Kathleen Parker is a conservative syndicated columnist, whose column appears in the Washington Post. The following is her review of President Obama's long awaited speech to the Muslim world in Egypt this past week. It is published in the Sunday, June 7th Washington Post opinion section.
Please take a minute to read it and let me know your thoughts.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 110
good summary - but I wonder where her point was. I thought it was an excellent speech. As I said in an earlier thread, perhaps the perfect speech for the time and place. What did she think?
The sarcasm seems a little thick. Interesting though... "(The loudest applause, however, came when Obama spoke of democracy.)" Kind of a puzzle for us since our friends in the region are almost all dictatorships. How can the region get out from under that without putting a big dent in our interests?
No doubt that the US has had to balance national security and interests with calls for human rights and democracy around the world. Certainly the middle east presents a challenge, but so do other countries in which we give mixed messages. In the end, the idea seems to be that America should be a guiding light that can inspire the people in individual countries to follow. In contrast to the taskmaster bellowing one thing (freedom) while doing another (supporting despots). Democracy by definition cannot be imposed, it must be homegrown. The most we can do is provide consistent nourishment and lead by example.
Seems to me that she would have preferred to give Obama a bad review but could find almost nothing bad to say about the speech. Now she knows how Osama feels back in his cave. She has met her personal "devil" and he turns out to be a really nice guy.
Makes it tough on a girl.
Well David, that's the question for us, isn't it? Take Saudi for example. While we revere "freedom" and "democracy" if democracy were to take over (by whatever means) there and displace the Saudi royal family (as could well happen since there is such a huge division of wealth between the small number of family and massive number of non-family), would there be a short period of democracy, followed by a long period of Wahabi dictatorship? Hard to foresee and control. I agree about bellowing "freedom" though. Unfortunately "freedom" is such a charged propaganda word/device that it's too often used for the wrong reasons or in hypocritical context.
My opinion, and it is merely opinion, is that Saudi Arabia and other states in the region will remain in the hands of royal families and despots for quite some time to come. Besides the natural reluctance to giving up power, it's just not realistic to expect that the cultural, familial, and religious traditions will shift so dramatically as to embrace democracy in the near term. The goal of Obama is not to suddenly incite uprisings, but to prime the youth to find hope in a better future they can make rather than the desperation that leads to thinking a post-life is more valuable than a current life.
Bottom line, despots are likely to remain for the forseeable future, but by removing the "evil American empire" strawman, perhaps we can help the people of these countries work toward integration in the world community, not isolation.
"Kathleen Parker is a conservative syndicated columnist...." Therefore it seems to be with some surprise that she gives credit to Obama for a well-written and well-considered and well-delivered speech. Not all "conservatives" are totally negative. I would give her high marks on her report, the objective and subjective aspects of it, and not react with an "I told you so" or "mud in your face" attitude.
Parker was chastised by some conservatives for "not toeing the party line" because she felt Governor Palin was a dangerously inadequate choice for VP. She definitely is conservative, but generally rational.
Exactly. "Conservative" doesn't equate with "right wing reactionary".
She might be rational - I'd like to give her credit for that, but she's certainly not an Obama fan.
But the question was about her report.
One of the things I appreciate about Parker's reporting is that she does acknowledge strengths, even when she doesn't necessarily agree with all of the pieces or the general philosophy of the player.
"They" are not as mesmerized as you think.
LONDON (Reuters) – The Taliban said on Saturday that U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world was full of "deceptive slogans" and did nothing to change relations between America and Muslims.
The speech, which Obama delivered at Cairo University on Thursday, "had nothing substantial in terms of content in order to reduce the dissonance that has reached its peak between Muslims and America," the Taliban leadership said in a message posted on Islamist Internet forums and translated by SITE Intelligence Group.
"His occupation and transgressing forces continue to kill, torture and arrest Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, trample upon their deserved rights with their feet, mercilessly kill them for defending their rights and throw them in the most horrible prisons in the world," the message added.
Obama's address, lasting almost an hour, was merely the "continuation of the previous deceptive slogans of America," the message said.
Violence in Afghanistan has surged to its highest levels since the 2001 U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban, which had harbored the al Qaeda network responsible for the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Washington also is worried about the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan in face of a growing insurgency and has urged action against militants to help defeat al Qaeda and disrupt support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Pakistani army launched an offensive against Taliban fighters and their allies in the Swat valley in the northwest of the country last month.
The message from the Taliban was its first reaction to Obama's speech, which has been widely scrutinized in the Muslim world.
Many Muslims who listened to Obama's address welcomed the change in tone from Washington but said they wanted to see more specifics about how he would heal long-running sores that include the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Egypt's opposition Muslim Brotherhood, a group that renounced violence decades ago, said the speech was mainly for public relations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090606/ts_nm/us_obama_taliban
"The Taliban said on Saturday that U.S. President Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world was full of "deceptive slogans" and did nothing to change relations between America and Muslims."
Linda - wouldn't you expect the Taliban to say exactly that? They thrive on fomenting hatred of America, which is a little hard to sell if Americans seem pretty rational, don't you think?
And yet Richard Engel reporting live from Afghanistan described the average Afgahni to be overwhelmed with joy at President Obama's speech.
Spin doctors are good at their jobs, that's the only way they keep them.
Yepper - no surprises here.
Obama in Cairo: A New Face for Imperialism
June 05, 2009 "WSW" -- -The speech delivered by US President Barack Obama in Cairo yesterday was riddled with contradictions. He declared his opposition to the “killing of innocent men, women, and children,” but defended the ongoing US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US proxy war in Pakistan, while remaining silent on the most recent Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza. These wars have killed at least one million Iraqis and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories.
Obama declared his support for democracy, human rights and women’s rights, after two days of meetings with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, two of the most notorious tyrants in the Middle East. He said nothing in his speech about the complete absence of democratic rights in Saudi Arabia, or about the ongoing repression under Mubarak’s military dictatorship. In the days before the US president’s arrival at Al-Azhar University, the campus was raided by Egyptian secret police who detained more than 200 foreign students. Before leaving on his Mideast trip, Obama praised Mubarak as a “steadfast ally.”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22774.htm
The situation is as it has been for many years, including throughout the GWBush, Clinton, and GHWBush administrations. Were you expecting miracles? That seems pretty irrational.
Linda - it was one speech - give it time.
Besides the Taliban is certainly not ever going to like anything Obama or the US does and there are plenty here in the US who don't like what Obama has to say or how he is governing.
