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).

[Bruno]

TBA,

Very good point. I'll judge Obama personally AND politically.

I've been told that Meeks is the 'real deal' by some conservatives who claim to know him. Yet his "education" policies hurt "his people" (the disadvantaged) so that he can help "his real people" (the corrupt education monopoly.

Re: Obama, I can take him at his word as to his religious experience, and how that informs his drive to help people.

I don't, however, have to subscribe to government programs that produce a permanent underclass, miseducate generations of children, and/or protect unsustainable government programs.

[Bruno]

Wolf and NW,

To argue that Saddam was "not a threat" is to expose yourselves as fundamentally unserious.

There is linkage between the 1993 WTC attack and Iraq.

There is clear evidence that Saddam DID have contacts with AQ (read the 9/11 Commission report- not the NYTimes spin)

Further, while we don't have the financial paper trail (and may never have it), the fact is that in early 1996, OBL/AQ was broke and kicked out of Sudan, and in late 1996 he was flush with cash and entrenched in Afghanistan. An intervening event....?

Saddam's/UN's oil for corruption program.

Proof? No.
__

Though the Administration did a fine job of playing with words, when pressed, they were very clear. Their view was that by the time a threat becomes "imminent", it is too late.

It's called pre-emption, and I support it. It's never a bad time to overthrow a tyrant.

But go ahead and repeat the "Bush Lied" mantra. If repeated often enough, the thoughtless will begin to believe it.

[Joshua]

Fran, I'll agree that Obama is smooth, youthful looking, still has a full head of hair, and inherited a light complextion from his white mother, making him very attractive to the main stream media.

But I have seen him up close and he is all looks and no depth. I've seen other Republican senators make him look foolish.

I also take him at his word on his religious experience. But I think this story is more about efforts to make him a "Democratic visionary" than any new substance; key political strategists have been advising the politicians for decades to shun any semblance of Madalyn Murray Ohare (sp?).

That Obama repeats what others say should come as no surprise.

[NW Burbs]

Which part of the 9/11 Commission report Bruno? The parts that partisans added? The parts that said details were ambiguous or unproven?

I can't control how you interpret the 9/11 Commission's Report, but I can point out your fallicies?

You're right, however, about repeating mantras often and having thoughtless people believe it -- perhaps that's why so many Americans beleived Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (and still do believe that) when in fact the 9/11 terrorists were trained by al Quaida and most were actually from Saudi Arabia (the country which is so closely tied to the Bush family, and of course Bush Sr. works for the bin Laden family itself).

And again, what weapons did Saddam have to throw at us?

- NSA Advisor Rice talked about mushroom clouds. Hussein had no nukes, no way of developing them and no way of purchasing them.

- Rumsfeld talked about submarines of all things. Hussein might've had a few dinghies on the Euphrates, but hardly anything that could cross the Gulf, let alone two oceans (all while underwater).

- Practically the entire administration talked about smoking guns -- Rumsfeld even told us the Pentagon knew exactly where WMDs were. Yet we get there and we find a few rusty ol' shells. Heck, the Pentagon loses more shells than that in a year.

Based on your conservative preemption strategy -- when do we invade North Korea (they're testing intercontinental missiles and probably have the capability to at least develop a dirty bomb)?

When do we invade Mexico? That'd stop all those illegal immigrants, which most conservatives consider a threat.

When do we invade China and India? They are stealing our jobs after all -- and that's a threat too.

Your position of preemption is weak and inconsistent. What nations do you preempt and under what circumstances?

Iraq was weak, powerless and weaponless. Did that make it a good preemptive candidate?

(snark alert!!!)
If so, then why aren't we invading the Pashtun Territories in Pakistan (no weapons there and Pakistan is relatively friendly) but this is likely where bin Laden escaped with his mules and dialysis machine.

And if weak and powerless is what it takes, why not get to the root of the terrorist problem and simply wipe the Palestinian Territories off the planet? Nuke 'em to oblivion and no one will want to live there, let alone be able to with things so 'hot'. Eliminate Palestine and you've eliminated scores of terrorists and terrorists-to-be -- and given Israel no more reason to attack its neighbors.
(end snarkiness!!!)

Your conservative foreign policy strategies are weak, ill-conceived and costing our nation the lives of its brave soldiers for little, if any, real security in exchange.

The idea that you can have a zero sum game against terrorism is idiocy -- every "terrorist" or "insurgent" you kill gives motivation to 2 or 3 or more terrorist-wannabes. Why conservatives haven't figured that out after 3 years is a mystery...

-----

Bruno, you also wrote this bizarrely blinded passage: "I don't, however, have to subscribe to government programs that produce a permanent underclass, miseducate generations of children, and/or protect unsustainable government programs."

Under progressive policies we could have ended poverty by now -- but Nixon started dismantling LBJ's good programs and Reagan took care of the rest of that dilemma (if there's no poverty, that must mean the middle class are that much closer to the upper crust, eh? Can't have that). You want a permanent underclass? Vote for the party which thinks Katrina was good because it might help clean up the rabble.... (Yes, a Republican Louisiana state legislator said that last year.)

