Barack Obama and John Kennedy: Headless Horsemen or Headless Chickens?

One glaring similarity …

Kennedy wasn’t in control of what was going on in Washington and neither is Obama. Kennedy’s honest critics point out that he was basically punted around by senators and representatives who were old pros in Washington. Does anyone have any question about who’s actually controlling policy and spending … Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?

The classic example is Obama’s current approach to earmarks or “porkbarrel spending”. It’s gone from being one of his main campaign promises to neutralize John McCain’s pledge to …, “Well, I’ll deal with that later.”

For the Democrats, it’s gone from being “something evil only the Republicans did” to “additional necessary stimulus”. “It creates jobs” is the argument. Well, it created jobs back then too. So, what’s changed?

Maybe, Obama’s promises to rein in porkbarrel spending were just slips of the tongue like “Bible hugging and gun toting” or “typical white person”. Maybe someday the people who got teary eyes and tingly legs will wake up and realize what they’re smelling isn’t roses.

The only similarity between Obama’s White House and the “Headless Horseman” is the lack of a head. At least, the “Headless Horseman” had a directed and focused purpose. Obama’s White House is more like a headless chicken, flailing around in circles and a multitude of directions while the body is being rapidly drained of blood.

Advertisements

Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech in Denver

Barack Obama has finished his speech and all of the Democrats at Mile High Stadium are now celebrating and an emotional and inspiring arrrangement of music is playing in the background like a score accentuating the climax of a major Hollywood blockbuster.

I’m sure for many, it was a very inspirational speech … full of a lot of ambitious plans and lofty ideals. Personally, I admire ambitious plans and lofty ideals.

Anyone who has followed political campaigns for a few cycles, let alone half a decade, have heard it all before.

Change. Change. Change.

I’ve been listening to that mantra for the past 50 years beginning with the JFK that Obama alluded to. Sometimes it’s worked and sometimes it hasn’t as far as winning a political election.

Barack Obama is simply one more JFK, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He’s also another George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry.

Win or loose, they all have the same message … change, change change. And what do we get? More of the same, same same.

All a person simply needs to do is look at who is in Congress … Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy … the very same people who, after promising the most unified and cooperative Congress in the history of the United States, wound up giving us one of the most divisive, vindictive and unpopular Congresses in the history of the United States … one which Barack Obama was part of … consistently towing the Democratic Party line … more consistently than any other Democrat currently in Congress.

I suppose what struck me the most about Obama’s speech, other than it’s typically inspiring rhetoric, was it’s consistent and absolute hypocrisy.

Accuse McCain of doing nothing about renewable energy for his 30 years in Congress? What about Biden’s 35 years of doing nothing … as well as Ted Kennedy’s, Harry Reid’s, Dick Durbin’s … all of these senior senators that are going to kick him around like a beach ball just as John Kennedy was by the senior Democratic senators did during Kennedy’s administration. And Barack Obama is more “junior” than Kennedy was.

Education, energy, defense,reducing bureacracy, natural disasters, and on and on … ad infinitum. It’s a great shoppng list. Too bad it’s an old one that been presented time and time again by men more capable than Barack Obama.

Obama attacks lobbyists … but simply look a the who’s who list of Democratic rats that cautiously waited to see who was ahead or who it looked like was going to win before jumping on his band wagon … or look at the even more dispicable list of political cronies who either bailed on or betrayed Hillary and Bill Clinton to grab a brass ring on the winning ticket. Those are the real lobbyists who have their own strings of “registered” lobbyists who will perpetuate the system in Washington.

Barack Obama isn’t going to change that. If any of these people actually thought he would, Obama would be a distant memory known as another failed “also ran”.

While Howard Wolfson is now talking about the “meat and potatoes” in Obama’s speech, I’m sitting here wondering … “What meat and potatoes???”

I have sat here and intently listened to a generic, generalization of a laundry list which is, at least, nearly as old as I am.

What’s new????

Where is the change????

“Barack, if you want change, then ask all of those Democratic voters you have gathered there in Denver to vote out all of those old democratic cronies that have been clinging to your coat tails for what seems like eternity. Shake them off and make a real change.

“And get rid of that David Axelrod. It’s hard for people to take your cry of, “Foul.” seriously when the hypocrisy of your doing the same thing … and frequently first … is dirtying the water. That boat just doesn’t float with anyone who has half a brain.”

If you’re under 10 years old, then this is a new and inspiring speech. If you’re older than 10, then you just haven’t been paying attention for the past however many years.

Even the venue is reminescent of events that took place around 70 years ago. And that’s a little creepy.