David - I am just giving some other perspective. We all want to form our own opinions w/o the rose colored glasses.
Davis - I don't expect "miracles" as you call them -nly when there are more good people than bad,.
The Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East
By Noam Chomsky
June 05, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.
Keeping just to Israel-Palestine -- there was nothing substantive about anything else -- Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to 'point fingers' at each other or to 'see this conflict only from one side or the other.' There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.
Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22777.htm
But then again, seems there has been a tendency for people to underestimate Barack Obama. As I suggested above, miracles don't actually happen in real life, change must be achieved through hard work and time. In the words of Lao-tzu, "The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one's feet."
[Note: For those who know this phrase as "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step," I have used the more correct literal translation. The single step quote is sometimes attributed to Confucius.]
I will never underestimate Obama, and I will never trust him. He says one thing in his his speeches and continues the elite's agenda.
I didn't realize how much Obama is disliked by Kathleen, that's what I got out of her column.
He spoke for an hour and the best she can do is quip at every part of the speech that was truly aimed at letting the arab world know there is a new game in town and we'd like you to play with us.
My goodness, who cares whether he quoted the Koran, the Talmud or the Bible? Ummm, if you speak with someone that you want to engage in relations with then you might try to find common ground. I don't believe we've ever had a president who could quote from the Koran before....
... and what a spiteful way to end her diatribe:
Then he quoted verses from the Koran, the Talmud and the Bible that all pointed toward peace. He wrapped up with the ultimate plea for hope and change:
"The people of the world can live together in peace," said Obama. "We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth."
Hey, it worked in 2008.
Well - I'd like it to work in 2009 ad infinitum!
I suppose you can read her remarks from more than one perspective. Clearly she is equating Obama's speech in Cairo with a "campaign," and frankly that seems accurate. Just as his 2007-2008 campaign led to the White House through two years of hard work and step-by-step efforts to get his message out, finding a path forward in the middle east and elsewhere requires a painstaking journey one step at a time.
In both campaigns it began with people not knowing what to make of Obama and whether he could follow through on his ambitions goals. He clearly succeeded in the first campaign, after two years of letting people get to know him. Wooing a wider audience with disparate national and personal interests will take time. Building trust takes time. This speech was merely the first step of a thousand miles.
HIS message was merely propaganda and he has not followed through nor adhered to the Constitution - NOT ONE TIME!
"Inculcation" is an accurate description of what occurs in the compulsory government youth camps; (public education) if not indoctrination. This is the way you were trained, taught, and educated.
OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE…
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06052009/watch.html
Contracts with private militia indicate how long we will be there. So when we talk about US troops in Afghanistan, we should ALSO look at this. "more private (KBR/Haliburten) than U.S. troops".
Cost will be more than Iraq. This is obviously a continuation of the "endless war" "war for profit". Follow the money and forget the corporate media report ANY of this.
This interview is lengthy but you will learn so much from it and appreciate those who are trying to bring forth reality.
Yes, we know your reality.
As "we" do yours. Did you listen to it? Of course not, I just got done and you already commented. Same old "blinders" by many gather posters.
Obama is doing the job he was chosen to do. Read the telepromter, look good, smile and connect with the common person. Make them believe their interests are being protected. In exchange for Obama's soul, he will receive a real nice paycheck for the rest of his life, have his wife and children taken care of, and get a great big library built in his home town.
Obama, is the most cruel hoax since "40 acres and a mule." The sooner people realize it, the better. This video goes a long way toward exposing him. I am telling everyone I can about this video.
We employ "contractors", but the men in these countries trying to defend their own land and life, why, they're "insurgents". I get it now. I needed that clarification and feel much better.
...and the part about the private companies having their own armies i.e. drones- that is the part that got me because he is correct- take the humans away so as not to see the inhumane treatment and what will happen...
everyones a target btw.
I read the transcript, which can be done faster than listening to the program. It was interesting. Problem is, it looks at numbers and ignores motives. And isn't this really about motives? The program sees numbers and assigns motives based on Moyers' biases, ignoring evidence to suggest the motives are actually different.
"motives are actually different" ??? how so?
How not so? Obama is the "radical liberal" remember? Bush was the far right conservative. Obama ran against the Bush legacy...and now he supposedly has signed on to the same secret pact that Bush/Cheney had worked up? There is no logic to that.
Their is no logic in denying what you see everyday either David.
Linda your critique of Obama in general insubstancial RW foaming. Why bother to comment? The speech given was hailed by "sensible people" throughout the world as a welcome and refreshing change from the arrogant despotism of Bush and his band of idiots. The sheer fact Obama sought build bridges and set a new, more positve, respectful and non-confrontational tone clearly undermines those who wish to perpetuate conflict for narrow ideological grounds, here in the US as well as in the Muslim world. In that, you RWNs share a common bond with the worst of Islamic radicals: you both seek each other's destruction for religious and ideological reasons. Both of you are yesterdays political garbage. Time to move on.
Netanyahu is to give his own Mid-East policy speech, certainly designed to inflame the Muslim world. It will be interesting to see how Obama reacts to this game of poker. Surely he knows what Bibi is and if history is any guide, Obama has already set the pieces in motion to thwart him. I would not be surprised if Netanyahu were out of office within the year on a no-confidence vote.
Well, Sam C. - your opinion is highly overrated when you read between the lines. Obama has done NOTHING he said he would do as President.
I see you are still of the old mind-set of Right Wing / Left Wing and then there is No Wing. They are all the same - Republicrats. The agenda is the same as it has been since 1913 when they created the Federal Reserve. That was the beginning of the end of our sovereignty. Surely you can see than now.
Obama is nothing but a "polished" propagandist. New Boss IS the old boss. The only promises usurper Obama is keeping is forwarding Socialism/Fascism and broadening the nanny state. The "hope" and "change" you all dream of is really a nightmare. You won't know it until you open your door one day and say, "what the...!!!!" Then it will be too late.
The sheeple buy into his rhetoric and think HE is the ONE. He's nothing but an empty Armani suit, and if you look close enough, you can see the puppet strings - same as Bush.
Parker has become a voice of reason in the Republican Party, and has been quick to rebuke Limbaugh and others who attempt, with considerable success, to drag that party of the rails. I would summarize this column as expressing somewhat reluctant admiration for the fairness of obama's speech. I wonder if I would be that fair if a leading Republican figure were to give a speech with which I were forced to have 90% or more agreement. I wonder if I will ever have a chance to find out?
