« McCain Blows It - Again | Main | Breaking News- William F. Buckley Jr. Is Dead at 82 »

Not Ready For Prime Time

Of late, I've been making a point of defending Senator Barack Obama from what I consider stupid attacks.

1) Yes, his middle name is Hussein. I'm not too fond of my own middle name, either. Like him, I wasn't consulted on the matter, and unless I want to go through a lot of paperwork (I don't have the ready option women do of dumping it by getting married), I'm stuck with it for the rest of my life. So I ignore it whenever possible.

2) Yes, he has occasionally worn tribal garments when in Africa. Big whoop. Tourists and political leaders often do that sort of thing.

3) Yes, he has Muslim ancestry. But there's not a shred of proof that he is some sort of crypto-Muslim who'll build a minaret on the White House the instant he gets inaugurated. If you want to look into his professed faith (the "black-central" church he belongs to), that's certainly fair game, but this crypto-Muslim bullshit needs to stop.

I've said repeatedly that there are enough valid reasons to criticize Senator Obama in his run for president that we don't NEED to use this pissant stuff, and thanks to Scott Johnson of Powerline, we have this perfect example of why Barack Obama should not be president of the United States:

(Now, I have to offer a caveat. I have nothing that guarantees that the video in question really IS Senator Obama, speaking in his own unedited words. But the sentiments are entirely consistent with all I've read about his positions.)

This is the kind of thing that demands a full-blown, line-by-line Fisking.

"I am the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning, and as president, I will end it."

Congratulations, Senator. You've been consistent. I think you've been consistently wrong, but you've been consistent.

And the quickest way to end a war? Stop fighting. Quit. Go home. In other words, lose. Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending."

The fun part here, of course, is in how you define "wasteful." I think the entire Department of Education is wasteful, and would abolish it -- that'd save tens of billions right there. How do YOU define "wasteful," Senator?

"I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space."

Oh, that's a fun thought. I presume President Obama would invest in "proven" missile defense systems. But how do you prove them? By testing unproven ones and seeing which ones pass the test.

If Senator Obama was honest, he'd just say "I will not spend any money on missile defense. Protecting ourselves is immoral and unethical, and I have utter faith in our ability to concede our way out of any threats."

But if Senator Obama was honest, he'd not be a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.

"I will slow our development of future combat systems."

By this, I presume he means such systems as the Predator drones, the mine-resistant vehicles, and the Strykers that have been rushed through the system so quickly to respond to developing tactics and threats from insurgents (you remember them, Senator?) in Iraq.

"I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending."

As I recall, the quadrennial defense review was supposed to do just that. So if one bureaucracy doesn't work, let's pile another one on top of that!

The alternative -- having a president and a congress actually do their JOBS -- is just too terrifying for him to conceive.

"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Robin Williams just called. "Phenomenal cosmic powers! Itty bitty living space."

In brief, that genie AIN'T going back in the bottle. Over 60 years ago, it took the resources of the wealthiest nation on earth to come up with nukes. These days, Pakistan has done it, North Korea might have done it, and Iran is on the verge. Plans are readily accessible on the internet. And all your charm and grace and pithy words and catchy phrases won't make them go away.

But hey, he might have actual ideas on achieving this one. What's he got to say?

"To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."

OK, that first one might work. Nuclear weapons have a "shelf life." So if we don't develop any new weapons, eventually our current arsenal will become out of date and will just go away.

That takes care of America's nukes. The rest of the world? Well, we'll get around to that.

A global ban on fissile material? Oh, THAT'LL go over real well. Note that all the nuclear power plants are fission plants. So we'll get rid of all nuclear power.

And in case anyone's thinking that they can simply restrict the fissile material to non-weapons-grade material, Iran, North Korea, India, and Pakistan have shown how a determined nation can convert one to the other.

Finally, the last time I checked, the American and Russian ICBMs are currently targeted at empty stretches of ocean. That sounds pretty safe to me. Besides, I thought we weren't being very trusting of Russia these days.