Bill Clinton’s Speech at Democratic National Convention 2008

After a rousing and protracted round of applause, Bill Clinton gave an enthusiastic endorsement for Barack Obama apparently laying aside all of the animosity that attracted so much attention during the Democratic primary campaigns. In doing so, Bill Clinton requested that the nation return to the prosperity of the 1990’s under the Clinton administration.

One of his last points was that like he, Bill Clinton, in 1992 was young and accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president, Barack Obama is also being accused of being too young and inexperienced to be president. Clinton claimed that, as his presidency was successful, Obama’s presidency will also be successful.

Bill Clinton did leave out any reference to John Kennedy who was also a very young president.

What Clinton also failed to point out were the differences in the world situation today compared to the beginning of his presidency, situations like the current Iraq War, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the resurgence of Russia as a threat to peace and stability in Europe, problems and threats that Bill Clinton didn’t have to face. A young and relatively inexperienced John F. Kennedy did have similar problems and his inexperience was exhibited by an ineffective meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, resulting in the construction of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis which nearly led to World War III and the guarantee of Cuba remaining a communist state by selling out the Cuban exiles in the United States and elsewhere. Clinton, in contrast, was inaugurated president in a time of relative peace. The immediate threat created by Iraq following its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait had been eliminated by the first Iraq War under the Bush administration and the Soviet Union had already been dissolved through the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Neither did Clinton mention his failed policy and withdrawal from Somalia, his failure to neutralize bin Laden when an opportunity arose, his failure to recognize the Al Quaeda threat that existed after the first bombing of the World Trade Center which led to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center or his failed negotiations with North Korea, to name a few. He also failed to mention it was his policy and administration which began the process of globilization or the American economy which, as claimed by many, has led to the loss of many high paying American jobs manufacturing jobs as well as jobs in the technology sector. During his administration the process of outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries began in full force.

Clinton did take credit for a period of prosperity during the 1990’s. He failed to mention that the economy was already recovering from a mild downturn in economic growth in the first part of the 1990’s prior to his inauguaration nor did he mention that many of his expensive and socialistic plans were curbed by the election of a Republican controlled Congress two years after his election which led to the moderation of many of his policies and plans.

Clinton stated that Barack Obama would be a staunch defender and supporter of the Constitution failing to recognizie Obama’s equivocation of the Second Amendment and his ardent support for a judiciary which is prone to legislate from the bench and not follow the Constitution, effectively bypassing the elected legislative branch of government.

Clinton attacked to Bush administration for “cronyism” following the Katrina disaster in New Orleans several years ago, again failing to admit to the political cronyism exhibited by the then Democratic governor of Louisiana and the re-elected Democratic mayor of New Orleans resulting in billions of dollars of waste and fraud in Lousiana following Katrina. He also failed to mention that the citizens of Louisiana have since partially corrected that problem by electing a Republican governor for that state.

He did mention that Barack Obama has the background to deal with the changing population of the United States and the growing interdependence of the United States with the rest of the world. I suppose he was referring to Obama’s suggestion that all Americans should learn Spanish and that Obama with his history of multiculturalism would be more inclined to help Americans adjust to a position of more dependence on the rest of the world rather than achieving a degree of independence and security from world threats.

I suppose like those politicians of old, like the one that I heard many years ago,Once Upon a Time at a County Democratic Party Meeting …,Bill Clinton is one of those who put party first over all else. Bill Clinton is a great speaker. Everyone knows that the true sign of a great speaker is their ability to inspire as much by what they conveniently fail to say as what they actually do say.

Obama Down 2 Percentage Points in Today’s Gallup Poll – 8/26

Today’s Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has placed Barack Obama’s support at 44% and John McCain’s support at 46%.

Defying the typical bounce that candidates usually get during their respective conventions, the Obama Political Machine has managed to loose ground in the daily tracking polls since the convention began yesterday.

It must be a source of absolute frustration for people like David Axelrod, Obama’s Campaign manager and chief strategist. Axelrod, who is firmly entrenched in Chicago’s mire of political shenanagins is seeing his reputation as a political kingmaker severely challenged by his inability to sell Barack Obama to the American public.

The Democratic strategy has become more negative and nasty as each milestone which would normally give a political candidate a bounce has been passed with Obama’s favorability remaining stagnant at best or more specifically declining.

