I like Reason Online's (and the comments section is interesting as well) take on the whole pathetic Gates affair here and here. Was it racially driven? Just One Minute describes the events here.
Conservatives are going stir crazy while liberals are putting a predictable spin on things. The American Thinker is taking it one step further by tackling his intelligence.
Did Obama forget how valuable "I don't have all the facts therefore I can't comment" can be?
It's all relative. We watched Fahrenheit 911 by Michael Moore for the first time on the weekend.
ReplyDeleteSo right now, from our perspective, Obama looks really, really good!
Obama had the decency to admit to his error. That is a lot more than many a politician, even of us, would have done. The guy is human and he would, so far, still get my support if I were in a situation to do so.
ReplyDeletePaul, he barely (and with little coherence I might add) admitted it but that's not the point. The point is he was supposed to be above all this - and he clearly isn't.
ReplyDeleteAnd I resent (kindly of course) about that any of us wouldn't do the same. I always admit my errors; even when embarrassing but then again I wouldn't jump to conclusions either.
All you need to know: "I don't know all the facts but the police acted stupidly." There's a LOT in this statement to me.
Mr. Wilkinson, welcome back. Well, I wouldn't use Michael Moore as any type of barometer. He's obscene on many levels. If Bush was grilled for the friends he kept, why isn't Obama then? Has anyone noticed his past entourage?
I'll stop here.
About the relative comment, true but I'll tell you what. I was in D.C. and after catching up with Ben, Abe, Jimmy (Madison) and Tommy (Jefferson), I'll tell you what: Obama AIN'T any of those guys.
Well when it comes to Obama, you are out there with Tony Kondaks. For both of you whatever he does or does not do is, per se, wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'll stop at that.
Hm. No clue what "out there" means.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we "out there?" I think Neil's recent posts about Obama's intelligence are way "out there" but that's his opinion based on his experiences and frame of references. Same with Peter.
What's my point of reference? I come from more a civil liberties angle on most issues. I don't believe at all in bureaucrats and civil servants as enlightened conductors to our lives. For this, I make no apologies. They stand in the way of natural human activity.
So what is it? Because we're critical? So what? Someone has to do it because clearly it's very limited.
We're hardly vindictive either. I think we present our cases (and if you notice, I take issue mostly with his spending) fairly. I still think he deserves a full term but he has to lay off the "I inherited this mess" stuff. It's lame and not becoming of a leader.
Yes, I do believe he's a faux-intellectual; Harvard notwithstanding. I've met many Ivy leaguers in my day who were as dumb as lint.
I feel Tony is given a bum ride over at Neil's. All he does is present a libertarian point of view and he's treated as if he's come from space. On matters of Obama's economic policies and Quebec's laws I happen to agree with him.
You say Obama is human and it's natural to make mistakes. I agree. But did people accord Bush similar leeway? Nope. Heck, I through the question out there a few years ago about how when it comes to the Vietnam war Republicans and Nixon in particular are seen as the culprits when in fact, it was Kennedy and the Democrats who escalated the war. Now think about the public's perception of the two for a sec. Make any sense? Both parties and different leaders all had a hand to play. Yet, JFK gets off lightly in my opinion. McNamara gets more grief than JFK!
Just like JFK continued Truman's and Ike's Cold War policies, leaders after him followed his Vietnam thinking of "drawing a line in the sand." Ironically, Obama finds himself in a similar situation as Nixon in terms of what to do in Iraq.
Simplistically speaking:
Bush was essentially ridiculed for the way he spoke, for Iraq, the curbing of civil liberties and his spending policies.
Where exactly has Obama differed on these fronts? He often makes mistakes (but, gosh, he's so darn good looking and speaks so well!), hasn't shown any new ideas on Iraq, will increase the government's power against civil liberties and threatens to outspend Bush.
Where's the change, Paul? Oh right, things were so bad he needs to blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it.
Plus ca change I say.
That's my point. Where he's not changing squat he's inserting unimaginative and recycled ideas.
I'll know change when I see it. Same with Canada which suffers from the same leadership problem.
I "threw" the question. Sorry for the silly error. Hey. I'm human! But I don't have a speech team and editor so...
ReplyDeleteI don't mean that because I met Ivy Leaguers who were dumb ergo Obama is. My point is schooling doesn't mean you're smarter than the mechanic shop owner. I believe that somewhere in a vocational job, you can sometimes find a natural rhetorician or diplomat.
ReplyDeleteI never said Obama was perfect and yes he keeps, at least until he is allowed by Congress to do otherwise, some policies from the Bush era.
ReplyDeleteThe president of the US although powerful in some fields is not an absolute monarch...and thank God for it.
I do agree with you that a university degree does not a superior being make and I have known many who were simple tecnicians or office workers who were very bright and, given the opportunity, capable of great things. After all harvard trained guys have driven the world into it's worst crisis since 1929.
As for your libertarianism, it's your right to promote it and it's mine to partly disagree. Absolute libertarianism, as you seem to wish for, only leads to absolute chaos and the crushing of the small guy. I can't buy that.
Easy there big fella, if you think I advocate absolute libertarianism then I failed as a blogger to express myself!
ReplyDeleteAs I've said many times, when confronted with a social issue, debate, event - whatever - I generally simply side with the individual. However, I do think the government has a role to play.
Read von Mises, Lew Rockwell and other publications of the sort and then come back and tell me I'm hardcore.
I just don't think the reliance on government is a healthy thing.
On your last sentence, I agree. Vigilance is necessary. I'm happy that you state governments have a role to play. The extent of that role is up for discussion and may vary according to circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSh'pas fou!
ReplyDeleteNever thought you were, far from it.
ReplyDelete