Obama- Small town people "cling" to guns and religion

[Guest Len]

/Rant begins here

Despite Obama's obvious weaknesses as a candidate, his popularity, regardless of the outcome of the DNC or the November election, shows that there is a clear yearning for something radically different by a large number of Americans. (Who can blame them.) Obama offers hope. Now, we can debate whether that is a misplaced sentiment all day long, but his approach clearly resonates with lots of people.

The popularity of the Obama campaign should serve as a wakeup call to politicians of all stripes that there is a basic discontent out here, and they better deal with it. As for Obama's comments about the folks in PA, there are millions of people who completely agree with his sentiment -that a big chunk of the working/middle class is bitter.

I find the parsing of his comments by Clinton and McCain to be particularly galling, since they have BOTH done the same thing. Politicians who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

Its also interesting how careful politicians have to be these days. I bet that Obama's remarks sounded perfectly innocent to his speech-writers and to him when he said them. You can't say anything even remotely controversial these days without everyone accusing you of everything from America-hating to satan-worship to stupidity to whatever. You need not agree with what Obama said, or with the critics of his speech, to see this is a bad thing. PC run amok. What is the use of a 1A if everytime you open your mouth you get accused of everything from racism to insanity?

/rant ends here.

[The Rabbi]

Nuts.

Every politician who is not the incumbent runs on "change." Remember Reagan's "Its morning in America"?

Obama is resonating because he is a "clean articulate Black man". I think he resonates with the progressives in the media more than with actual voters. He did not sew up the primaries and is locked into internecine conflict with Hillary that will probably cost the Democrats an election they were certain to win 9 months ago.

With unemployment and inflation at historic lows until just a month or so ago it is hard to see what people are bitter about. The media of course whoops up how terrible things are because it sells newspapers. But the reality is most people have been doing fine.

We are fighting (and winning) a war that was thrust on us by people who are fundamentally opposed to our way of life. And we've been doing it fairly cheap, considering.

Obama's remark sounded innocent to him and his advisors because they actually believe it. Just like John Kerry actually believes that the army is made up of screw-ups who can't hack it in civilian life. They can't imagine what all the fuss is about. People don't act like that in Western Europe. And Europe should be the model of the progressive society we want to build, right?

[Guest Revelator]

Cheap, Rabbi? I think we will be paying for the Iraq war for decades. It's already anywhere between 500 billion and a few trillion, depending on who you believe. As for it being thrust on us, the only ones doing the thrusting were the Bush administration, who lied to the American people about Iraq's WMD and connections to al-Qaeda. And winning? I guess you can say, "Since we haven't been attacked again, we're winning." But that could go a lot of different ways. The victories in the war on terror have come when no shots were fired. They're won not with bullets and bombs, but with information. That's where we need to be putting our money and resources.

But what do I know. I get most of my news from the New York Times.

[Marswolf]

The victories in the war on terror have come when no shots were fired. They're won not with bullets and bombs, but with information. That's where we need to be putting our money and resources.

You had better keep some bullets and bombs on hand or you won't get a chance to disseminate the information.

[The Rabbi]

Cheap, Rabbi? I think we will be paying for the Iraq war for decades. It's already anywhere between 500 billion and a few trillion, depending on who you believe. As for it being thrust on us, the only ones doing the thrusting were the Bush administration, who lied to the American people about Iraq's WMD and connections to al-Qaeda. And winning? I guess you can say, "Since we haven't been attacked again, we're winning." But that could go a lot of different ways. The victories in the war on terror have come when no shots were fired. They're won not with bullets and bombs, but with information. That's where we need to be putting our money and resources.

But what do I know. I get most of my news from the New York Times.

Oy, vey. Another one.

Compare the cost of this war as a percentage of GDP to any war we've fought. It has been a bargain.

The Bush admin never tied Iraq to al Qaeda. That is a strawman argument.

As for WMD, they were on very good grounds for thinking Iraq had them. Everyone else did. So I guess every intelligence agency in the world also lied.

You will not win a war against Islamic radicals by information. They are not misinformed about anything. They are very well informed. Their goals just happen to be the exact opposite of ours.

And yes, if you get your info from the philosophical homosexuals at the NYTimes then that is how the world looks.

[Guest Revelator]

I meant "information" as it is used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to break up cells, disrupt plots, etc. Investigation and good police work, not pitched battles. But much more importantly: are the folks at NY Times philosophers who happen to be homosexuals, or are they just philosophically homosexual?

[Marswolf]

Well, we use intelligence to break up cells, but then again we used intelligence to conclude that Iraq had WMDs.If you are saying we need to put more money into intelligence agencies and give them a freer hand while we militarily keep a lid on the situation - at the same time - then I would agree. It's not either or, but both that needs to be done.

But we are not in an action such as can be worked on in the same way LE (police work) can deal with it. Tracking down terrorists in other countries is not police work but military and intelligence work. The rules are very different for handling terrorists.

[The Rabbi]

I meant "information" as it is used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to break up cells, disrupt plots, etc. Investigation and good police work, not pitched battles. But much more importantly: are the folks at NY Times philosophers who happen to be homosexuals, or are they just philosophically homosexual?

Another proponent of the "law enforcement" school.

That school says that terrorism is merely crime by another name. So you get evidence, identify suspects, arrest and prosecute for crimes committed.

This worked really really well under Clinton, who pursued exactly that strategy.

The "it's war" school says this is war by another name. In war you fix and eliminate the enemy while degrading his ability to make war. This is what Bush has done.

There havent been any terrorist attacks in the U.S. since Bush started his strategy post 9/11.

I'll leave it to people to decide which school is closer to the truth.

As for the NY Times, I dont know. I was quoting a whacky grad student at Boulder 20 years ago. I would say they are philosophically akin to homosexuals. In any case the Times stinks and their editorials are tripe.

[Guest Roscoe]

People -- Hello ! Is there any doubt in your mind whatsoever what the goal is that BHO (and Hillary) seeks with regard to your guns? ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER???

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/04/post_734.html

In BHO's world, you, Mr. Flyover Gunowner, do not have control of your own thoughts. When you learn not be so clingy to western civ and the Bible, and Come To BHO, all will be revealed. Karl Marx 101.

These are not new lessons: http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/04/sixty_five_year.html

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I had no illusions about Obama before this comment came out, and now I'm just enjoying the hell out of the resulting circus. On one side, you've got Obama trying his damndest to spin this into something less damaging. On the other side, you've got Hillary trying to capitalize on his error and make herself look like a gun person. I tell you, friends, this is true comedy.

[strickj]

Its is funny,but what really made me laugh was watching him on TV last night saying "shame on her" for the comments he made.Its like hes saying it was her that made the bitterness comments:shake:

[Guest 270win]

Watching Hillary and Obama crap on each other until the August Dem primary is priceless. Two arrogant people who are so big headed one can't step down for the better of their party. Then again, national dem politics is about making a statement, not running anyone that can win the part of america in between the left and east coasts.