If I had to sum up Barack Obama's defense policy in a single phrase, I'd have to say it would be "if you liked what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did to our national defense, you'll love what Obama will do." Nothing like the good old days of the Iranian Hostage Crisis; "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu, Somalia; more pointless interventions like Haiti and the former Yugoslavia; and, if we're really, really lucky, more attacks on our warships like the bombing of the USS Cole.

I'm not a single-issue voter, but if I were, "national defense" would probably be it. And on that basis, I'd have to say that Senator Obama is probably the least qualified to win my vote.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/28154.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not Ready For Prime Time:

» McCain Blogs linked with Barack Obama: WRONG for America

Comments (32)

The video is a little freak... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The video is a little freaky looking, but from what I can tell, most of those are his positions now.

I used to think Hillary was the most beatable candidate of the two. The more that I've learned about Obama's positions I've changed that opinion.

In fact, unless they find kiddy porn on McCain or he has a severe health issue, I don't see how he will lose. I almost wonder if they are pulling strings to ensure a McCain victory.

JayTea, You must be reading... (Below threshold)
Jim:

JayTea, You must be reading bRight & Early! Seriously it is a good point, with so many substantive issues to stand against Obama, let's stop focusing on the trivial.

jpm100 - I wish I shared yo... (Below threshold)
Clancy:

jpm100 - I wish I shared your confidence, but I'm afraid you underestimate the stupidity of the average american voter.

American people are not lik... (Below threshold)
Michael:

American people are not likely to vote for someone as liberal and inexperienced as Obama...they never have in the past. Why is today different?

If, after watching that vid... (Below threshold)
irongrampa:

If, after watching that video, the possibility of that man becoming president does not terrify you, then you cannot be called a sentient being.

Jay you're putting Obama in... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Jay you're putting Obama in the same category as Reagan. Reagan had Lebanon, Grenada and signed a missile treaty with the Soviets.

You must love Obama.

Now that is damn scary. Th... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Now that is damn scary. This crazy man must be stopped. There is no way in hell he'll ever be elected with these kinds of beliefs.

Obama is a product of the O... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Obama is a product of the Oprahization of America.

He sounds nice, feels good, and it doesn't matter if what he says isn't deep or factual ... He is just another entry in "Oprah's Book Club".

He's gotten this far just because nobody in the MSM has wanted to expose him for the 'Million Little Pieces' candidate that he is.

Barney,Reagan also... (Below threshold)
Howcome:

Barney,

Reagan also had winning the cold war.

I despair. We are in big tr... (Below threshold)

I despair. We are in big trouble, no matter which of the current 3 stooges we are now stuck with wins the Presidency. (Huckabee, I guess, would be the Shemp of the bunch.)

But truly, Obama is the worst of a bad lot. What we got in New York during the Dinkins administration we will get on an amplified national level if this guy gets into the White House. Get ready for the victimhood card to reach apogee in the next two years. Reparations, anyone?

I wish a viable third party existed. But then, the billionaires and media who control the puppet show from behind the curtain have fixed it so that will never happen.

Too bad most voters are just too darn stupid, or too lazy to get informed by sources other than the network news.

If only Rudy and/or Thompson were still in the race.

And they think Bush is dumb... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And they think Bush is dumb.

"And they think Bush is ... (Below threshold)
914:

"And they think Bush is dumb?"

Dumb and dumber!

BarneyG, Reagan's mistake i... (Below threshold)

BarneyG, Reagan's mistake in Lebanon was in letting us get chased out. And his treaties with the Soviets had some things that Obama doesn't believe in... like verification and reciprocity.

They also existed in a far more binary world, when there were really only two powers (and their allies) that had nukes. We've gotten to the point where pretty much any nation can get 'em (thank you SO much, Bill Clinton) if they want 'em bad enough.

Also, Barney, the current threat from nukes is, largely, we could lose a couple of cities. The threat Reagan faced was the obliteration of the human race.

So remember that the next time you mention Reagan, BarneyG... he is pretty much the main reason the human race doesn't face an existential threat any more.

J.

