Obama is a dangerous man

by Fran Eaton

Barack Obama is a dangerous man. 

He's dangerous because he's smart, cunning and daring.  He demonstrated it once again today when he urged fellow Democrats in a Washington DC conference to tap into the energy and passion that drive churchgoers. 

Associated Press reports:

Obama said millions of Christians, Muslims and Jews have traveled similar religious paths, and that is why 'we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. ... In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway.'

Then Illinois' junior U.S. Senator spontaneously shared his own soul-awakening experience a few years ago:

"Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me," he said of his walk down the aisle of the Trinity United Church of Christ. "I submitted myself to his will and dedicated myself to discovering his truth."

There is no doubt that Barack Obama has been searching for years.  He was an independent young man when he challenged Bobby Rush in a Democratic primary.  He appeared thoughtful when asking questions in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee.  He touches the hearts and souls of a troubled community when he calmly and soothingly responds. 

Therein lies the danger.  You expect him to be as obnoxious as Dick Durbin or as abrasive as Hillary Clinton,  but he's neither, despite the fact he is right on track with their radical leftist agenda.  Obama's strength is the manner in which he presents himself.

Shortly after he won his U.S. Senate seat in 2004, Obama returned to his Springfield stomping grounds to do a victory lap and thank all those who supported him.  He was walking alone along the rail, and I reached my hand out to congratulate him on winning the race against his Republican opponent Alan Keyes.   

Previously, he and I had had a few discussions about the Born Alive Infant Protection Act he so adamantly opposed in the Illlinois Senate.  It had been a hot topic during the 2004 U.S. Senate debates.  But with some agreements and some amendments (which I am sorry to say weakened the legislation) it appeared that the Illinois General Assembly would soon be passing the bill into law, with Governor Blagojevich's signature.  An agreement had been reached because Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion lobby were assured protecting newly-born babies would not infringe upon abortion in any way.

"Senator, this year Illinois is going to pass a law protecting babies born alive," I told him.  I waited for a reaction.  In a split second, he continued to shake my hand and said, "I know, and I want you to know I've encouraged the Democrats to support that legislation. . ."

Obama's good.  He's very, very good.  He will do what it takes to win.  It's what makes him so dangerous.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before Obama, like Blagojevich, will have some Illinois conservatives helping him, too.  After all, he at least recognizes the need to reach out to churchgoers, right? 

Comments

[Wolf]

I've already received my Obama '08 bumper stickers...can't wait for him to make the run!!!!

[Bruno]

Wolf,

We can't wait either. Nothing ruins a sensation than being brought to the big leagues too soon.

If IL Dems are smart, they'll help elect Topinka to ruin Republicans further, and bring Obama in to "save" a state destroyed by two corrupt parties.

If Saint Obama has enough "Sista Souljah" moments here in IL, he can coast to the presidency in 2012 or 16.

If Republicans are lucky, Dems will annoint Obama in 2008, where Republicans will make short work of him.

[NW burbs]

Bruno (and Fran),

Methinks you two doth protest too much.

"Radical Leftist Agenda" -- what is Pres. Bush's and the GOP Congressional Leadership's agenda if not (by the same line of over the top thinking) a Radical Conservative Agenda?

To each their own I guess, but the spin coming from the cons about Obama only makes him stronger in a lot of people's eyes -- and I'm not talking Demos here, I'm talking moderates who just don't agree with all your 'sky is falling/Obama is dangerous' baloney.

Did not Pres. Bush have a similar 'born again' moment in his life? We all follow our own paths of course, some believing it is a path set before us by God, others perhaps not believing this.

Why is this dangerous?

[Wolf]

Speaking of not ready for the big leagues, what about the idiot we have in the White House right now?

Obama is too big for Illinois, we need him to save America.

[NW burbs]

Not that I'm a conservative (not in the least) but the president is hardly an idiot, Wolf. That sort of vitriol is something you'd expect from folks on this site while they're writing about patriotic progressives like Senator Durbin.

President Bush is merely implementing the conservative philosophy. It is conservatism which is failing America because W is far from incompetent (you don't get elected leader of the free world through idiocy -- no matter how bad your policies turn out to be).

Rail against the conservatives' failed policies, Wolf, not the people who implement them through any means possible (unless those people turn out to be committing illegal acts -- then they're criminals, not necessarily idiots).