And let's not talk about how great Bush's failed Just About Every Child Left Behind policy.

Progressive policies aren't about getting people addicted to help (that's just a conservative spin for you partisans to spit out and regurgitate). They are about using the means of society as a whole, through government, to offer people crutches or bridges (or whatever sort of analogy you like) until they are able to move up on their own.

You and I have the same vision for America -- but completely different routes for how to get our fellow countrymen to that vision.

It was progressive policies that helped end the Great Depression. It was progressive policies that began to end the stranglehold on prejudice in this nation. It was progressive policies which began to end poverty in the 60s. And it was progressive policies that, under Clinton, began to lift America back up again (only to have crushing debt and failed conservative plans end that rise after 2001).

You care to explain how millions more falling into poverty and out of healthcare coverage is a good thing? Because that's what your conservative leaders in Washington have accomplished.

[beowulf]

Based on what Fran had experienced with Obamma (telling her what he felt she wanted to hear), I can understand her concern about Obamma being disingenious.
Let me throw out the possibility, however, that perhaps Obamma had his mind elsewhere that particular day when he talked to Fran. Haven't we all, at one time or another, been preoccupied with something else and so we just gave the cursory "Yes, I agree" type of response without even knowing what was said? I know that we shouldn't do it, but once in awhile, we all do it unintentionally without any malice being intended. Our thoughts and minds are elsewhere. My wife (The Saint) experiences this phenomena with me frequently, I am sorry to say.
Barack may be phony all of the time. I don't know. I just throw this possibility out to play the role of the devil's advocate.

[NW burbs]

Beowulf,

Fran didn't write that Obama (that's the correct spelling, by the way -- only one "m") gave her a pat "Yes, I agree". She didn't even say she thought he was being disingenuous, you read between the lines to imply that.

Fran provides no evidence that Obama did *not* encourage Democrats to support that legislation. You can't prove a negative. But, like you and Fran, you can provide innuendo.

If conservatives had paid attention to the Democratic primary for US Senate in 2004, you would know one of the knocks among Dems regarding Obama was that he hadn't taken a firm stand one way or another on Roe v Wade. Kinda takes the winds out of your sails.

Like most mainstream Americans (not at one extreme or the other), Sen. Obama does not support abortion but he does recognize medical privacy and personal decisions are important rights in our country. Prevention (holistic, realistic and honest prevention) is the best policy because prevention will reduce the abortion rate at the same time it reduces the unwanted pregnancy rate.

If conservatives are honest about being pro-life (rather than anti-sex, which is what many conservatives really are) they would recognize prevention is the common ground we can all agree on -- whether an editor for a conservative blog or a US Senator with progressive values.

[Truthful James]

NW Burbs -- you've been promoted

You have said a lot of sensible things today, but progrssive policies did not end the Depression. World War II did. Look at the unemployment numbers throughout the 1930s. Pre war production of war materials as we rearmed, instituted the draft and sold war materials to the Allies.

And by the way, In their election campaigns, Herbert Hoover proposed deficit financing (turning him temporarily into a Keynesian) while FDR wanted a balanced budget. He changed his tune after election.

Here is your short dose of Econ 101. According to Keynes, deficit financing should be used when private sector investment was not available. However, in times of prosperity, the budget shoulkd be in surplus to pay down the accumulated debt.

What changed the nation permanently after WW II when past post war history would have predicted a depression, were two programs: the original GI bill and the Home Loan programs, including FHA and VA. With each we created interclass mobility and killed forever -- we thought the class society that burdened the rest of the world. From the nergies released as a result of these policies came the long prosperity. Truman has never received the credit he deserved.

However the 'progrssive policies of LBJ' were in macro economic terms a failure, and in social terms a disaster. The Republicans started desegregation and Civil rights. His welfare programs kept people in segregated society on urban plantations to maximize Democrat control of the cities.

[NW burbs]

And which side of the political divide wanted to avoid WWII? ...That'd be your FDR-haters, the conservatives (the non-interventionists of their day).

Nevermind the fact that putting Americans back to work through WPA programs and implementing a host of society-based national programs to cushion falls and offer insurance-like opportunities to those who could no longer work (the aged, the infirm) also had economic stimulating effects... Nah, those are progressive policies -- they must be bad, else why try to destroy Social Security, and even the very government itself (just ask Grover Norquist about drowning the government) so no WPA program could ever be reinstituted.

At least FDR did something about the Great Depression. Hoover just sat on his conservative behind.

Here's your short dose of Econ 201 -- in the form of a question. Why are conservatives currently running deficit financing now, especially considering we were well on our way to completely paying off our debts before our current conservative president took office (and considering their was plenty of private investment available... still is, albeit to a lesser degree)?

The only honest rational for why conservatives are running up huge debts to China and other creditors is that they enjoy doling out the pork to their constituents in the red states (that'd be the blue states' money their using too, on top of the debts). Thus the followers of Keynes have proved the great fallacy of his work -- conservative greed trumps economic theories.