I admire your approach here, David. Instead of bringing up a voice of nonsense, such as Inhofe, you held up a positive voice for us to analyze. It's a good thing you are doing here- there is not much of this coming out of the Republican Party right now. Parker is really saying something very similar to what I said in my Inhofe diatribe- that Obama here is not on the side of Israel or Pakistan, he is on the side of the future of the human race. But it's graceful that she said it in a mostly positive way.
And she is right in saying that Obama's approach to Al Qaeda does a better job of marginalizing it politically and idealogically than George W. Bush's approach did. We need to not only kill them- we need also to deny them the oxygen of things to put on their recruting posters.
"Osama is the withered and quivering Gollum -- seething with envy and nursing his precious hatred -- to Obama's robust and hope-driven Frodo. The forces of darkness and light personified." That's the hope, that we can get the Islamic world to buy into that comparison.
I like the Gollum/Frodo analogy, though I think it hold better for the Gollum part than the Frodo part.
I started reading Parker at some point during last year's campaign. I found her to be reasonable, at least from the point I started reading her (I have no idea if she has been consistent or simply morphed). I can appreciate honest viewpoints as long as they are rational and factual.
The Republican party, like the Democrats a few election cycles ago, are searching for a voice. The loudest ones generally aren't the ones that eventually emerge as the leaders, which is good because the loud ones (e.g., Limbaugh/Cheney/Gingrich) only really appeal to the far ends of the party. Rational voices enhance the dialogue and provide an opportunity for making actual governing decisions. Personally, I'm in favor of our elected officials actually doing the job of governing with us in mind rather than merely doing the job of getting reelected with themselves and their parties in mind.
BTW, I think you gave a good summary of her column. As for being fair if a leading Republican were to give a speech, the point is fairly moot right now. The Republican party is currently the minority party, with no control in either house of Congress or the presidency. Which means they will act as the anti-voices. They really aren't in a position to make broad policy speeches right now. Mostly all they can do is try to position themselves to pick up a few seats next year (which I think they just might do, for reasons I will eventually lay out on Gather).
Obama thinks he is going to change the world with his sweep everything under the rug,
In 7 years we have murdered over two million innocent Islamic people for profit and they will not be sweeping it under the rug while he continues to murder more on the pipeline route.
Obama's rhetoric does not match his actions any more than Bush lies matched his actions.
...and that's the truth".
Yes, characterizing our actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq (still) as having a purpose of ending violence (sutbstitute word for "terrorism") is a sham that undermines the nobility of the rhetoric.
Basically, despite the many good sentiments expressed in the speech, we're still playing the same ol' ballgame.
Same game by a different name.
murdered 2 million innocents? Just a rough breakdown pls.
David, I thought you might like a break from Linda, who presents a bit of "Yesss, my precioussssss" in her own way.....
Jack, some innocent muslims have unquestionably died. I tend to think that the profit motive was not he defining factor. I tend to think that a false choice was made, are we on Al Qaeda's side or are we willing to lie, murder and torture in order to defeat them.
In reality, the murdering, lying and torturing helps us to resemble them rather than defeat them. We defeat them best when we look different from them to an objective observer.
Thanks Chris. "I resemble that remark."
This whole lie is about nothing but a gas pipeline from Eurasia through the Islamic countries that Bush could not buy off. Obama continues the mass murder expanding it into Pakistan while telling the families of murder victims to sweep it under the rug. Attack the innocent because we will just sweep it under the rug and move on.
Its about money Chris and always has been about money in a country that does not live by the rule of law.
Why is the Afghan pipeline such a big secret, or so little recognized as the motive? UNOCAL was trying to get that done way back when the Taliban visited Texas when Bush was governor. And today, who happens to be "president" of Afghanistan? A UNOCAL consultant.
They've been trying to get that under control for a long time, and the excuse of "the Taliban are evil" doesn't really fly. Do we need to occupy a supposedly sovereign country indefinitely because these are the people who gave sanctuary to bin-Laden eight years ago? Even if you buy that crap, does anyone think we're killing more of the "enemy" than we're creating?
Is there no shortage of conspiracy theories? Come on. Can't we all think a little more dimensionally than that?
Why not show some proof that Bush didn't hand the Taliban millions in his secret deals and Cheney didn't hand the Taliban $10,000,000 as it has been posted over and over instead of saying Duh, just conspiracy? Its always conspiracy for people that do not want to face the reality of what they have supported and caused.
"as it has been posted over and over..."
And we all know how accurate blogs and Gather posts can be.
No one is saying we and they didn't do things we shouldn't have done, but it's a little hard to address the real issues when every feather is cause for conspiracy hand-waiving.
Of course the same murder and insurrection continues and its all conspiracy instead of reality.
Bush didn't lie to murder over two million people. Powell did not lie to the U.N. Bush did not sell our jobs to China, The America government is not in league with UNICOL to steal rights to a pipeline. Obama is not following Bush policy and expanding the blood for oil wars. Obama does not lie everytime he opens his mouth. The watchdog groups have always put conspiracy theorys out to the public becuase they do not have anything better to do.
And the Duh people keep supporting the same insurrection by political hacks as they cheer on their demise.
Come on Jack. You're being just a tad melodramatic, don't you think?
Not another "conspircy theory" tag to discount the matter...
Would dimensional thinking not include the concept that we're creating more enemies than we're killing?
And seriously, what does Afghanistan today have to do with 9/11 eight years ago?
It's the same country, with the same problems, and the same strategic importance. Stick a big knife into someone's belly...do you pull it out fast (and maybe twist it) and let them bleed to death, or do you pull it out slowly while bandaging up the wounds?
Your right its the same country and its infected with American greed.
Thank you for sharing. I will read it. I won't discuss it though as I don't discuss anything political but I do enjoy reading about it.
Glad you could come by. It's definitely worth the read, and there is never any obligation to leave a comment if you wish not to.
I found Parker's column to be an objective analysis from someone who opposes Obama's domestic policies, but is unable to let that disagreement cloud her thinking about his foreign policy or her judgement of the success of his strategy for winning people over to his side. She was also wise enough to acknowledge not only the possibility that the same strategy can work with other than the people of the United States and Europe, but to hope the it will also work to convince the citizens of predominate Muslim regions that the U.S. policy towards those people is changing and that that will make them more inclined to see Osama Bin Laden and his ilk for what they are: power seekers who have little or no respect for those disagree with them.
