Obama the socialist, and what that means

Terry Garlock's picture

Maybe I’m a dinosaur. Not because I turned 60 in August, but because I believe in our system of capitalism and I have not forgotten the utter failure of socialism and communism wherever it has been tried.

The problem, I think, is we don’t teach our kids those lessons in school any more. Instead, they learn that all cultures are equal, that there are many valid types of government systems but we can’t be too judgmental, and anti-communists like me, people who worry about going too far down the slippery slope of socialism, are just crazy old coots looking for boogymen under the bed.

Jimmy Carter, among those the Soviets called “useful idiots” because they didn’t see the threat from communism, said Americans had “... an inordinate fear of communism ...“ Before their quest for worldwide revolution collapsed in the 1980s, the communist iron fist had spread to control one-third of the world’s population and the rounds of famines, terror, purges, and other brands of murder accounted for an estimated 100 million deaths, never mind the misery of those who lived.

There were kinder regimes going down the socialism path but stopping short of the evil of communism in practice, but if you do a little homework you will find economic failure in every case I know of.

But we teach our kids to feel good about everyone and avoid labels that might damage self-esteem. The mere suggestion that our capitalistic system, where the motive of selfish gain created the strongest economic engine in history, is any better than socialism is just, well, jingoism.

And so when Obama answered Joe the plumber’s question on camera by telling him, “We need to spread the wealth around,” I was not surprised. I knew his bent to socialism, but for you who refuse to see, he dropped his facade in a momentary lapse of candor and gave you an ever-so-brief glimpse of his real socialist mindset.

Karl Marx, the creator of communism, summed it up as, “taking from each according to his ability, giving to each according to his need.” I guess Obama will decide what you are able to give, and what you need.

But Obama’s front team in the American media will immediately point to me and shout, “McCarthyism!” when I label Obama a socialist. That’s understandable because many of Obama’s young cheerleaders in the media didn’t learn in school an appreciation for capitalism and the failure of socialism. The voting public doesn’t seem to mind the idea of socialism too much either because, what’s so bad about socialism?

What a sad presidential campaign. When is the last time you heard a candidate talk about the power of the human spirit when government gets out of the way and unleashes individuals to work their guts out to build their own long-term success?

When was the last time you heard presidential candidates talk about freedom, self-sufficiency and unfettered opportunity, the sacred rights of private property, the blessings of America we take for granted, the stuff of dreams in third-world countries all around the world?

People stuck in poor countries all over the globe have more appreciation for the wonders of America than our own citizens. Do our presidential candidates talk about getting government out of the way of hard-working people like those who built this nation with hopes, dreams and sweat?

No. The very idea of taking risks to do great things seems to have died with the expectation that an easy life is our birthright, that we should look to the government to solve all our problems. The Founding Fathers, who created a system of very limited government and reserved all other rights to the people, would be sorely disappointed.

And so we listen to sound-bite promises of candy from the government store in exchange for our vote, and as we sell our soul to elect the guy who promises the most candy, we encourage the fools we send to Washington to punish successful people who have taken risks, worked hard and gathered wealth, the ones who build business and create jobs. We punish them and reward the weakest, least successful among us. At least we are consistent: we do all the wrong things.

I’ll tell you something you won’t hear from any other Republican. It is true that Sarah Palin’s experience makes her far more qualified than Barak Obama, but I don’t think that is any reason to vote against Obama.

Our system was established for citizens to serve as elected representatives, and while depth of character certainly matters, I don’t buy the experience argument. The guy in office sets the tone and direction, he makes the decisions and relies on professional staff to carry out those decisions. Personally, I don’t think the president has to be a pro politician, experienced governor, etc. He, or she, just needs to be smart, tough and decisive.

There are far more important reasons to vote against Obama, namely his extreme leftist views. Obama is the most liberal U.S. senator, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy.

His close association with leftist radicals should be enough to tell you, if you want to know, that he is hiding his beliefs in order to get elected. It should concern you that his associations with radical anti-Americans would likely prohibit Obama from qualifying as an FBI or Secret Service agent if he applied, but not enough, apparently, for the media to ask him tough questions.