Your only point on which I agree: America does need a savior from the mess conservatives are making.

[Bruno]

Wolf,

That "idiot" has two big tax cuts, two Sup Ct justices (probably 3), has won 3 straight elections he wasn't supposed to win (Nov. will make it 4), and is quietly changing the course of Federal Bureaucracy by "individualizing" the welfare state.

I don't agree with all his policies, but at least I'm smart enough not to call him an "idiot."

If you want to continue judging politicians by snap polls and suck-up media columns, you go right ahead. If Obama is as smart as people say he is, he'll stay to the center, and he'll ignore his fawning press clippings.

2 collapsing millionaires and beating Alan Keyes doth not a tested politician make. If he wins the nomination, there will chunks of Obama in McCain's stool (and I'm not even a big McCain fan).

NW,

Nice of you to lump me in with Fran, but I have quite a different view.

A) I'm still holding out for Obama to be like a Lieberman or a Ford (Tennesee).

B) If he adheres to his "Progressive" goals/rhetoric, he's not going to get too far in red (and getting redder) America.

___

BTW, Illinois is in a much bigger mess than America, and its 100 dyed in the wool Democrat. All a conservative has to do is say "look at Illinois" and campaign on doing the opposite.

[Bruno]

In fairness, 25 years of pension-porking, patronage-pig Republicans helped get IL where it is today.

Further, that sick ideology seems to be taking root among a good chunk of Rs in DC, so all hope is not lost for the Dems.

[Wolf]

You're right NW Burbs...it is the policies of the rabid-right that trouble me more than the man in the White House.

Bruno, at least I'm smart enough not to have voted for him.

[Bruno]

Wolf,

Let's be a little honest and admit that it isn't stupidity or venality that drives our votes, but our perceived self-interest.

You convince me that voting for the left is in my self-interest, and I'll change my mind. Further, I'll try to convince you that individualizing Retirement, Medical, and Education decisions is a superior model to current unsustainable collectivization schemes. I'd argue that changing is in your self-interest.

If we each keep an open mind, we might learn something.

For now, there are more of us than there are of you, and we aren't aborting ourselves out of existence.

(how smart is that?)

Rabidly yours,

Bruno

[NW burbs]

Unsustainable community- and society-based "schemes" Bruno?

Yeah, that's why people in America are at best going bankrupt due to lack of insurance coverage (and dying at worst).

You've got a long way to go before you can honestly convince someone in the mainstream like me that individual, you're-on-you're-own (YOYO) schemes for retirement, healthcare, education and other issues will ever work better than community-based approaches.

"Honestly" being the operative word above. There are a lot of mischevious ways of doing it -- as the filthy rich in America have been doing regarding repeal of the Estate Tax. (Why the idle rich are for welfare for their children but not for the rest of hard-working Americans is beyond me... Maybe it's pure greed, dunno.) Want proof the filthy rich are indeed playing dirty regarding the Estate Tax? Christian Science Monitor is on the case:
1. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0501/p16s01-cogn.html
2. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0612/p17s01-cogn.html

And Bruno the Conservative, there are more "voters" like you, not necessarily more citizens -- just look at any poll and you'll see Bush and the conservative ideology have hit their bottom. The left's working on that voter:citizen algorithm as I type (as I know the right is also).

[Wolf]

Bruno...thanks for the laugh, and for (as the right always feels the need to do) bring abortion into the debate.

There are more of us than you? God that's depressing...and God help our nation.

Can you explain to me why we are in Iraq and not in NK or Iran? I'd like to hear the logic and I'm asking seriously...I know that's hard for people here to realize. Give the answer some thought smart guy and let me know.

[George Dienhart]

Wow, I must have walked through the door on the left to get in here...

I know a lot of conservatives who disliked President Clinton. They may have called him names befitting his actions. I can't remember anyone calling him an idiot, though. That's the difference, I guess. Conservatives back up their arguments with facts, while liberals constantly fall back on personal insults.

Same thing holds true on the usage of the word scheme. That implies that conservatives are out to get retirees. I don't know a single conservative that wants to intentionly screw up the country. The left, however seems to be more than willing to scheme their way back into power, at the expense of out nation.