Have more to say, but that will have to wait until later in the day since I have something else I must do.
"...that will make them more inclined to see Osama Bin Laden and his ilk for what they are: power seekers who have little or no respect for those disagree with them."
This is pretty much the big picture reason Obama did this speech. He recognized that the previous US policy was seen as belligerent, bullyish, and imperialistic by much of the Muslim world, and for that matter, most of the entire world. Bush was a perfect recruting tool for bin Laden, as he seemed to be doing exactly what bin Laden was saying Americans would do and acting exactly how bin Laden said we would act. It was easy to foment hate against us.
Obama's goal is to defuse the rhetoric. It's a lot harder to paint the USA as a demonic state intent on annihilation of the Muslim world when Obama comes off as being a perfectly rational guy. He admits that the US has dropped the ball occasionally, but also clearly states that the worldwide Muslim community must take responsibility for its actions as well. Only by reasonable people of all faiths and nationalities and ethnicities working together can we all defeat the extremists who distort the Koran, the Torah, and the Bible for their own means. We all live in this world, so we better figure out how to do so without having to kill each other.
Of course, this isn't a case of wand waving and everything is copacetic. This was but one step...an important step, but just one step. There will be skepticism on all sides until people begin trusting...and trust is not something easily won in a case like this. We're in it for the long haul.
Sorry David but you really should change "previous US policy" with "on going policy."
The speech was meant for the Muslim World. Obama is a good cop to W's bad cop. Unlike the neocons, I hope the speech is a success in that anyone thinking about joining Al Qaeda now has second thoughts.
This is just the beginning of what will be a very long process, and it won't necessarily be a smooth road.
The speech was meant for the American politically correct that refuse to allow them self one instant of free thought.
The speech was meant for Muslim youth, who will be the ones deciding whether to strive to be like the US, or fly more planes into buildings.
Words...just words they say nothing about the basic things that attract people to such groups as Hezbollah/Al Queda etc which is often a sense of powerlessness. No jobs, little chance for education, poor living conditions, and a sense their part of the world has been left behind. Never mind the rage that much of the world including non Arab Muslims look down on them too. Hell parse it further and look how much of the Arab world looks at Palestinians.
So say what you will, nothing is going to change the hatreds and rage many of those people feel for the West and even for other Muslims that have become part of the greater world. Nothing is going to change in those areas either as even many of the younger power brokers simply want power in their hands instead of the ones who hold it now. The change that matters is not only political but economic, something that must go hand in hand or see failure again.
Words are a first step...and antidote to the poison being fed for the last several years (or decades). I agree that there must be follow up in dealing with the core issues or words are for naught.
The irony is that people forget one of the large reasons Obama was elected - he inspired hope for a change. What he is trying to do in the middle east and elsewhere is inspire that same hope for people with a history of having none. As we've just seen in Iran, the authoritarian powers don't give up that power overnight. And as we saw in Iraq and Afganistan, trying to force it on a people doesn't usually work either.
Democracy, or something close to it, must be organic. It must rise from the people. By definition it cannot be dictated to the people. The best we can do is help reset the conditions to allow that organic growth. It will take some finesse, and it will take a lot of time, certainly longer than Obama's 6 months or even his potentially 8 years in office. It may never happen. But one thing is clear. Whatever we've been doing for so many years hasn't worked, so a different strategy is needed. Obama is trying that different strategy.
And yes, economic change, civil freedom change, and other key changes must be where it all starts. People without jobs or hope for a job turn to despondency, crime, and terrorism. People with jobs or hope that they have a good chance at making a future for themselves tend to be constructive members of society. We need to encourage the latter.
I thought this was a good analysis of his speech. This was politics and diplomacy at its finest. I almost guarantee that most of you might not have recognized all the regional people he managed to indirectly insult with the truth. The reason, for example, that everyone was applauding his comments on democracy was the fact that Egypt is not the most "democratic" of nations. Political dissidents and opposition party members are routinely rounded up. He stood is ground against both Israel and Hezbollah.
Hopefully not much will come from it. I say hopefully because you can't give promises with words without a plan to back them up in actions. If a new democracy movement starts in Egypt and they get repressed without an action from Washington then our reputation among the Middle East moderates will vanish. But if it starts the process, that will be enough.
The goal is only to start the process of resetting attitudes. It's hard to demonize us if we actually seem reasonable.
Reasonable? What is reasonable about expanding a war for profit and continuing to murder innocent people?
Isn't it a coinkidink that they dug up Bin Laden, taped a recording, and re-buried him - just in time for Obama's speech? If you look at the recent photo, he looks younger, no gray in his beard, and looks healthy. Remember, he was on dialysis. Just picture him running with a dialysis machine and a generator, from cave to cave - for years. They dig him up every time they want to instill more fear in the sheeple.
(Bin Laden, according to his brother, has been dead for years and Benazir Bhutto explains who killed him - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiuFx6rQbE )
lol The camel jockey does pretty good for having to ride on a camel with a dialysis machine strapped to one hump.
Bin Laden has been surfacing only when a new scare tactic is need every time it comes to voting more blood for oil funds.
BTW, there are more and more "conspiracy theorists" today than there was last year.
Eligibility debate explodes on White House 'dialogue' site...
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificate
I think they will release it when they are sure the ink is dry.
Why eligibility is KEY?
For the "First defender" of this nation's Supreme LAW, NOT to be a natural born & American raised person is beyond comprehension. The lessons of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness, learned in American daily life, are an intrigue part of the "First Defender's" character building...This is the VERY reason, reasonable men placed this aspect of importance into the U.S. Constitution.
They believed it to be an intrical part of the office of the President, who is the CHIEF LAW enforcement officer of the land. The powers that go into this office are only controlled by legislation & the judgment that is entailed in the performance of this MOST important job are crucial to the Country's survival....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99884
Obama's birth certificate is GOP nonsense but Obama's blood for oil war is murdering innocent people.
Maybe -maybe not. Time will tell.
I would think Obama supporters would be pleased overall with it. The speech wasn't bad compared to his past foreign ones and a pleasent surprise in that he took Muslims to task for things they have done also.
That she found some things lacking or wrong shouldn't be surprising. She is an opposition writer not one his media supporters.
There were no surprises in his speech. He said what he needed to say.
I actually didn't see where she said much was lacking or wrong in his speech. The examples people have been giving are merely rhetorical flourishes, spun by the readers and Gather commenters more than Parker.