If we have a liberal lefty in the White House, and a liberal super-majority in the House and Senate to override filibusters, expect an avalanche of government moves down the liberal slippery slope toward socialism.

We already pay over half of our earnings to the government for them to pour down monumental ratholes. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay under 3 percent of our taxes, while the top 1 percent pays 40 percent of the tab.

The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 71 percent of the load, while the bottom 40 percent don’t pay income taxes at all, and many of them receive a check.

You want redistribution of wealth that is contrary to the foundation of America? It’s already well under way, and there is one important question.

How much is enough? When is the tax load sufficient to get rid of the class warfare of politicians ingratiating themselves by promising to give to voters by taking more away from the evil wealthy, the people who create jobs for you and your neighbors? How much of a family’s income should Obama allow them to keep in his socialist paradise?

Try this with your school-aged children. Tell them when they bring home As and Bs on their report card that we need to take some of those As and Bs away from them to trade for Cs and Ds on other kids’ report card, because it isn’t fair that some received good grades while others did not.

That’s a small taste of socialism and a good demonstration of why it doesn’t work. When you remove the incentive for individual gain, people no longer are willing to work hard to accomplish something; they just do the minimum required to get by. Just like the failures in our society that Obama wants to coddle.

You want reasons to vote for McCain? McCain was not my choice among Republican candidates, but I will vote for McCain for the simple reason that he has not forgotten capitalism and he will be a common-sense balance against a very liberal Congress. I will vote for McCain to protect what is left of American principles. Like I said, I guess I’m a dinosaur.

login to post comments | Terry Garlock's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MainframeComputerGuy's picture
Submitted by MainframeComputerGuy on Fri, 10/31/2008 - 12:03am.

Mr Garlock, from one of the great unwashed, terrific column. I agree with every point and the more time that passes, the more ridiculous relationships of "The One" come to light. And this is the guy being considered as POTUS -- why have we devolved to this level.

Mr King, also many great points. However, considering the object of your debate the one similarity that comes to mind is trying to teach a pig to sing. I think you can only be frustrated, regardless of the value of your argument.

Submitted by bowser on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:47am.

John McCain and Barack Obama are arguing about incremental changes to the same graduated tax system we've had and fiddled with for about 100 years -- ever since it was installed under that flaming socialist Teddy Roosevelt. (He knew that without it the newly industrialized nation would A) eventially be torn apart by REAL class warfare, as opposed to the rhetorical kind and B) never be able to pay for the kinds of federal services -- including a military capable of projecting international power -- that the growing nation required.)

Today, reasonable people may favor keeping or dumping the Bush cuts for top income brackets, raising or lowering capital gains rates a few points, etc. Each approach has the endorsement of intelligent economists. Obama's backers include Paul Volcker, Robert Rubin and Warren Buffett. These are not people bent on unwinding capitalism as we know it.

By jumping on the "he's a socialist!!" bandwagon, Garlock reveals himself as nothing more than another flathead in the howling mob that has become an embarrassment to the GOP.

He compounds his anti-intellectualism by trotting out that tired old straw dog of the hard right, the idea that a small percentage of rich achievers are paying for a huge body of goldbrickers who "pay no taxes."

The reason a smaller percentage of people pay a larger share of income taxes is that a smaller percentage of people are MAKING A LARGER SHARE OF INCOME! It is the growing concentration of wealth that is behind the trend, not some socialistic or confiscatory policy.

The Wall Street Journal earlier this year ran a story about the top 400 income-tax payers. These 400 individuals in 2005 accounted for 1.15% of the nation’s income — twice the share they controlled in 1995. The article continued:

"Over the same period, however, the average income tax paid by this same group has fallen from 30% to 18%. That’s due mainly to the Bush tax cuts."

"Many argue that the super-rich pay a disproportionately high share of taxes. And that’s true to a degree, according to the report. The Fortunate 400 paid 1.67% of the nation’s total income tax bill, even though they account for 1.15% of the income."

"Yet the the growth in incomes by the super-rich has far surpassed their growth in their income taxes paid, since their tax rates have fallen. Their share of total income has more than doubled since 1995; yet their share of taxes has only gone up less than 50%."

