A Leauki's Writings
Published on November 11, 2008 By Leauki In US Domestic

Evangelicals have no monopoly on the use of the word “Christian”.

That’s the first thing that should be clear.

However, George Bush didn’t really follow the “Christians” too much. Neo-conservative policies were not about banning abortion, making homosexuality illegal, or teaching religion in science class. Those are the key positions of the Evangelicals and George Bush didn’t pay much attention to any of them.

Sarah Palin is a different animal though. Having heard her way of making sure not to be seen as a Creationist, I cannot say that I trusted her not to try to introduce religion as a science (or to understand why science is not religion).

George Bush’s policies in the middle east certainly did not support the homophobes and Creationists of the region.

People are now looking for excuses for why the Republicans did so badly.

Here are mine:

1. The selection of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate was supposed to shut up Republican opposition to John McCain and unfortunately rallied his opponents among Democrats instead. (I have heard few people actually say that there was something deeply wrong with John McCain. Everyone seems to respect him, even in Europe.)

2. The media loved Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and John McCain had to suffer for it.

3. The media never did report about the situation in the middle east outside Israel and post-2003 Iraq. Nobody knew what kind of regime George Bush replaced, what Arab governments did and do to minorities (outside of Jews in “Palestine”), and what George Bush did in Sudan. According to the view one gets from the media Israel is a hotbed of violence in the middle east and the only place worse is Iraq since 2003. Both are simply not true and if people realised it, George Bush’s policies look quite different.

4. Obama outspent McCain. The “rich boys” simply outspent the poor dudes. Popular opinion is that Republicans represent “the rich” while Democrats represent “the poor” (and downtrodden). In reality Democrats have the support of many of the super-rich and powerful and Republicans represent the common people in the mid-west. Because of popular belief Obama outspending McCain was seen as a miracle rather than buying an election. And despite reports about Sarah Palin’s massive spending on costumes (Sarah Palin spend too much money on cloths, Michelle Obama always looked nice; that was how the media put it. Both are true.) she was actually of the three the one with the closest to a normal income.

McCain was simply too sane for many Republicans just like Hillary Clinton was too sane for many Democrats.

When the primaries started I didn’t think that extremists like the crazy uncle (the only man who can save America, Ron Paul) or the Messiah (Obama) could make it. But while the Republicans had their weirdo shield switched on, the Democrats did not.

And there we are.

Luckily Obama’s positions seem to be changing by the minute and he miraculously turned from a left-wing extremist with a hatred for certain races into a president who will most likely not withdraw from Iraq and who now has advisors like Colin Powell and Rahm Emanuel, which makes me feel a lot safer.

At this rate, in time, he will probably see why America invaded Iraq and will use the opportunity to sponsor a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO (which Hamas will hate) that Arabs might actually support.

He has two advantages that former presidents didn’t have: Someone removed the PLO’s last powerful supporter from power for him, and the terrorists celebrated him as their saviour and will find it difficult to explain now that he might protect Israel instead.

I wish him the best of luck in Afghanistan and Pakistan (why not attack Pakistan if they shelter terrorists, he has a point).

But what will he do about Iran and Syria?

It would be nice if Obama did something about the mad Saudis. George Bush, I understand, had excellent business connections with them. Obama might be more independent.

I don’t know if there is a “Zionist lobby” in Washington (outside the people who keep telling the President that middle-eastern Jews should have a right to remain alive, even if the Arabs screams “death to the Jews”), but there sure is a Saudi lobby.

Here’s hoping that Condi Rice will run in four years and change half-black and half-white Obama from the first black President into the last white President for eight years!

 


Comments
on Nov 11, 2008

...

on Nov 11, 2008

And I think I should add that Obama's presidency is neither a return of the "American way" (which was never known for being about a public healthcare system, however good or necessary it might be) nor is Obama a second JFK (unless he does start something like the Vietnam war, who knows).