Yes there were surprises in the speech for many of us. After his first two speeches, I for one figured it'd be another mea culpa for everything including the weather and the water levle in the Nile. Surprise, he didn't do that much apologising this time. Also the fact he actually didn't just flatter them but took them to task was a surprise.
She sounded overall complimentary about the speech which is why I said his supporters should be happy. She noted some things but overall seemed happy with it.
I'm sorry David, given what he says daily and has said overseas, I cringe when he goes to give speeches. So far I see a typical politician given to making nicely worded but vague speeches, so this one did surprise me.
I just don't understand how you and others can see Obama and his speeches through such a distorted lens.
The characterization of him doing mea culpas and an "apology tour" is - in my mind - an absolutely unidimensional view not supported by rational thought. What some see as "apology" is seen by others as "taking responsibility for our actions." To see this clearly you have to understand how others have viewed us. And whether you are wont to admit it or not, most of the world thinks that we have been the big bully on the block for decades, but the last administration was just so extreme in that regard that even our allies began openly to hate us.
It's a little hard to lead when the world thinks your an ass.
So no, there were no surprises. Anyone paying attention with an open mind could have predicted that he would say virtually everything he said. The key points are pretty simply:
1) Yes, the US hasn't always been true to our ideals
2) Yes, neither have many other countries
3) Yes, there are lots of problems in the world
4) Yes, everyone - including the US - has to take responsibility for our actions
5) Yes, we're all on this planet for the long haul, so it is time we figure out how to do so without killing each other all the time
That's pretty much it. Taking responsibility for actions. And think for a second how easy it was for bin Laden and his ilk to sell the "US is evil" line to the desperate people who needed food when Bush was in office. It was a piece of cake. All bin Laden had to do was point to Iraq as an example of "American imperialistic aggression" and the desperate and ideological lapped it up. Now think about how easy it will be for bin Laden to demonize the US - hard to sell the idea that we just want to take over the world when we look and talk and act like rational people who appreciate the diversity the world has to offer.
No surprises at all.
Of course, this was just a speech. An important one, but one that will be quickly forgotten if our actions don't follow suit. That means extracting us from Iraq, finishing the job we should have focused on in Afghanistan and then getting ourselves out of there, finally taking advantage of the opportunity we had but completely ignored when Arafat died to find a way forward for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.
This is not about waving a big stick in the air and trying to scare the world into submission. It doesn't work that way, and the world now knows (because of Iraq) that the US is not some all powerful deity that can simply "shock and awe" to get its way. They now all know that they have more power, in some cases individually, but definitely collectively. They know that all the little kids on the block can gang up on the big bully.
Obama's speech diffused that hatred to some extent. That puts us in a better position to focus everyone's attention on fighting extremism wherever it occurs.
Leading the world is part of the problem. Many people think it's dead wrong when we criticize other nations for major human rights violations/national policies but when their party (regardless of who that party is) comes to power, that changes. Perfect example is now Dems no longer worry overmuch about Chinese or Cuban human rights abuses because it's not needed to beat the others up with. Let's not even get started on the world policeman thing which seems bi-partisan but with different reasons for enforcement.
I agree that continual waving of the Big Stick will not do much in gaining submission of other nations (whose actual policy was/is that?) especially if it's only waving. My ideal would be selective waving with action to follow if needed, something we left some time ago.
David, you-like too many others in this world, tend to think of nations acting as humans capable of altruistic action rather than chiefly in what they perceive as their actual needs/interests. So many people liked what Obama said, I'm rather the cynic and wondering if it was selective hearing rather than comprehensive. To judge success as you think it, we need to see some concrete action from the Islamic world. I don't see that happening, no matter how many mea culpas he spouts. Just like Europe and S. America, he got applause but nothing else. Everybody likes to hear the big guy apologising and acting humble but thats where it ends.
Arafat died to find a way forward? He choose not sign any comprhensive plan with Israel because he only got 95% of what he wanted. He was a thug that thrived on the bodies of his "people." Arafat left nothing but the cheapened Nobel prize and an appreciation of what lip service and cynicism could produce for his/his gang's bank accounts when dealing with awed Europeans/Americans who acted as his surrogates.
I agree with you that there is quite a bit of hypocrisy in both parties, where perspective changes depending on whether you are the majority or minority. While I would like it not to be so, it is so, and thus must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This is one of the reasons why I do not ascribe to any party's philosophy, seeking rather to assess each issue on its merits (and demerits).
"David, you-like too many others in this world, tend to think of nations acting as humans capable of altruistic action rather than chiefly in what they perceive as their actual needs/interests."
See Charles, that's the thing. You have ascribed to me (and others) a particular thinking that isn't based on anything I have said, but rather based on your interpretation of what I have said as seen through your particular prism. In fact I have never said that I believe countries (or necessarily even individuals) act altruistically. Rather I understand quite well that they act based on their own self-interests, whether perceived correctly or not. The US certainly acts in what it sees is its best interests, as does every other country (and region and group and individual, etc.). There is no such naivite as you imagine. Choosing different paths to the goal doesn't mean someone doesn't see the world around them. In fact, it can be argued that choosing a different path when the first one doesn't lead to the goal is the antithesis of naive.
"To judge success as you think it, we need to see some concrete action from the Islamic world. I don't see that happening, no matter how many mea culpas he spouts."
He gave his speech less than a week ago. He's been in office a few months. Do you expect the skies to open up, birds to sing, and the world to suddenly change? That's silly. This is going to be a long process and attitudes do not change overnight. It may take generations. You won't recognize change until long after it happens. Ironically, I do see change already. It's subtle and tentative at this point, and could disappear if we don't follow through. But it's there.
"Everybody likes to hear the big guy apologising and acting humble but thats where it ends."
That's where it ends if we don't back it up. Again, it takes time. One step at a time. Trust doesn't happen after one speech. As I said above, we may not notice for a long time what may already be happening. Or not. We just won't know until one day we look back and can say, "hey, change happened," or "hey, change didn't happen."
"Arafat died to find a way forward? He choose not sign any comprhensive plan with Israel because he only got 95% of what he wanted. He was a thug that thrived on the bodies of his "people." Arafat left nothing but the cheapened Nobel prize and an appreciation of what lip service and cynicism could produce for his/his gang's bank accounts when dealing with awed Europeans/Americans who acted as his surrogates."