As for the people at the other end, if they pay no income tax it is for a simple reason: they don't make enough money. You'd think all these folks are lottery winners for the resentment and vitriol they provoke. Show of hands, who wants to trade places with them? Anyone? How about you, Mr. Garlock?

Furthermore, someone who pays no income taxes still pays sales, excise, payroll and property taxes if applicable. So this legion of moochers who "pay no taxes" is in fact mythical.

Garlock and others may think Bush-McCain economics and tax policy are better for the economy and for America. Fair enough. Make that argument. But if all you can do is throw out straw dogs and scream that anyone with a different view is a "socialist," you really have no argument.

Peter Pfeifer's picture
Submitted by Peter Pfeifer on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 7:57pm.

For those interested, there was a series of editorials in Investors Business Daily about one of our former Presidents, Jimmy Carter.

Go to the Investors Business Daily website.
Search term: profile in incompetence
Select: “all of the words”

I’ll let this stand without comment. I don’t intend to get into a debate with Mr. Carter.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:29pm.

and if you have an opinion worth giving..... be a man, mate. Make your point, voice your opinion, and don't run into your tortoise shell and hide. Don't let a website make your point for you. Surely if you have an opinion of Jeff's dad, you can express it. If it's valid, you have nothing to fear from the argument that will be made by Jeff the peace monger. But to drive by and say, "Hey guys, go read this article, but I'm going to run so I don't have to defend my thoughts to Jeff Carter personally;" that really makes you seem a bit spineless my friend. Now, I'm sure you are not, Peter, but it seems so. Soooo, come on back, make your point, and enjoy watching Jeff bat it about like a speed bag.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:42am.

That does seem a bit... what's the word I'm looking for... cowardly?

In any event, I couldn't find the article. Anybody want to link it?

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:02am.

By the looks of Peter in his pic, he appears to be "up there" in age and may be "internet-challenged" like McCain, unable to use the "search" and "link" functions Eye-wink

hersheybear88's picture
Submitted by hersheybear88 on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:40am.

This so funny. Come on have some humor instead of some being grumpy all the time.

Watch The Truth Hurts

Watch This Is So Funny

We don't want Obama to fall in the water and drown so could someone tell him that's what will happen if he tries. I don't think the liberal media will do it.

Just add to add humor to your day!

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 8:43am.

I kind of wonder what type of web searches you conduct. It just seemed interesting that the majority of videos yielded by your link were titled, "Barrack Hussein Obama - Antichrist." Very telling....

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:53am.

Thanks I needed that.

Submitted by justwondering on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 8:32pm.

also, many similar articles at The American Thinker

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Tue, 10/28/2008 - 4:53pm.

Garlock joins a long list of right wing commentators who have taken Jimmy Carter's phrase “...inordinate fear of communism...” out of context. His 1997 Commencement speech to the University of Notre Dame was contrasting democracies to communists political systems and underling the superiority of democracies.

“Democracy’s great recent successes — in India, Portugal, Spain, Greece — show that our confidence in this system is not misplaced. Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed.”

Many like Garlock, both then and now, did not believe that the ideals of democracy: human rights, freedom, free trade, arms limitation agreements, detente and self determination through freely elected governments were viable means of promoting American interest. Instead they embraced every notorious dictator no matter how brutal and no matter how destructive to American ideals.

President Bush embodies this thinking resulting in the immense damage to the perception of the United States with his embrace of torture, preemptive war, extraordinary rendition, secret wiretapping of US citizens, denial of the right of Habeus Corpus, imprisonment without charges and rejection of the Geneva Conventions. Garlock has applauded each time Bush implemented one of these hallmarks of totalitarian rule.

Now Garlock accuses Obama of being a socialist while completely ignoring the fact that his political party has been in charge when the government has taken over banks and his political party has been in charge when the government took over and underwrote insurance companies and his political party has been in charge when the government poured hundreds of billions of dollars into securities firms and he ignores the fact that it was his party whose policies led to the destruction of the economic system.

Fortunately his party is on the verge of being swept from office by the American voters. Hopefully, Obama can repair the damage.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 7:04am.

...in that quite a few of us "dinasaurs" in Fayette County are totalitarian and perhaps it's part of my diminishing culture that keeps me competitive in my work ethic. For one who sits exclusively on the sidelines and casts dispersions down a seemingly one way street, one has to wonder if your party has ever stained itself.