If the Republicans started desegregation and civil rights (that's a big "if" considering no conservative on this site has ever provided the smallest shred of what they consider proof for that claim, but I'll play along)... If this is so, why'd all the Dixiecrats, who were upset with Democratic moves regarding desegration, end up becoming Republicans?

Further, if this is so, why is it that Republicans in states like Georgia and elsewhere are beginning attempts to roll back civil rights advances with regressive voting restrictions and other machinatinos of the segregated era?

Finally, if this is so, why is it that Republicans in the House (to Denny Hastert's surprise and chagrin) have blocked renewal of the Voting Rights Act mere months before a midterm election?

Your claims hold little water in light of reality. The nascent Republican Party of the 1800s may have freed the slaves, but in today's America such progressive thinkers have long since left the party for the Democrats.

Spin all you want, that doesn't make your spin real.

...PS: You forgot the post-war Marshall Plan. Get Europe using American products and shipping and you put Americans to work.

[KOSHER CHITLINS]

The question is: WILL THIS BOY OBAMA BE THE NEXT TOOL FOR THE ZION-CONS & THE JEWISH ELITE, IN THEIR WAR AGAINST AMERICA'S WHITE MAJORITY? I THINK OBAMA IS NOW BEING GROOMED BY HIS JEWISH HANDLERS FOR JUST THAT PURPOSE. WILL THE MAINSTREAM BOUGHT CHRISTIAN CHURCHES "BUY" THE MULLATO OBAMA? YES!!! WHO WILL IT BE IN 2008? HILLARY & OBAMA OR OBAMA & HILLARY? WAKE UP WHITE AMERICA....KOSHER CHITLINS

[julia]

KOSHER CHITLINS or should I call you mr. Hitler?

[steve]

Sorry. Can't see a rookie holding the most powerful position in the free world.

[Fred]

OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR USA !!

HE IS A MUSLIM !! HE WANTS TO REGULAR ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS §§§§

IF USA VOTE HIM / IT WILL BE CHAOS IN USA !!
DO YOU REALLY WANT USA WILL BECOME AFRICA ?

VOTE JOHN MC CAIN !!!!

[Kathy]

Obama would have made a good actor or preacher. He is very charismatic, like Swaggart,and has a huge following already. Could he be the antichrist? He is to me the most dangerous man alive.

[Shane]

It's a shame that so many of you support a senator that is so inexperienced. He is a very evil man. No one goes to a church for 20 years that preaches hate if they don't agree with it.

obamas dangerous because he has socialist ideas and communists theroies that will kill freedom and make govt. an entity unto all

50 cent , the "rapper" was qouted as saying that if obama makes president , then someone is surely going to kill him! I dont know about all that but history shows the length some racists will go to to if they feel strongly enough.

[Vegas]

"Drama" Obama is not qualified nor has any experience to lead Our Great Country.
earlier, Drama Obama couldn't even count the number of States we have and stated on TV that he had been to 57 States and still needed to go to 3 more. Even a 10th Grader knows there are 50 States! I don't care if you are drunk, on drugs, or stayed up all night, you still know there are 50 states.
Drama Obama also Donated over $800,000.00 to A.C.O.R.N. (Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and even trained some people.They were recently Closed down in many states for Voter Fraud Applications.
Drama Obama has NEVER held ANY LEADERSHIP POSITION. Not a Mayor. Not A Governor. NOTHING.
There is much more that Drama Obama has done that shows he has absolutely NO EXPERIENCE which is VERY IMPORTANT WHEN HIRING THE HIGHEST POSITION IN OUR COUNTRY.
Some of the American people are being deceived by his Rhetoric and smooth talking voice. Don't be fooled.Go To THIS WEBSITE AND WATCH THE BRIEF CLIP BY A BLACK MINISTER AND NO IT IS NOT REV. WRIGHT. Just Cut and Paste and witness what many Blacks believe:
http://www.pyrabang.com/contenteditor.php?pd=4057&ps=4121&org=3955&target=http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr10-17-08.html

[Mamby Pamby]

Your argument is not very convincing. He's dangerous because he is smart -- holy cow! You'd rather have a dumb president (like Bush) who can be manipulated by a bunch of fascists (like Cheney, Rumsfelt and their gang). You're the biggest moron ever!

[yht]

what do you think of that very dangerous illuminati puppet nowday's, yol?????????????

[DC]

I know he is really very dangerous man in the world which not matter if he is black or white. I am talking about he just did made almost everyone lost job in America! He is hiden of his uncanny ability which he still has. It's total not fair that Obama wants to cut SSI on American Citizens on Jan 1st, 2010! He wants to have for illegal aliens to have SSI and full health insurance when they allow to move to USA and make it flee in to USA. It means that he is not protecting all of us in America. Therefore, He is actually dangerous man and antichrist person too!
End of discussion because I told President Bush in 2005!