I agree, as do most rational and informed people, that Arafat was a thug and an incompetent leader. But he was the one that spoke for the Palestinians. When he died we had an opportunity to seek a path forward with someone more rational, and Abbas was/is more rational. Certainly it wouldn't have been an easy path, as Hamas has their own view of how the situation should end. But it became moot anyway. Iraq hurt our chances dramatically, both directly because we were too busy with it to do anything, and indirectly because it gave the extremists a convenient "evil one" to point fingers at. Add the fact that Hamas was better at providing social services like food, shelter, roads and schools than Fatah and you get what we got - a legitimate election in which Hamas gained many seats (and power). Now it's a mess. And Lebanon could end up the same way. Don't think these groups didn't learn from the Sinn Fein/IRA lesson of playing both the terrorist and political games. And with ample funding from Iran they are a formidable challenge to the process.
None of this is lost on Obama. He isn't naive. On the contrary, he sees that taking a high road that leads to the goal is better than taking the low road that leads nowhere. None of this is easy, but clearly the previous strategies weren't working.
I attribute based on what I read David, I don't read minds. If I made an mistake it's because reading other's thoughts isn't precise. Your support of Obama is obvious but to me it seems based far more on unrealized hopes than anything constructive.
Sometimes nations do act altruistically, many people do and this is sometimes transferred to nations by them. Think England and the slave trade naval campaign in the early 1800s. Apologising for our nation's past acts gives no comfort to those who feel affronted nor does it please those of us who feel many of those criticised acts were for national self interest. But it does give ammunition to those who have always claimed we are the bad guys. "See, they admit it!"
I was not the one who said any such thing about Obama inspired change being overnight. His supporters were the ones who predicated that and not a thing has changed overseas. We won't even go into the domestic side of the house. Supposedly his election would mean the whole world would change their attitude. We would be able to embark on a new path of cooperation and crisis' would be dealt multi nationally. Months later, the world is still telling us to pound sand when we try that route and Bush is no longer president. Obama made two strong statements in the N. Korean missile/nuke testing and stepped back both times...he has had opportunity to show strength or at least shut up and has done neither. One does not need much time to see this represents nothing new.
We did try to work with Abbas but he was at best a medicore leader saddled with a corrupt Fatah that was the legacy of Arafat. Billions from the US/Europe disappeared there before the mini civil war. I don't deny what you say about Hamas' social machinations either. Whether they learned that from past terror groups failures to try and win militarily will be for future historians to argue I think. What is availlable at this stage support the theory it's tactical not principle. But it is working or did until they won and had to govern. Now you have the ironic situation of Palestinians trying to flee to Israel for safety or jobs. We both can agree with Iran being the puppet/finance master in all of that.
"I was not the one who said any such thing about Obama inspired change being overnight. His supporters were the ones who predicated that..."
Actually, only the far left crazies and the far right crazies said that. And they're crazy, so can't really be considered reliable sources for rational thought.
"...and not a thing has changed overseas."
How can you say that, Charles? The attitude towards Obama overseas versus Bush is light years different.
"Supposedly his election would mean the whole world would change their attitude."
In a way, much of it has. If nothing else they are listening, which they weren't before. But no one thinks attitudes change overnight (except the aforementioned wingers).
"We would be able to embark on a new path of cooperation and crisis' would be dealt multi nationally."
Again, no rational person says so. Public opinion is rarely reflected by the views of the people at the extremes who seem incapable of thinking dimensionally.
"We did try to work with Abbas but he was at best a medicore leader saddled with a corrupt Fatah that was the legacy of Arafat."
We didn't try to hard.
I do agree on most of the rest. Much of the problem is that the Palestinians do not think monolithically, which should come as no surprise given that most groups don't. There are power struggles everywhere, including in Israel and even Iran. And of course, the US.
Both mainstream parties are tarred with the same problem of crazies but Obama's got LOTS of air time for saying such things. I note you use the term right wingers to describe people who claimed attitudes would change, it wasn't them who said it would. Again it was Obama fans, crazies they may be but I saw no righties or others who really figured much would change when our hands went out.
I can say that "nothing has changed" David because nothing HAS changed. Regardless of the problem, be it military, diplomatic, economic-no one is working any more with us then before. Obama gets more cheers but that is translating into nothing concrete.
Obama has not said he'd do things cooperatively, no more unilateralism? Your guy has said so repeatedly in things as diverse as dealing with pirates, N. Korea/Iran, and economics.
Didn't try to work too hard with Abbas? What could we have done different that wouldn't be dictating to him? (something we supposedly no longer do to other nations/groups) You can't make wet spaghetti stand no matter how much money you throw at it...it's still to limp. Economic and some security aid, most wasted or diverted. Both us and the EU tried that road.
Why would Palestinians think monolithically, their lives under Eygptian rule were worse than what the Israelis had them under by far and before that they were under British colonail rule. They aren't a nation or a people, just people used by the Arab states for decades as political tools.
You're right about power struggles of course, some tend to be more peaceful than others however.
"I can say that "nothing has changed" David because nothing HAS changed."
Well, I think a credible argument could be made that much has in fact changed already. But we're talking less than 6 months in office here. How much "change" can you really expect to see in that time? The North Koreas and Irans of the world aren't simply going to change overnight. The financial crisis isn't going to change overnight. And the Republican minority is most certainly not going to start acting in a bipartisan way; in fact, acting bipartisan actually hurts their reelection chances since their remaining districts are mostly devoid of moderation at this point.
Of course there has been some change here in the states and overseas, I overstated that. Overseas it does generally take time for change and at least you acknowledge that and aren't trying to make the argument that Obama should get credit for a tiny shift in Lebanon or the cracks in Iran. His rhetoric has been popular but again, nothing has really changed in a measurable way.
Domestically, change has been wrenching and is likely to affect us for a geneartion or more unless things change quickly on the economic front. There is no reason for the Repubs to be "bi-partisan" as virtually everything Obama has done violates their supposed principles. Its not their remaining districts that they have to think about now but the ones narrowly won by Dems in 2006/8. If you don't think they have a chance in those then you are failing to note Dem splintering on budgets and other Obama moves in the environment, health care, and economics. 2010 will see at least a partial realignment, maybe not a 1996 but enough to put Obama and the DNC leadership on notice.
Your point about remaining districts is well taken, Charles. Most of the districts still held by Republicans after the last two elections are solidly Republican, and so will likely remain Republican.