Clearly, you do not challenge Mr Garlock, but instead, attack his candidate of choice as if the Reids, Dodds, Franks, or Pelosi are above scrutiny. Surely, you remember things like Chappaquiddick, your party's fillibuster of the Civil Rights Act, $90K in a Freezer, slapping a Capital policeman, and the list goes on. Sadly, sex scandals, influence peddling, employing family members permanently in campaigns, etc are embedded throughout the culture inside the beltway on both sides.

Could it be that you truly believe that an omnipotent government involved in every facet of our daily lives was what those of your party (Jefferson, Truman, Kennedy, Roosevelt) had in mind while governing? You are, to me, beginning to sound as one of those elite
elected guys who always seem to know better and that your allegiance to your party trumps that to your nation.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:49pm.

As you mention money in freezers (and money in a bra today, by the way); as you cover Chappaquiddick and a slapped policeman; let's get back to the point: Who is our next president going to be and how have the campaigns been run.

So many Republicans point to what people who know Barack or were seen near Barack or are in the same party as Barack have said. But let's look at what the candidates THEMSELVES have said.

One campaign has constantly pointed to tertiary relationships and tried to paint Barack as a Socialist, terrorist, and/or racist because of the words others have used. Why can't you use Barack's words? If he's a terrorist and racist, certainly he has said so. Surely David Axelrod, Robert Gibbs, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz must know they are working to elect someone that certainly does not hate white people.

Certainly Colin Powell is not supporting a Marxist Communist Socialist for President. After all, Colin has met both men and know them personally. Has Terry met them both? Have you met them both?

Finally, your party clings to the "spread the wealth around" phrase that Barack used while having a very cordial talk with the tax evader Joe the unlicensed plumber. Well, Mike, let me share a direct quote from Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, from this year. She was speaking with reporters from New Yorker Magazine.

and I quote:

"And Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."

Yes, Mike. Sarah Palin's Alaska gives windfall profits back to the people; the same ideas that your side have used to try and paint a good man as a socialist. John McCain even voted against the current tax policies a few short years ago, yet he does not call himself a reformed Socialist. This is a despicable way for a candidate to try to enter the highest office. When republican strategists are picking up the pieces of their party, it is my hope that they realize we have evolved beyond personal destruction and into an era requiring ideas to win votes.

just my two pennies

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 5:59am.

You are beginning to sound if Bonkers were another of your monikers, jumping from point to point citing tid bits here and there, and after reading this you'll likely revert to "copy and paste" to prove a point to yourself. You consistently harp upon excerpts from campaigns when they are but symptoms of the ills we have in Washington, DC.

These problems stem from an elitist mentality whose primary thought for each day is their self importance. It seems to me that after an initial term as an elected official, their goal of reelection becomes their focus, not constituency nor national service nor even patriotism, and admittedly there are exceptions, but far fewer than should be the norm.

For my bucks, I simply compare these guys accordingly; try and take a measure of their character(associations, deeds, service, etc) and compare it with their potential(ideas, leadership, charisma, and communicative ability) and make a decision. I do not listen to tripe regarding who said this or that, so please do not waste your time on me.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 8:57am.

Who is sounding like Bonkers, Mike (not that anything is wrong with Bonkers. He makes better points than many a hersheywinbygarvin)?

1. I don't copy and paste. I can't afford a writer so I do it myself.

2. You mention me jumping around point to point after you road the straight talk express from Ted Kennedy's DUI to Cynthia McKenney's assault on a Capitol Officer.

But, the big 3. You actually said this:

"These problems stem from an elitist mentality."

and, even more self-contradicting, this:

"Their goal of reelection becomes their focus..."

Um, Mike? Were you making a case for why you support the candidate who is wealthier than all three of the other principals combined who has been inside the beltway for over 20 years? Now, care to revisit the logical underpinnings of that argument?

Cheers, and you are NEVER a waste of time Smiling

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 12:24pm.

..my apologies for only listing prominents from but one side responding to you. I do attempt to point out my disgust with elected officials in general, irregardless of affiliation. I made my choice with McCain, because perhaps like many of both parties in that was the choices remaining. Personally, I was a Romney fan. Of those still on the ticket, for my money only one has exibited consistent character with which I can live. As far as hic cups along the way, no one is perfect.