Normally, a candidate would get a bounce in his favorability after winning the primary process. At best, Obama’s popularity after clinching the primary battle increased slightly. The lack of a significant bounce at that time might have been due to lingering resentment over a closely contested race between Hillary Clinton and Obama which appears to be a continuing factor. The fact that Hillary Clinton began to sweep primary after primary after revelations about Obama became public rather late in the primary season could not go unnoticed by the American public. Many people might have felt that they had been deceived by the Obama campaign and a liberal or left leaning news media which was apparently either hiding information about Obama or not thoroughly vetting him as a political candidate and presenting the information to the public in an accurate and unbiased manner.

Frequently, a candidate will get a bounce in popularity after naming his vice presidential running mate. Obama’s popularity has actually declined after announcing Joe Biden as his VP running mate in spite of Biden’s general popularity. Obama’s selection of Biden has apparently made Obama’s inexperience and other weaknesses even more obvious.

Many have viewed last night’s array of speakers including Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama as have very little to do with what the convention is all about. Although a tribute to Ted Kennedy in view of his current health problems might be a thoughtful thing to do, it might have been perceived as an excessive reminder that the notion of Obama being a candidate of change could be as much of an illusion as constant comparison between him and John or Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy’s imaginary media created “Camelot”.

Robert Goulet wasn’t really Sir Lancelot and Barack Obama isn’t really John Kennedy. Besides, the entire notion that John Kennedy united the country is as artificial as breast implants. The Kennedy sycophants that have deluged the airways and, more recently, the Internet fail to mention that Kennedy barely won the 1960 election and then possibly only by some adroit manipulation of votes in several Chicago precincts by then Chicago mayor, Richard J. Daley, at the request of Kennedy’s father as was widely rumored at the time.

“Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was the prototypical “machine” politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960.”

David Axelrod
and the Obama Political Machine certainly have a problem. How do they minimalize a person, Hillary Clinton, who won nearly half of the votes cast in the Democratic primaries without completely alienating a large portion of the Democratic constituency? How do they maintain the support and interest of the radical left wing of the Democratic party as Obama has noticeably maneuvered to a more centrist position trying to capture a majority of independent voters? How do they convince the American public that their candidate is a serious contender when he takes days to establish a position on serious issues like the Russian invasion of Georgia or the Jeremiah Wright controversy and can’t give unequivocal answers to questions when posed at a forum like that at Saddleback?

Democratic Convention’s Tribute to Ted Kennedy

From Caroline Kennedy’s glowing words to Ted Kennedy’s “humble” acceptance of the recognition he received, a nagging bad taste lingered in my mouth.

Caroline referred to the hope that her father John bestowed on the American people. The first thing that came to mind was a recollection of a lunch my family had with our representative in Congress in 1962. I recalled very vividly Representative Forrester of the Third Congressional District of Georgia telling my father that the Kennedy brothers hated every Southerner by birth.

I also recall the impressions of military trains passing behind my home on their way south to Florida as well as mobile ICBM’s positioned in remote areas on railway cars during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Someday it may be referred to as Kennedy’s Folly … after all the Kennedy sycophants are gone.

While Caroline described Ted Kennedy’s love for sailing, I recalled the report of the crew on his sailboat pumping out the bilge of his boat into Nantucket Sound oblivious to the objection of onlookers. Senator Kennedy is, after all, a leading advocate for environmental issues.

As she talked about all he has done for the American people, I recalled him blocking the construction of a wind farm in Nantucket Sound, a project which would eventually do much to relieve the dependency on fuel oil by the citizens of Massachusetts. Senator Kennedy’s view from his home in Martha’s Vineyard is infinitely more important.

Senator Kennedy certainly does deserve a tribute from the Democratic Party because he represents much of what they stand for.

Terry McAuliffe: Bill Clinton First Two Term President Since FDR

At first I thought, “Wait a minute. We’ve had a number of two term presidents since FDR.”

But on second thought, all of the elected two term presidents except for Clinton were Republicans. Right.

Let’s look at them:

Truman (Democrat) filled the unexpired term of Roosevelt and was re-elected once.

Next, Eisenhower (Republican) was elected to two terms.

Kennedy (Democrat) served almost three years of his first term.

Johnson (Democrat) finished Kennedy’s term and was elected for a full term once. He then announced he wouldn’t run for re-election.

Nixon (Republican) served his first term and was re-elected, then Watergate.

Ford (Republican) finished Nixon’s second term and was defeated in his run for re-election.

Jimmy Carter (Democrat) served one term and was defeated in his attempt to serve a second term.

Ronald Reagan (Republican) served two terms.

Bush, Sr. (Republican) served one term then was defeated in his attempt for a second term

Clinton (Democrat) served two terms.