 

on Nov 11, 2008

Anyone that was not as far left as Hillary clinton (bill was moderate, Hillary is not) would have been vilified by the left.  YOu are confusing the media with the middle.  They are not the same.  Palin did not hurt the ticket, but she did not save it either.  She did get some of the right to rally around McCain, but not enough.  Analysis of the voting paterns show that much of the right sat this one out (or like me, voted for a 3rd party candidate).

Emmanuel is a 2 edged sword.  I guess the left will never admit, but he is the same as Carville and Rove, just more on the left than Carville.  In that, I think the left just lost one of their major platforms - the abandonment (and by extension Israel) of Iraq.  We will see on that.  But I suspect this administration to be the most partisan since FDR.

Obama is no JFK.  There are no more JFKs nor will there be for the foreseeable future.  He was the true last of the WWII generation Democrat presidents that governed from the center.  Nixon and FOrd were both like that, but hardly Democrat.  Carter and Clinton were highly partisan as was Johnson - Clinton was just a smart politician (Carter was not).

I can tell  you one thing though.  Obama can only pleasantly surprise me as I do not expect him to be anything but a bad president (so if he actually does any good, that will be my surprise).  Basically, I am the best kind of constituent he can have.  He has to be the absolute worst person to ever hold the office for me to be disappointed.  Even Bush gave Liberals something more than that.

We are in for a rough 4 years.  Stagflation was never dead, just defeated.  We will see a return to that over the next 4 years.

on Nov 11, 2008

http://www.issues2000.org/IL/Rahm_Emanuel.htm

I have two thoughts about Rahm.

First, besides Iraq we don't agree on much.

Second, I think Obama may have pulled him out of legislative branch to make it easier to get anti-Iraq legislation through...and since they agree on most all social policies.

The COS isn't supposed to be a powerful position.  It is supposed to help get the President's agenda pushed through Congress.

The PRESIDENT's agenda, not his own....so this once hard core supporter of Iraq will now have to push Obama's anti-war agenda in congress.....

I can hear the conversation in my head now:

Obama.."Rahm you have to go talk to the legislature, make sure we have enough votes to withdraw from Iraq."

Rahm.."I don't agree with the withdrawal, I think its a critical mistake."

Obama.."Doesn't matter what you think, you are MY lobbyist, you took the job knowing where I stood, so be an obedient boy and DO AS I SAY."  (Choose which God you will serve buddy!) 

Obama wins twice.  He shows the liberal left and all his Jew hating friends that he has dealt with a "neocon" and ain't he tuff because of it.....and he uses Rahm's ideas (while taking credit) for social policies.  When he's done with Rahm, and made his point to the loony left and Jew hating friends, he can FIRE Rahm and then he's lost it all.  He can go back to Joe Ordinary Citizen.

Win-win for Obama.

What was Rahm thinking?

on Nov 11, 2008



Second, I think Obama may have pulled him out of legislative branch to make it easier to get anti-Iraq legislation through...and since they agree on most all social policies.

If Obama is clever enough to pull a trick like that, he is certainly also clever enough to see that the fall of Saddam Hussein and the resulting confusion in the Arab world is his best chance for making history as the President who brokered a(nother) peace deal between Israel and the Arab world.

I don't think Colin Powell would support a clever cynic. And Rahm Emanuel wouldn't fall for it either.

on Nov 11, 2008

Carter and Clinton were highly partisan as was Johnson - Clinton was just a smart politician (Carter was not).

Carter allowed Iran, an important US ally since World War II to fall.

And he accepted a Nobel Peace Price for Anwar Sadat's historic and heroic efforts.

Plus he made friends with the people who murdered Sadat (the Muslim Brotherhood's Hamas).

"Not a smart politician" doesn't quite cover Carter's idealistic incompetence and innocent craftiness.

 

 

on Nov 11, 2008

"Not a smart politician" doesn't quite cover Carter's idealistic incompetence and innocent craftiness.

I waws being Politically Correct.

on Nov 11, 2008

I don't think Colin Powell would support a clever cynic. And Rahm Emanuel wouldn't fall for it either.

I dunno....hope you're right..we'll see.