In a utopian sense, give all of them two terms and send them home. Then,just maybe, we can remedy things like a broken tax system, social security, international image, domestic and international hunger, public health awareness (please note I did not say healthcare), a defense department set upon deterence with agression as a last resort, just to name a few. We might just have some folks who really want to serve instead of basking in self importance.

Maybe then with the federal government setting the example, state and local governments would follow suit.

Now are you telling me that the likes of the John Murthas, John Conyers, Jim Bunnings, and Ted Stevens all serve due to love of country?

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:09am.

"...elitist mentality..."

The new Republican mantra: elitism is dangerous

The dumbing down of America continues and with this attitude, we will continue to see our place in the global community deteriorate.

In the eyes of conservative Republican's:

Education and intelligence = Elitism

The choice of Palin as VP, epitomizes this distorted mentality.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:37am.

This "mantra" may well belong to either party deoending upon who is using it at the time, I merely use it to characterize all elected officials who tend to take up residency in DC. You know the types like Bunning, Murtha, Kennedy, Lott, Reid, Dole, etc who seem to believe that it is a lifelong career to be a politician.

Elected office was meant to be a time of service, not a career path. Perhaps if we, those who put them there, would automatically remove them after say six-ten years, would we not fare better? Perhaps a better mix of college professors and former jocks would be a temporary relief from a bunch of stagnant lawyers, or a Joe the Plumber and a former school teacher, but you get the idea.

It seems that too many in the US Senate are seeking to break Strom Thurmond's longevity record, and many are not that far away.

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:31am.

No. Elitist people or Elitism is the belief that you are smarter than everyone else, therefore, your opinions and thoughts are the only ones that are valid. The cultural elites are the ones that continually buy the "Emperor's New Clothes" and then mock those that are not standing around naked.

The Wedge's picture
Submitted by The Wedge on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 7:30am.

double post. sorry

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 12:08pm.

What in anything I wrote referred to or excused corrupt political figures?

“Could it be that you truly believe that an omnipotent government involved in every facet of our daily lives…”

Did I even remotely address this?

“…your allegiance to your party trumps that to your nation.”

You know that strikes me as ironically funny. For two years I have been writing here about the Republican’s embrace of torture, preemptive war, extraordinary rendition, secret wiretapping of US citizens, denial of the right of Habeus Corpus, imprisonment without charges and rejection of the Geneva Conventions, all of which demonstrably have hurt the United States? And why have the Republicans embraced these atrocities? Because they were all suddenly great fans of waterboarding? NO! It was because they put allegiance to their party above the good of their country. Bush and Rumsfeld could do no wrong.

A lot of these same people are now applauding the choice of the insultingly unqualified Sarah Palin as VP. Party loyalty for many is again trumping any consideration of what might be good for the country. The choice of Palin was so potentially disastrous that some in the Republican Party have felt compelled to say so publicly. Outside the Party, an overwhelming majority of voters have seemingly correctly assessed her lack of qualifications. No one now is seriously still maintaining that McCain selected Palin to be ready to take over and run the country. Palin was specifically chosen to rally the loyalty of the Republican Party base in spite of the fact that she had no serious qualifications and that what was good for the country would not enter into the base’s consideration.

We will have to wait a few more days to see how the country judges those decisions.

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 1:16pm.

Having read your post for awhile now, it's obvious that you do get your "homework" done before posting. It is a mark of your genius that you seem to integrate fact with opinion with little or no objection from the "other" side. We can possibly agree that should we as a nation make wholesale changes inside the Beltway, America will benefit.

You make the argument that Republicans have embraced the idea of torture, preemptive war, etc and we both know that history has proven that both parties have blood stained hands. You make it seem that John McCain has endorsed the use of torture when no one in politics would condemn it more.

You are correct when you say that Palin was chosen to rally the base, but sadly mistaken when you opine that she is "insultingly unqualified." Are you of the belief that a Harvard Law Degree education equates that of winning against her own party? Reading a teleprompter on national TV when his most formidable opponent to date was Alan Keyes to obtain instant recognition, and you claim he is more qualified. I will not mention Joe Biden's illustrious 36 years in the US Senate or the comments made regarding his current running mate over the last year.