The keys are the more moderate districts and the "safe Republican" districts that the Republicans lost. For the latter they probably shouldn't have lost most of those in the first place, so it stands to reason that they have a good shot at getting them back. For the former, obviously they have a shot if they put up a solid, more moderate candidate. Therein lies the rub.
The Republican party is still pretty much split on how they should move forward. On an individual level they can cater to the political makeup of their districts. In strong Republican districts the block voting against the stimulus and other Obama programs would solidify the chances of reelection, but that same block voting tends to turn off moderates. [And while the same is obviously true for Democratic block voting, they are the majority and so by default they appear to be trying to accomplish something while the Republicans appear to be obstructionists. Happened in reverse in the past.]
My bottom line is that I fully expect the Republicans to pick up a few seats in the House, and it's not out of the question that they could pick up a Senate seat. I'll do a more thorough analysis when it is warranted. Of course the Republicans will tout any wins as the beginning of some resurgence, but they would be wise to not take a few House seats for more than they are worth. Demographics are changing, and not so much in favor of a Republican party that in many ways seems intent on further shrinking its base. That doesn't bode well for the long haul, but there is still time for them to adjust if they choose to do so. Whether they do before the 2010 elections will, I think, depend substantially on this year's New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections (I will likely do an analysis of these when it gets closer to the fall).
As for the Democrats splintering, I suspect no one at the White House is particularly surprised. Contrary to what some believe, a Congressional majority marching lock-step with a President of the same party is neither a sign of good governance or politically wise. The Republican party found this out in Bush's first six years, and the Democratic party should have figured it out based on their own past history. Furthermore, Democrats need to get reelected in their districts just as do Republicans, and because of the last couple of elections there are more Democrats in districts that are more moderate and/or had previously been "safe" Republican districts. These districts didn't turn far left liberal overnight just because they elected a Democrat, and thus the incumbents in those districts will need to demonstrate that they can show some fiscal discipline and intellectual integrity.
Which gets me to the last point. It would be wrong to characterize varying opinions on policy details (on the environment, health care, budgets, etc.) as "splintering." The fact that any disagreement on details is considered a sign of weakness is part of the reason the Republican party is currently in the wilderness. The whole role of our elected officials is to represent the people that elected them, and given that Democrats (as well as Republicans) come from varying places should mean that they will present varying opinions on policy details. That's what they are supposed to do, work out the details. So this is called discussion, not dissent. And if you look closely, while there are many views on how best to implement various policies, the policies themselves are quite in line with the direction advocated by the administration.
You are assuming that the registered Dems have remained solidly for Obama or whoever their party places up in 2010. That assumption is a dangerous one. Though I for one believe Obama remains personally popular, I don't think that is true for many of his policies nor for congress; all of them as a rule and Dems in particular. Americans traditionally do not like one party rule as the Repubs deservedly found out. I think that the Dems are going to find it out also as they are doing everything that angered voters under the Repubs and then some.
Right now, as you point out Dems have to be able (outside of their safe districts) to point out something resembling fiscal sanity and intelluctual integrity. So they will have to start soon and Obama's enviro/health care plans are going to be hopefully the first deserved victims. Repubs are out in the wilderness in a large part because voters like me got perturbed at a party that said many things and did the exact opposite. I don't like many of their stands but the Dems have absolutely no credibility with me and they have done everything I predicted they would since taking control. Voters like me now make up the largest bloc in the nation, the reasons are obvious as both parties have proved corrupt and inefficient. Neither party makes up even a third of the electorate currently and both are dropping fast. Currently it's the Repubs but that has switched before, at least twice in my lifetime.
That is the problem with the Dem party now, it has become the face of the state. While many people have no problem with that, at least as many despise that and it will be up to the Repubs or if they are smart allied with the smaller minor parties to take advantage of that. You can say many Dems are only quibbling about details but I think that at least some are scared of the direction that party is taking.
Certainly there is a shelf life for the stimulus spending, which of course also includes spending for priorities that may be different from the previous administration. That combined with your accurate observation that people tend to get antsy when one party gets too much power will almost certainly lead to the Republicans recapturing some of their lost seats in Congress.
That will likely happen no matter what direction the Republican party goes over the next year or so. Unless either party really is politically clueless and intellectually stunted. If either is the case then the gains or losses could be more substantial (and could go either way).
As you say, the party in power gets blamed for all the problems.
My sense is that the Obama administration is very much aware of the dynamics. They have demonstrated a keen adeptness of observation of trends and strategies. That said, there isn't much that can be done if the economy doesn't pick up, or more accurately, if the public's perception about the economy doesn't pick up.
Right now this is in Obama's court. If it works, he's going to be here for a while. If it doesn't, we'll see signs in the 2010 elections. [The two governor's races this fall could also give some insight, but frankly I doubt the results will mean much one way or the other. Of course, if the Republicans win either or both states, you can guarantee that they will be touting a watershed moment. It won't be true, but it will be a good ad line for next year's campaigns.]
I think you're right that if Repubs win the gov seats for those two states it'll be highly touted and I also agree it will be basically meaningless. NJ is such a mess that a Repub will simply arrive to take the blame and VA has been Repub for some time and would only be returning to the "fold"
The Repubs at a national level are largely rudderless but their policy of fighting tooth and nail against the majority of the Administration's plans is making them money. Their alternatives have been hit or miss but it has all left the Dems/Obama firmly identified with the spending mess, deficits, and bailouts. That the spendathon is spread to try and accomplish something during election cycles is another sign of the cynical BS we got peddled during that hysteria influenced stampede to pass it.
Both parties are largely clueless. Neither party has done much of anything to shake their stereotypes. But that is far more harmful to the Dems right now as they are in power. The Dems are in charge and with the world increasingly shaky, fingers only have one way to go now.
American voters memories are notoriously short, after this orgy of takeovers and spending, they'll forgive the party (Repubs) that failed to live up earlier to their proclaimed prinicples. In 3-5 years after that they'll likely forgive the Dems for what is their historical spending role. It's a vicious revolving door with the taxpayers/Republic losing more and more of what little chance we have of coming back from the brink.
A key point you make is "their policy of fighting tooth and nail against the majority of the Administration's plans is making them money."
Much of the motivation for making any "policy decision" is a function of what they think will garner donations for their reelections. Certainly they should be responsive to the needs of their constituents, but mostly they are responsive to the needs of the most vocal minority of their constituents who make the most noise and give the most reelection cash. The majority of constituents simply follow along with what they hear from the vocal minority.