B HUSSEIN Obama was just on... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

B HUSSEIN Obama was just on TV playing the race card against McCain, or was he playing the poor old dumb 'N' to get some sympathy for his stupidity. Calling himself a 'boy' in hopes someone will repeat it so he can deny he used it, and then do like he did to Shrillary, scream-well 'she started it'. I thought the Amos and Andy show was back on or a couple of three year olds were in the house. As far as AQ in Iraq before the war, have the dhimmi's destroyed the evidence? And here I thought the terrorists camps bombed first in Iraq were AQ, guess it was the JOOOOss terrorist camps again.

"We've gotten to the point ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"We've gotten to the point where pretty much any nation can get 'em (thank you SO much, Bill Clinton) if they want 'em bad enough." Jay

Really Jay? The only nations to develop and test a Nuke since Reagan has been Pakistan and N. Korea and NK did that under the Bush administration. In fact, there have been more countries to sign the non proliferation treaty and remove their Nukes during the '90s than during the Reagan presidency.

But let's play your game. Since Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, and since all those Nukes that were under the iron control of the Soviets are now less secure, and if a rogue nation or group buys a Nuke therefore, it will be Reagan's fault.

But let's play your game. S... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

But let's play your game. Since Reagan caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, and since all those Nukes that were under the iron control of the Soviets are now less secure, and if a rogue nation or group buys a Nuke therefore, it will be Reagan's fault.
-------------------------------------
Barney would rather have the Soviet Union still in place. He would rather have Saddam Hussein in place. And he would rather have AlQ winning in Iraq. In the 1990s, those countries saw what happened to the Soviet Union. Just like Khadafi "voluntarily" dropped Nuke after seeing what happenned to Saddam Hussein. But people like Barney, Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc... are the reasons why the terrorists continue their fight. The terrorists and their sponsors openly want the liberal dems to win election.

Barney basically blame Reagan and the US for fighting communism and Bush for fighting against the terrorists. Liberals like Barney believe that Obama can wave the magic wand and turn the terrorists into peace makers!


Foreign policy advice from ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Foreign policy advice from the guy who is wrong about everything...classic. Hey Jay, the insurgents can't keep it up right? And democracy is flourishing in the middle east like a damn breaking open?

Foreign policy advice from ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Foreign policy advice from the guy who is wrong about everything...classic. Hey Jay, the insurgents can't keep it up right? And democracy is flourishing in the middle east like a damn breaking open?
------------------------------------
Again another liberal wants to have Saddam in place and Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists. No wonder they are so excited about Obama. With liberals in charge, we still have the Soviet Union around today and we may have more genocides. No wonder they are sp excited about Obama.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/27/mccain-to-obama-you-dont-have-to-re-invade-iraq-to-fight-al-qaeda-you-know/

"Where is the audacity of hope when it comes to backing the success of our troops all the way to victory in Iraq? What we heard last night was the timidity of despair."

Not militarizing space soun... (Below threshold)

Not militarizing space sounds lovely but it doesn't make much sense. Just being there makes it impossible unless we keep anyone else from being there. It's the ultimate high ground and if we can't defend it then, sooner or later, someone will take advantage of that.

And as for ground-side foreign policy. This is the guy who's most probably middle-east policy adviser thinks that giving Iraqi a head's up about us leaving so they can move to segregated neighborhoods is a *good* plan. Because, ya know, segregation solves all sorts of problems.

I see the Republicans can't... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I see the Republicans can't even wait until the general to show how classy they are:
"Two days ago, the Tennessee Republican Party put out a press release entitled "Anti-Semites For Obama," accusing "Barack Hussein Obama" of being anti-Israel and linked to Louis Farrakhan."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-02-27-tn_gop_obama.jpg

Barney, if you want to make... (Below threshold)

Barney, if you want to make your own points, GET YOUR OWN FUCKING BLOG.

If you find you just don't have time to spare, I can arrange for you to have lots of more time available by freeing you of the time you spend commenting here.

J.