Gladly, this overly long ordeal called an election will be over within a week(hopefully).

Then can we both be a bit more constructive?

Submitted by Bonkers on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 2:39pm.

Mike, I am an Independent and have already voted for John McCain this time. I supported him the last time he ran. I also voted for Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. I did not vote for Reagan. I voted for Eisenhower and Truman. I didn't vote for Chambliss this time.
McCain can get more done in the area of health care, education, and our debt than could Obama.
Now I won't define torture for you, but it did happen and may yet be happening in some of those foreign jails we have. Even many of your ilk are for it due to the thinking that it may save others. McCain knows what is going on and there is no use to say he doesn't. His definition of torture is what he defends.
We will pay for that for many centuries to come about our own soldiers. I still hear complaints about the Japanese and Germans torturing during WW2. We don't trust them yet.
Nor can it be excused because everybody does it, as you insinuate.

Obama's excellent education does not make him a genius at running a government. Palin's lack of experience and her obvious red-nek leanings concerning religion and hypocrisy won't make her a good VP or President if need be either.
But I really hope John makes it four years. He is doubtful to win with the errors in judgment he has made, but it is possible due to the unlikely other candidate.

There is no justification for Bush and his henchmen! We have a terrible economy, two bad wars, maybe three or four soon, too many deaths unnecessarily, and a rogue banking system that he allowed on his watch.
I don't care who can share in the blame, he had eight years and distracted himself with war and weak assistants!

Too many people let about 10% of our sorry population, countrywide, who don't like work, to distract them from serious problems!

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 6:19pm.

In my humble opinion, I believe you made the right choice, albeit perhaps in a losing cause. The polls are changing, and who knows, we could pull an upset.

We must know that tortue has existed for centuries, and civilized nations simply know better. Further, my opinion would be that Mr Obama would allow it long before Mr McCain mainly because one of them has experienced it first hand.

Until we can have average Americans in control of the DC area, we will continue to have problems in lieu of debate.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 2:24pm.

"You are correct when you say that Palin was chosen to rally the base, but sadly mistaken when you opine that she is "insultingly unqualified."

Let's just forget my opinion and go with prominent members of the Republican Party's:

Danielle Crittenden, David Frum's wife writes in the National Post: "The problem is that the reality of Sarah Palin does not match the idea of Sarah Palin. It's as plain as day that she's unfit for the job she's running for."

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, (who is on the Senate foreign affairs committee) said of Palin, "She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials. You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything. I think it's a stretch to in any way say that she's got the experience to be president of the United States."

Kathleen Parker from National Review: “As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion. Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.”

David Frum, from the National Post “Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues. So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.”

Matthew Dowd, chief strategist for President George W. Bush’s reelection speaking of McCain, “He knows in his gut he put somebody unqualified on the ballot, and put the country at risk.”

Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley, “Sarah Palin is an embarrassment.”

David Brooks writes, “Sarah Palin represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices.”

The Los Angeles Times hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972, when it backed President Richard M. Nixon's re-election, in their Obama endorsement: "Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory," the Times said. "The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that's the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency."

Colin Powell on "Meet the Press", "Now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don't believe she's ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.”

George Will told a gathering of Senate aides on Monday that Gov. Sarah Palin is "obviously not qualified to be President," and described her interview on CBS Evening News with Katie Couric as a "disaster."

Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager: “The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P.”

Anchorage Daily News

"Yet despite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time."

Submitted by justwondering on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 8:44pm.

I read the entire editorial in the Anchorage Daily News,and once again, you have only used the part of the editorial that will prove your point. Most of the folks who commented in the Anchorage Daily news did not agree with the editorial. This paper is very left and readership has dropped considerably.
Colin Powell has another agenda for supporting Obama and bashing Sarah Palin.
The LA Times is also very liberal. They have a tape of O and wife at a pro Palestine dinner in 2003. This tape could be very damaging to O.,but the LA Times refuses to release it. If it were of McCain, it would be relesed and rereleased everywhere. That is not honest journalism

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:50am.