The same is true for the Democrats to some extent, but as the majority they can actually focus on making policy more. The minority party pretty much is relegated to trying to become the majority.
I agree that voters tend to have very short memories, not to mention the fact that they are woefully uninformed. We as a group tend to believe whatever fits our previous preconceptions, even when that isn't supported by evidence and doesn't even make sense logically.
The only way we can fix the system is for the public to become more informed. We just have to be smarter and stop making knee-jerk reactions to the meaningless while ignoring the meaningful.
Making them money is a euphemism, not a literal statement. I have no clue if its increasing donations but its getting favorable attention from many people.
It's hard for people to become informed when they depend on media that is if not owned by a viewpoint, is very inclined to let that view be unquestioned. Many people today refuse to look at more than one source and far too many swallow what comes out of the DNC/RNC like it was cold water. Given the sad state of our secondary and increasingly our post secondary schools in areas such as civics, economics, and history there is no way things will get better unless individuals educate themselves. Our schools have failed us especially in those departments.
Some good bumper sticker slogans in the comments. Thanks for the ideas.
I am proud of the president who gave that speech.
David, Kathleen Parker is about as conservative as Michelle Obama. She is a Washington insider who toes the mark with the WaPo liberal establishment so that she stays on the cocktail party "A" lists.
That said, her column was a pathetic attempt to legitimize an unprecedented speech that essentially capitulated the 'War of Terror", and sought to portray the Arabs who finance the Muslim extremists, like the Saudi Royal family, as reasonable people who we can work with.
Parker is still carrying water for the Washington liberal establishment.
See my response under Charles Temm's comment above.
Liberal? Randy, I just don't get it. You've called me liberal in the past, and you seem to call everyone liberal who doesn't lean far enough out on the right wing of conservatism. Such a liberal definition of the term liberal (pun intended) isn't rational. As Chris W says below, Parker may be more moderate than the extreme right wing, but her history shows she most certainly isn't liberal.
"and sought to portray the Arabs who finance the Muslim extremists, like the Saudi Royal family, as reasonable people who we can work with."
This part really is baffling. Suddenly Obama is considered some sort of naive lackey who doesn't see the Saudi royal family for what they are, or worse, that he is conspiring with them for some reason. Lest we forget that the Bush family has been in bed with the Saudis for decades. Both Bush I and II have been buddy buddy with them, before, during, and after their terms in office. So it was okay for the Bush family to associate with the leaders of a sovereign nation, but Obama gives a speech and somehow he is violating US principles. That is just not rational.
Moreso, to suggest that Obama is naive to the ways of the world is, well, naive. As I noted in my response to Charles Temm above, you have to stop looking at the world from a single point of view. Transferrence of vision through your distorted lens is not reality. You must see through Obama's lens as he sees through the lenses of others. Frankly, one cannot lead if one has no clue who might be following.
David, nice try. Parker savaged Sarah Palin during the Presidential campaign, and has taken numerous positions in her columns that agree with Washington liberals.
Just because the WaPo wants to present her as a "conservative columnist" to show how "fair and balanced" they are (heh heh heh) doesn't make it so.
We call things what they are, here in the Virginia mountains. I'm sorry you can't handle that, because you are responsible for some thoughtful posts and rational commentary.
BTW, it is all right if you want to call me a conservative.
She describes herself as conservative, and she was considered conservative by conservatives right up until she wrote in her column that Palin was unqualified to be VP and should remove her name from the ticket. After that suddenly she was "always a liberal."
You may not agree, but many conservatives - and even more Republicans - felt that Palin was an embarrassing VP selection. I suppose all of them are also now liberals in your eyes as well.
I also call things what they are. Only I try to see all sides before drawing a conclusion. Which I suppose is why some accuse me of being a liberal and others think I'm some sort of reactionary conservative. Truth is, I'm both. And neither. I think we would get a lot more accomplished if more people were that way, but I do understand that many people prefer to be associated with one label or another. I'm not big on labels. They tend to give people an excuse not to think.
"BTW, it is all right if you want to call me a conservative."
I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, Randy. As I said, I'm not big on labels. I don't consider the terms conservative or liberal to be pejoratives, as you clearly do for liberals. That's unfortunate. If you take a rational look you will see that the populace doesn't split itself into two narrow pseudocategories artificially separated to benefit each of the parties - we exist along a continuum. You clearly are on the conservative side (perhaps even libertarian) of all the issues I've seen you comment on here on Gather (obviously I have no idea what your positions are on issues that I have not seen you comment on). I don't have a problem with you or anyone else being conservative, as long as you make a good faith effort to stick to the facts. I see nothing wrong at all with having conservative views or liberal views, and I've seen you offer some very good points. However, as I said above I believe that focusing too much on the labels makes people forget how to do critical analysis. I do think that the extreme wings of both of these artificial categories (conservative/liberal) tend largely towards irrationality. I'm partial to more dispassionate analysis that considers the rather obvious fact that all of us live in this country, and thus somehow we need to find a path forward that considers all of our viewpoints. Those on the extreme wings are only happy when they "win" and the other side "loses." We see that all the time on Gather. After a while those who seem to see the world from distorted lens (either left or right) tend not to be taken very seriously.
In short, none of us wins if we can't think critically. And we often don't.
Re Miz Parker, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."
Re Randy, It is OK to call me a conservative or a libertarian because I don't feel a need to apologize for my views.
No one ever suggested you should apologize for your informed views, Randy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as long as the opinion is based on factual information.
Parker is no liberal, and she is no Democrat either. She is probably much closer to Colin Powell than she is to Rush Limbaugh. That is partly for political reasons, because she thinks (rightly) that Limbaugh is dragging the Republican party back into the desert.
See my response to Randy above.
She also despises Coulter, and clearly is not a Palin fan. Again, why? Same reason, extremism risks marginalizing Republicans. She is doubtless nostalgic for the Reagan days, when Republicans were not perceived as foaming at the mouth and lacking in charm.
That may be a good characterization of Parker's view. A view, by the way, that is shared by most rational Republicans.
Based on my friends and family, much of the Republican party feels it got hijacked by the far right ideologues. That conservative principles were tossed out the window for the sake of gaining and solidifying personal, party, and political power. Of course, these same friends and family also felt the Democratic party got hijacked by the far left ideologues in the past. The current Democratic majorities in Congress would be wise to know their history, and how quickly we went from "Republican control forever" to "Democratic control forever." Hubris precedes a downfall.
This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!