our country into the future, into change, etc... just look us, as a country in the eye and tell us how. That's all I ask and I'm sure many of us ask. We should not have to google our future leader to find out where they stand.
And Chris99 I did not take it as disrespect.

posted by Eastsider on Feb 20, 2008 at 03:10:18 pm     #



Agreed absolutely on that last point Chris99.

I know that it's easy to criticize the media but there is certainly some substance to that criticism.

Even locally, I was astounded to see the differences in headlines that the Toledo Blade had online for the different candidates just within the past 48 hours or so.

On Monday, February 18th, there was "Clinton trolls Toledo seeking votes for his wife " a write-up by Tom Troy about Bill Clinton's weekend visit. TROLLS? No bias there, no siree. I'd link you guys to the headline but by mid-day it was changed to "Clinton campaigns in Toledo for his candidate." Obviously someone in editorial slapped their own forehead and sought to sanitize that headline lickety-split. No idea how it went out in the print edition.

Contrast that with what I saw on the Blade's home page last night before I went to bed: "Obama wows Youngstown crowd" while McCain was merely planning to "make a stop" in Toledo.

The implications by these headlines go well with the rest of the mainstream media's assessment of the candidates: The Clintons are snakes-in-the-grass; Obama is our energetic saviour; and McCain (yawn), oh McCain? Whatever.

posted by jmleong on Feb 20, 2008 at 03:23:02 pm     #



...Here is the definition of socialism:

Socialism--socioeconomic system in which the means of production are owned collectively

Now seriously, who is advocating this?

Chris, the Gross Domestic Product is the sum of our production. The producers that contribute to that production own the means of production. At the beginning of the last century (to which, we are told, no one wants to return), 97% of that production was not collectively owned. The remaining 3% that was collectively owned represented means of production owned by our government.

Through policies from the left, the amount of collectively owned production has risen to 25%. And there is no end in sight. If Barack got to spend everything he wanted, it would an additional $200 billion a year - a 7% increase in the collectively owned means of production.

So why is it so unreasonable of me to assert that the left is advocating a collective means of production?

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 09:42:37 pm     #



An interesting way to define things--by using the transitive property.

Government spending as percent of GDP increased sharply during WWII. So what you're saying is, the US had to turn to socialism in order to defeat the Nazis?

posted by Chris99 on Feb 20, 2008 at 10:49:57 pm     #



This is the problem with so many on the right. You are absolutists. Either you are a free market libertarian or you are a socialist. No in between.

Actually, Ace, its not a problem with classical liberals, its a feature :)

It has to do with the definition of liberty. Chris and I were discussing this last week. We walked through his definition which was interesting - but I didn't really express mine.

IMO, as soon as money is taken from me beyond that which is required to protect my liberty, we have crossed an important line: 1) we have entered the realm of socialism and 2) we have left the realm of freedom. To be in the realm of socialism, I don't have to have all my money taken (ie, 100% of the means of production does not have to be collective in order to have my liberty stolen) - at any point we cross the line we are there. So, no, there is no in between.

If you walked into a shop that has a $1,000 of assets and stole $5 you are stealing. If you walked in and stole $750 you are stealing. If you steal the whole $1,000 you are stealing. Stealing is stealing. You either are or you aren't - there is no in between. You don't have to steal the whole thing to be a thief.

As I work through the week, I have no rational choice but to work a portion of it for a collective fund to protect my ability to work. Specifically, that would be protecting my business from people outside the country who would take away my freedom by force (solution: the military, intelligence, strategic economic infrastructure like energy, transportation and a common currency) and from people inside the country that would take away my freedom by force or fraud (police, criminal law and civil law).

That is it. The second I have satisfied that, I am done with my collective responsibility. And the next second, if I am still forced to work for the collective, I am now working for someone else and so I am in a totally different state. The reason I am working for someone else at this point is because the defense of liberty has already been paid for - so what else could my additional labor be used for? It has to go to someone else because there is no where else for it to go. And working for someone else is the antithesis of freedom. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it is now technically slavery.

?? I have asked before what your America would look like and have not heard a response.??

You're right you did and I didn't respond, I apologize. Hopefully, the above illustrates it. I believe that the federal government should be constitutionally limited to providing only the functions I described.

Now, let me emphasize that this is the federal government only. The cool thing about America is that we have 50 states and they can have huge amounts of leeway here. They can enact all the slavery they want. But, if we had freedom from the federal government, there would be sufficient diversity in this regard that we would have a choice: some states would be more socialistic than others. That way, you could live in a socialistic state and I could live in a free one.

I think the key to making this happen and keeping it sustainable is subtle and not always clearly understood. It lies in the difference between a federation and a confederation. A federation is a situation in which a central body unifies a number of subordinate bodies. A confederation is a situation where a number of subordinate bodies unifies to create a central body. The balance of power is the issue. In a federation, the central body is the creator of the union and thus calls the shots. In a confederation, the individual bodies are the creator of the union and thus calls the shots.

So anyway, that balance was obviously reversed and with it, the hope of my vision of what the country should be. Ironically, it was lost as an innocent bystander in a battle over slavery, lol.

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 11:32:28 pm     #



An interesting way to define things--by using the transitive property.

Awesome - good catch! Its funny you say that - I was going to say mention the transivitive property but I though it sounded condescending.

Government spending as percent of GDP increased sharply during WWII. So what you're saying is, the US had to turn to socialism in order to defeat the Nazis?

No, the military is required to protect liberty and to be effective it must be a collective effort. So yes, spikes in the military effort are ok and to be expected. However, throughout the last century, the military portion of the total has been declining (despite spikes like WWII - which was super huge, by the way - if memory serves we were approaching 50% GDP in the mid 40s) while the social portion has been increasing. Despite my moral concerns with social spending at any level, the fact that it is depressing essential function like the military is particularly scary because, moral or not, that is cutting into sustainability.

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 11:51:35 pm     #



So yes, spikes in the military effort are ok and to be expected.

So, wait, to be clear, my yes above did not mean, yes, socialism is ok for the military.

Socialism is wealth redistribution. The military is the protection of liberty - not wealth redistribution. However it is a collective effort.

posted by babbleman on Feb 20, 2008 at 11:54:04 pm     #



So, wait, to be clear, my yes above did not mean, yes, socialism is ok for the military

That's funny--I just read an article the other day that described how George Washington crushed the "liberty" of is own army and turned it into "statist" army.

posted by Chris99 on Feb 22, 2008 at 02:10:32 pm     #



I require more from a President than PR. That's why I'm not voting for Obama. Nor Clinton. I'm putting in my entry for Ron Paul on March 4th even if I have to write it in.

The rest of y'all can waste your votes on the mainstream warfreaks, socialists and globalists if you want. Nothing will change. The war in Iraq will continue. The assault on savings and the middle class will continue. After all, betting on any horse simply doesn't alter problems that relate to the operators of the racetrack (i.e. Capitalist scum who are busily selling us out).

posted by GuestZero on Feb 23, 2008 at 01:51:11 pm     #