I'd like to point out that filthy rich seems to mean anyone making more than $50,000 a year to you liberals. I am not filthy rich, but every time a liberal Dem wants to raise taxes I am right in their cross hairs...

[NW burbs]

George, what post are you responding it, because it sort of sounds like you're responding (in part) to one of my posts ... but you brought in all this irrelevant info it's hard to tell. Maybe you were trying to distract readers from your weak position on these issues.

--

You wrote: "Conservatives back up their arguments with facts, while liberals constantly fall back on personal insults."

Wolf can speak for himself (you obviously missed his post wherein he backed off the "idiot" comment).

As for conservatives using personal insults, read almost any post on Sen. Durbin on this site and you'll read a slew of acidic insults having little to do with reality but rather with your fellow conservatives' need to put people down if they dislike and disagree with them.

Heck, I am routinely referred to as "NW Burps" on this site. Sticks n stones, eh?

--

You wrote "Same thing holds true on the usage of the word scheme."

Bruno first used the word scheme (he wrote, "unsustainable collectivization schemes"), not I.

Try again.

--

George tried to end with what he thought was a zinger, but which actually falls flat on its face: "I'd like to point out that filthy rich seems to mean anyone making more than $50,000 a year to you liberals."

As Mark Rhoads might say ... George, you're too cute by half.

I was discussing the uber-wealthy's attempts to lobby and distort the facts on the Estate Tax (which is a proven fact: 18 families, just 18, have ganged up together to spend a few million -- pocket change to them -- in order to save another $71 billion for their kids; elitist welfare if every there was. If only charity, rather than greed, drove those 18 families and their ilk our nation and the world would be a better place).

At $50,000, you are not subject to the Estate Tax. Period. And even if your savings was potentially subject to it, there are many loopholes which allow you to distribute savings as you see fit.

Try your diversionary tactics somewhere else.

[Bruno]

NW,

I've attempted to point out this obvious bit to the left many times. Let me try again.

A good chunk of Bush's low poll numbers are due to his loss of support on the far right (based upon issues like immigration, Iraq, & Port deals.

The idea that his low numbers translate to support for the Democrat version of big government is laughable. This is one reason there won't be any Democrat gains in November.

As for all the issues you raised, I've offered to debate you anywhere & anytime in front of any audience.

Right now, I lack the time.

[HMMMM]

Or, instead of it being something that makes him dangerous, maybe it's actually what makes him good. Oh, but I guess you can't be saved and be a Democrat.

[NW burbs]

BB wrote, "A good chunk of Bush's low poll numbers are due to his loss of support on the far right"

You keep thinking that Bruno... but let me point out that there are not enough Americans on the far right to account for 2/3rds of America disapproving of Pres. Bush. Rather, it's pretty clear to any who is not blinded by partisanship or political dogma that Pres. Bush (and the conservatives in Congress) are at such lows because of those very same conservative policies you generally promote.

America has tasted the cons' medicine, and not only is it bitter but it's not helping to improve anything (ie, the conservative policies behind NCLB, Iraq Occupation, Medicare, DHS/FEMA, etc are all failing in mainstream America's view).

(And what are we doing here if not debating these issues?)

[Wolf]

Bruno....read this....your party is doing a great job huh?

Iraq War Ends Silently for One American Soldier

By DEXTER FILKINS
RAMADI, Iraq, June 28 — A soldier was dead, and it was time for him to go home.

The doors to the little morgue swung open, and six soldiers stepped outside carrying a long black bag zippered at the top.

About 60 soldiers were waiting to say goodbye. They had gathered in the sand outside this morgue at Camp Ramadi, an Army base in Anbar Province, now the most lethal of Iraqi places.

Inside the bag was Sgt. Terry Michael Lisk, 26, of Zion, Ill., killed a few hours before.

In the darkness, the bag was barely visible. A line of blue chemical lights marked the way to the landing strip not far away.

Everyone saluted, even the wounded man on a stretcher. No one said a word.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/world/middleeast/29soldier.html?hp&ex=1151640000&en=5bc40bdce40c4e8b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Wolf]

George,

You're right, no one called Clinton an idiot...instead he was called a rapist, coke head and murderer...so save your "shock" at the comment.