The LA Times is a liberal paper? Hmmm... OK. The last time they endorsed a candidate was 1972 when they endorsed Nixon.

However I'm joining with you in calling for an investigation of Khalidi and his ties to the candidate who seems to be his good friend and who has funded his group with over a half million dollars!

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows (among others) one $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank.


Submitted by Davids mom on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 11:40pm.

From across the Atlantic.

Interesting Article

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 11:09pm.

Tomorrow I will demand the release of the tape! Too late tonight but watch for it if you're interested...

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:56pm.

"Colin Powell has another agenda for supporting Obama and bashing Sarah Palin."

So, what is his agenda? Does he want to be Secretary of State one day????

And, when did he tell you his secret agenda?

Mike King's picture
Submitted by Mike King on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 6:08pm.

...and you opine Obama-Biden are because they're eloquent? You would have a serious problem with the likes of Lincoln, Truman Wilson, etc. For my bucks, simply an inordinate amount of time inside the beltway causes one to forget their roots.

Your father was a breath of fresh air due to the eight years previous although his opponent was as sincere (opinion). As with "W", he too was the recipient of bad advice economically and Reagan reaped the opportunity. I'll not waste our time on quotes regarding Mr Obama by the prominents of your party, but suffice it to say that they exist.

My last comment regarding being constructive stands(after the election, anyway). At least I will be happy that it's over.

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 11:07pm.

Face it. So many republicans have endorsed Obama that they're trying to suppress their own votes.

I'll be glad when it's over too.

diva's picture
Submitted by diva on Wed, 10/29/2008 - 7:07pm.

G'Day Mike. I find it interesting that Cal, Terry, and so many other McCain supporters and endorsers continue to speak of Senator Obama as an unknown risk who's only ability is reading teleprompters. But let's compare the very demonstrable campaigns of the principles:

Senator McCain is running a campaign centered around character attacks of Senator Obama and grass roots appeals to "Joe the plumbers" the country over. Senator McCain's thesis is: Barack Obama is a man of flawed character who will hurt middle America as represented by "Joe the plumber."

Here's the problem...sorry... the problems:

1. Joe the plumber does not exist. The real man whom Senator McCain has made the figurehead of his campaign:

-Confronted Barack Obama in the street, misrepresented his income, his ability to buy a business, the income of that business, and his "independence."

2. Joe AKA Sam has not even paid his taxes under President Bush's tax plan as was his responsibility.

In essence, a flawed premise (Barack's tax plan hurts Joe) based around a less than admirable citizen.

Next problem: The politics of division will not give John McCain the ability to unite the country given the likelihood of a democratic Senate and House.

Now let's look at Senator Obama's campaign:

His opponents (even Sarah Palin lol) have said he is not suited to be CC of the Armed Forces. That argument was neutered by the Obama endorsement by General Colin Powell who has known John McCain for 20+ years.

They have attacked him for being racist, linking him to Trinity Baptist. Problem is, his campaign is run by David Axelrod, with communications directed by
Robert Gibbs. Others, notably The Dobson religious/political machine, have attacked Obama as being bad for Israel. Problem here is Jewish citizens here and in Israel support him by and large. Sara Silverman's "The Great Shlep"(WARNING: LANGUAGE) not withstanding, .Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the first Jewish female representative from Florida, is a capable and enthusiastic Obama supporter. You certainly don't need to sit through these videos in their entireties to draw a couple of conclusions:

These people are talented. These people are white. These people were picked by Barack Obama to represent him because of their abilities and not solely for ideological reasons.

I don't think the same can be said for John McCain's most important pick, Sarah Palin. Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been much more reassuring.

In the end, Barack Obama has hired better people, been more positive, stayed on message, reached more people, inspired more donors, and united the nation and the world much more effectively than John McCain. I believe that is why so many life-long conservative loyalists like Scott McClellan and Colin Powell have endorsed him. Hope this wasn't too long, but when explaining why you support someone, you should certainly be able to say more than "because the other guy is a socialist."


JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:57am.

Let's not be to hard on J.T. Plumber. His remark the other day, "a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel" absolutely inflamed the Israeli press. The stories and comments about the quality of McCain's new advisor have been fun to read.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.