Just one more reason why its scary to think of Obama, the man with few political accomplishments, in the White House. The man is a naive Socialist:
In a new interview with National Journal magazine, an intelligence adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign broke with his candidate’s position opposing retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies being sued for cooperating with a dubious U.S. government domestic surveillance program.
“I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity,” former CIA official John Brennan told National Journal reporter Shane Harris in the interview. “They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context.”
“I know people are concerned about that, but I do believe that’s the right thing to do,” added Brennan, who is an intelligence and foreign policy adviser to Obama.
That wasn’t just a personal opinion, Brennan made clear to Harris. “My advice, to whoever is coming in [to the White House], is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what’s out there, identifying those key issues,” including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, he said — the law at the heart of the immunity debate.
“They need to make sure they do their homework, and it’s not just going to be knee-jerk responses,” Brennan said of the presidential hopefuls.
The Obama campaign answered Brennan by stating they are still against immunity.
I mean why wouldn’t he be? It would piss the trial lawyers off big time if he did the smart thing for this country. So instead he hands a great big present to the enemy. Those who hate this country and want to see it dismantled must be salivating at the thought that a man who writes a book blaming America for so much of the worlds ills is that close to the White House. Even better they watch his wife tell crowds how bad this country is and listen to his mentor telling them that America got it’s wake-up call on 9/11 because we’re all racists.
Sister Toldjah writes about the many myths of the man:
On not taking money from DC lobbyists and special interest PACS: This is the type of double-talk “politics of the past” rhetoric he rails against. While his claim is technically true, what he does do is take money from state lobbyists and other big money contributors who have substantial lobbyist machines in DC, like law firms and corporations. In April 2007, the LA Times quoted the Campaign Finance Institute’s Stephen Weissman as pointing out that the distinction Obama makes on lobbyist money is meaningless: “He gets an asterisk that says he is trying to be different. … But overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.” The Capital Eye reported that “[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.” Obama’s no stranger to being influenced by those campaign donations, either.
His ability to “get things done”: Sure he has it, if you consider that every bill he passed as a State Senator was passed his last year in office by a Democrat-controlled legislature. Also, some of the more high profile accomplishments he cites now like the racial profiling/videotape confession legislation were bills where a lot of the legwork had been done by other Democrats in the legislature years prior when it was controlled by Republicans, but were given to Obama by his kingmaker, Senate president Emil Jones, Jr. in order for him to make the “close” (where he often did). When asked about this by the Houston Press’ Todd Spivak, State Senator Rickey Hendon replied, “I don’t consider it bill jacking. … But no one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit and the stats in the record book.” This isn’t to suggest that Obama’s achievements in the state senate are totally without merit, but instead to point out they weren’t all done by his leaping tall buildings in a single bound. He had a lot of help from Democrats. Consider this, too: if he wins, he will have a solid Democrat Congress to work with, so the only “reaching out” he’d have to do would be to the few moderate Republicans who have already proven themselves all too eager to vote with liberal Democrats.
She writes that his campaign ads about the “courage” he displayed by giving a anti-war speech during 2002 is pure hogwash. How much courage does it take to give a anti-war speech at a anti-war rally when he wasn’t in any leadership position whatsoever? She also notes that even though Obama has brought up Afghanistan many times as the “real” war on terror he has yet to hold a policy hearing on the fight going on there while chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs.
His resume is weak, he speaks in generalities about how he would lead this country, and he is a Socialist that believes the nanny state should take care of you from cradle to grave. How in the world has he gotten this far? Is it because a free pass was given due to the color of his skin. People falling all over themselves to prove they are not a racist? Mark Steyn wrote a bit about the victimhood movement that has propelled HillBama so far:
The New York Times took a different line. The monster is you – yes, you, the American people. Surveying the Hillary-Barack death match, Maureen Dowd wrote: “People will have to choose which of America’s sins are greater, and which stain will have to be removed first. Is misogyny worse than racism, or is racism worse than misogyny?”
Do even Democrats really talk like this? Apparently so. As Ali Gallagher, a white female (sorry, this identity-politics labeling is contagious) from Texas, told the Washington Post: “A friend of mine, a black man, said to me, ‘My ancestors came to this country in chains; I’m voting for Barack.’ I told him, ‘Well, my sisters came here in chains and on their periods; I’m voting for Hillary.'”
When everybody’s a victim, nobody’s a victim. Poor Ms. Gallagher can’t appreciate the distinction between purely metaphorical chains and real ones, or even how offensive it might be to assume blithely that there’s no difference whatsoever.
Is the Democratic presidential process a Karl Rove plot? Right now, neither Mizz Hill’ry nor Hokey can win without the votes of the superdelegates, whose disposition is apparently in flux. The gay superdelegates are apparently sticking to Hillary like the “Hello, Dolly!” waiters to Carol Channing. But others are said to be moving Barackwards.
Are they jumping to a stalled bandwagon? One Historical Guilt gives upscale white liberals a chance to demonstrate their progressive bona fides in unison. Two Historical Guilts shrivels from transformative feel-good fluffiness into sour tribalism. Like Hillary’s “I Am Woman” routine, Obama’s cult of narcissism – “We are the change we have been waiting for” – would have been a shoo-in against Biden, Dodd and Edwards. But the gaseous platitudes wafting up to Cloud Nine are suddenly very earthbound. “Yes, we can!” is an effective pitch if you’re the new messiah, not so much when you’re pulling in a very humdrum fortysomething percent against a divisive and strikingly inept campaigner.
Whatever the cause the fact remains that both Hillary and Obama are the lifelong products of affirmative action and believe strongly in the entitlement society they are steeped in. Just look at their parties own nomination process. When it comes down to it, the royalty of the party get to choose who will run.
Democracy indeed……to the Democrats.