[Bruno]

Wolf,

The day the sad story of one or two soldiers causes the end of a war is the day the West will finally have lost its will to survive. We will have become frightened little rabits - just like the Europeans the left admires so much.

We've liberated 50 million Muslims from tyranny for a paltry few billion and 2500+ of our bravest volunteers.

The Oprahfied would love for all of us to focus on every tragedy. They use the same sob-stories to promote unworkable single payer health care and other claptrap.
___

Frankly, my party ISN'T doing a good job, and if you peruse this blog you'll see that I'm quite blunt in saying so.

That said, Iraq is a supportable policy, as are Personalized Retirement Accounts, Health Savings Accounts, and Scholarships that fund children, not a bloated and corrupt education bureaucracy.

I prefer to debate issues and discuss the best ways to solve problems. If both sides would refrain from name calling and smarmy sentimentalism, we might be able to work together to do so.

___

NW,

There is reasonable evidence to believe that Clinton may have raped that woman in AK. Further, there is enough evidence that he's a serial abuser of women at the very least.

If I could look past that, I could praise him on his caving and signing Republican Welfare Reform (the most successful piece of social legislation last century), his free trade deals, and his ability to listen to Rubin and not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - as every other Democrat leader since Clinton would have done.
__

Re: Bush's numbers...

It isn't about "far right", right, or specific labels. The fact is that his loss of support is NOT a simple linear function of a specific point on a 0-100 ruler.

The idea that the voters are ready to embrace the Democrat agenda of "Surrender, Social Decay, Higher Taxation, and Opposition for the sake of Opposition," I believe you are mistaken.

We'll see in November.

[Sweet & Sour]

Is Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times on Obama's payroll? My goodness, she sure feels the need to write about every little move he makes.

[Wolf]

Bruno,

We didn't go into Iraq to spread Democracy to the muslim world, we went to protect America from WMD. You could at least keep the lies in order as to why we are there.

I'm glad you are so comfortable sending people to die for a war based on lies...which there is plenty of evidence of...I'll take lies about sex over lies that cause death any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

[Bruno]

Wolf,

In case you hadn't noticed, the entire structure of US policy is based upon what you call "lies."

Social Security, the War on Poverty, Global Warming, progressive taxation, are all based upon ones wish to suspend disbelief and vote their "perceived" interest.

re: Iraq, your memory of the run up to the war is at least as selective as the Administration's use of arguments.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, If Gore or Kerry were in power, Saddam would still be in power, he would have used the world's craven Diplomatic Apparatus to reconstitute his weapons programs, and he would still be enslaving his people.

The world is a better place (and on its way to being better still) with him out of power. But this can't be admitted by a group of people who hate Bush more than Saddam, radical Islam, or Al Qaida.

[Wolf]

Ah, then that makes it okay, thanks for clearing that up Bruno.

He could have reconstituted his weapons? You have proof on that? Or is that off the RNC talking points?

Saddam wasn't a threat, please just accept that woud you, it's the truth, you know it, I know it...the world knows it.

But I know you have to tow the party line, so I didn't expect for you to see the truth.

[NW burbs]

Bruno, (Joke Alert!) I'm not sure if you think all progressives look alike or not (...end joke) but I think you were writing to me about Clinton when in fact it was Wolf who brought up the info to which you replied.

PS: Saddam and radical Islam/al Qaida are two separate things -- but that gets back to that "they all look alike" thing, doesn't it? No use trying to extend that faulty meme that they're all one in the same.

Did Saddam want to destroy the US? Sure, probably in his twisted little novel-writing, palace-building fantasyworld. Did he have the means to do so? No... Not in the least.

What was he going to do, throw sand at us from halfway around the world?

Besides, the next time Don Rumsfeld changed his mind back to liking Saddam I'm sure Hussein would've welcomed him with open arms and cashed his checks again. Saddam is kind of bipolar like that -- in case you haven't noticed from the court hearings.

(Joke Alert!) Osama bin Forgotten -- now there's the guy we should have never dropped the ball on. Him and his dialysis machine must be invisible like Wonder Woman's jet though... (...end joke)

[True Blue American]

Let me get this straight... a man tells you he's Christian and bears witness to the calling God has granted him...

And you call him dangerous?

That borders on blasphemy if you ask me (a person daring to divine and even imply criticism of God's will for another person).