Bush, Jr. (Republican) has served two terms.

Mr. McAuliffe was obviously referring to Democrats only.

Susan Rice Accuses McCain of Worsening Georgian Situation

Fox News reported this morning that Susan Rice, a senior foreign policy advisor for the Obama campaign, on MSNBC last night accused Senator John McCain of aggravating the Russian invasion of the country of Georgia, stating that he shot from the hip.

susan rice « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com

Senator McCain, unlike Senator Obama, has been a long time friend of the president of Georgia,

Mikheil Saakashvili, and has stated in recent interviews that he has been in daily contact with the president of that country. Senator McCain has also stated that he has been a ardent supporter of the emerging democracies which have been created from the former client states of the USSR.

Georgia (country) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Senator Obama has been on vacation in Hawaii and President Bush has been at the Beijing Olympics games, Senator McCain has been actively campaigning as well as staying on top of the situation as it developed in Georgia.

While Ms. Rice has impressive credentials,

Susan E. Rice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

, they don’t necessarily guarantee either an accurate or realistic assessment of world situations.

Historical perspective has repeatedly shown that weak responses to Soviet goals and aggression have been met with more overt aggression. There is no reason to believe that the current regime, led by former KGB agent, Vladimir Putin, would react any differently.

From Truman’s Berlin Airlift in response to Stalin’s ground blockade of that city to Kennedy’s Cuban blockade in response to Kruschev’s placement of strategic nuclear missiles in Cuba, positions of strength have been the only position that Soviet or Russian leaders have respected.

Positions perceived as weakness such as Kennedy’s meeting with Kruschev in Vienna or Jimmy Carter’s unilateral disarmament policies have only been met with more aggressive actions on the part of the Soviet or Russian leadership.

John Kennedy was naive in his initial dealings with the Soviet leadership which led to the construction of the Berlin Wall and the USSR’s decision to place nuclear missiles in Cuba. Jimmy Carter was equally naive by reducing America’s naval surface fleet by nearly two thirds.

Quite frankly, the entire process of downsizing the US military as a “peace dividend” which began after the end of the first Iraq War under the first President Bush and vigoriously continued under the Clinton administration and Bush II’s administration has appeared to be a serious error since the beginning of the current Iraqi War.

Russia’s rapid deployment of large numbers of troops into Georgia as well as it’s blockade of the Georgian coast within 24 hours of the onset of hostilities with surface ships based in the Ukraine on the other side of the Black Sea as well as the cyber attacks on Georgian government websites which began weeks before the Russian invasion of that country readily show that the Russian strategy was well thought out and planned long before Georgia’s attempt to regain control of South Ossetia, part of its sovereign territory, which lies in the heart of the country. The Russian tactic of issuing passports to citizens of a foreign country to use “protection of Russian citizens” is a poorly veiled excuse for it’s aggressive invasion of a sovereign nation.

Coordinated Russia vs Georgia cyber attack in progress

It has become very evident that the Russian leadership has ambitions of restoring its control over the sovereign nations of eastern Europe even though the old Soviet government is gone.

The United States and the other countries of NATO need to decide if they are going to determine the future of Europe or allow Russia to reassert it dominence in eastern Europe, in essence reestablishing the previous Soviet or Russian empire.

Much has been said about excluding Russia from the G8 as a response to their actions. Further action needs to be taken. NATO and the EU need to put all of the countries in eastern Europe on a fast track to membership which will draw a line in the sand at the very borders of Russia. Otherwise, the Russians will take the liberty to draw their own line in the sand at a position of their choosing, a process they’ve already begun.

In addition the United States needs to begin the painful process of rebuilding its military to a capability that will deter aggression by foreign governments or any other entity. Ronald Reagan knew and proved that peace can only be achieved from a position of strength.

Susan Rice has impressive credentials. So does Barack Obama, So did Jimmy Carter and John Kennedy. Their impressive credentials and intellect didn’t keep aggressive leaders like Nikita Kruschev or Leonid Brezhnev from chewing them up and spitting them out … figuratively speaking. It won’t keep people like Vladimir Putin from doing the same to Ms. Rice and Senator Obama.

I’ve known a number of very intelligent people during my lifetime who didn’t have the sense to get in out of a shower of rain or a thunderstorm. I’m really wondering about Ms. Rice. It could be that the person who inadvertently shot from the hip was Susan Rice and not John McCain. Maybe she needs to think a little bit more before she speaks.

Ms. Rice’s comment that John McCain has aggravated the situation in Georgia sounds overtly political as well as simplistic and naive.