Jay, Barney is anxi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Jay,
Barney is anxious to use the race card to defend Obama since he and other liberals have nothing else to stand on. This is their strategy. THe dem party is the home of modern racism and anti-semitism. The left has to use the race card to avoid answer real questions about Obama. This is just another example of the left 's dishonesty. We should expect this from them though.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/02/obama_farrakhan_jeremiah_wrigh.php

There has been a lot of angry chatter on the Left side of the blogosphere today about Tim Russert's badgering of Obama on Louis Farrakhan.
...
If Obama means what he says about Farrakhan, then how can he still have a guy like Wright as his pastor? Moreover, if Obama is really the sort of post-racial candidate he's trying to portray himself as, why in the world would he want to have a man like Wright as his pastor? It's incongruent, it's hypocritical, it just makes no sense for a man who is color blind, a man who says Farrakhan is a bad guy, to associate himself with a man like Jeremiah Wright, who obviously shares a lot of Farrakhan's views including, I suspect, on Jews.


As president Obama will be ... (Below threshold)
John S:

As president Obama will be a mushy peacenik. Until Al Qaeda bombs start going off in N.Y. subways. Then he might face reality.

You can warn people about Obama but they won't believe you. Conservatives need to realize that if we want to elect another Ronald Reagan, we first must teach two entire younger generations about liberalism. And President Obama could help us do that by letting us relive the liberal disasters of the 1960s and 1970s in just a few short years (or even months).

"Third, I will set a goa... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Yeah, right. You and what big stick?

Odumba seems not to understand that begging is not a great foreign policy.

20. Posted by BarneyG200... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

20. Posted by BarneyG2000

It just pisses you off when the Right is right, huh, Barn?

Thanks for the glimpse into the campaign future. Dodge the substance and spit out the umbrage.

Our nuclear missiles can be... (Below threshold)
Joe:

Our nuclear missiles can be retargeted in about 10 secs. So where they are pointed is really just "feel good" thing anyway

"Barney, if you want to ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

"Barney, if you want to make your own points, GET YOUR OWN FUCKING BLOG."

"If you find you just don't have time to spare, I can arrange for you to have lots of more time available by freeing you of the time you spend commenting here."

J.

Woo hoo, big bad Jay Tea. Sorry if some us didn't sign the loyalty oath, but I thought this was a forum for political discussion, not just a right-wing high five zone. But go ahead, flex your little muscles. I think I just heard your mom call down to take out the garbage.

My personal favorite of tha... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

My personal favorite of that was the "no new weapons systems" quip. I seem to remember good Mr. Rumsfeld getting lambasted for going to war with the "military equipment you have". How do you get from "the military you want", to "the military equipment you have?" Why cut spending, of course.

And as icing on the cake... who pays for it in the end? Why the soldiers, airmen and sailors going into harms way with substandard equipment of course.

I agree with Jay. Obama DEFINITELY isn't ready for prime time.

(Now, I have to of... (Below threshold)
(Now, I have to offer a caveat. I have nothing that guarantees that the video in question really IS Senator Obama, speaking in his own unedited words. But the sentiments are entirely consistent with all I've read about his positions.)

Jay, this is dangerously close to the classic "fake but accurate" defense put forth during the Rathergate brouhaha and roundly (and deservedly) ridiculed by conservative critics. It would be best to leave such shoddy reasoning to the liberals.

"I don't have the ready opt... (Below threshold)
ClobberGirl:

"I don't have the ready option women do of dumping it by getting married"

Actually Jay, marriage is a free legal name change for both the man and the woman. Either partner can have any part of their name changed with no hassle when they get married.

So if your parents gave you a stupid name when you were born, and you get married and don't change it, congratulations, the stupid name is officially your fault and not your parents's fault anymore.

So now Obama's going to con... (Below threshold)

So now Obama's going to convince everyone to get rid of their nukes. I'm sure China, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, etc. have all just been waiting for Obama to become President so they can finally get rid of their pesky nukes. And Iran will finally come clean. This is naiveté at its peak.
-----------------------
Don't think you aren't treading on thin ice too, Ryan. If this was my blog, you'd have been banned two seconds after that comment. Barney could stay just for the giggles and to constantly remind the readers of exactly the weak sort of mentality we're dealing with.

Ryan, if you don't understa... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Ryan, if you don't understand why a blogger would object to thread hijacking, then go learn about it before popping off.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy