Letters to the Editor
MICKI
Published Letters: 571 Editor's Choice: 24
-
It's not just what he said to the Reno Gazette-Journal; it's his book, too -- BIGGEST PHONY IN THE RACE????
[Read the article: Bob Johnson's after-the-fact apology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, he sprinkles his prose with very, very Republican-sounding “code:”
One theme in his book is a “different kind of politics” but at the same time, he deftly attacks New Deal liberalism, and tries hard (to me) to camouflage his conservative support for the shift to the right in Europe and other countries.
While telling sweet stories about his mother, he writes: “her incorrigible, sweet-natured romanticism...her heart a time capsule filled with images of the space program, the Peace Corps and Freedom Rides, Mahalia Jackson and Joan Baez.”
Then! Bingo. He gives a tribute to Reagan: “All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980...I understood his appeal.... Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.”
Obama seems to be saying that social forces and policies have nothing to do with ills such as poverty, homelessness and social inequality. Get off your ass, you welfare Queen! Worship that market and you can get rich just like the rest of us!
Obama uses code words of the extreme right in his book, saying that Reagan’s message “spoke to the failure of liberal government,” government at every level had become “too cavalier about spending taxpayer money.... A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.... Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster,” etc.
Obama says he does not like “either/or” thinking -- but then says he rejects: “the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace ‘socialized medicine’.”
He also wrote that while (corporate) boardrooms should have a “stronger sense of empathy” he added...that this “does not mean that those who are struggling...are thereby freed from trying to understand the perspectives of those who are better off.”
Continuing with his understanding theme, Obama wrote: “Union representatives can’t afford not to understand the competitive pressures their employers may be under. So, that’s empathy for the worker in his view?!!
I won’t even mention the chapter on RELIGION in his book! But, it’s quite a genuflection to the paean that there isn’t enough religion in American life. Oy.
-
About Obama's interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal...
[Read the article: Obama in the Women's Building!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, I realize that many think Obama's "lauding" Ronald Reagan in that interview is not a big deal. But, coupled with many remarks in his book, The Audacity of Hope, in which he seems to disparage traditional liberalism to the Democrats' detriment, I would like more focus on his prior writings and how they don't seem to jibe with what he's peddling in his campaign.
While telling sweet stories about his mother, he writes: “her incorrigible, sweet-natured romanticism...her heart a time capsule filled with images of the space program, the Peace Corps and Freedom Rides, Mahalia Jackson and Joan Baez.”
Then! Bingo. On the very next page, Obama pays tribute to Reagan: “All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980...I understood his appeal.... Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional virtues of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.”
Obama writes he does not like “either/or” thinking -- but then says he rejects: “the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace ‘socialized medicine’.”
He also wrote that while (corporate) boardrooms should have a “stronger sense of empathy” he added...that this “does not mean that those who are struggling...are thereby freed from trying to understand the perspectives of those who are better off.”
Continuing with his understanding theme, Obama wrote: “Union representatives can’t afford not to understand the competitive pressures their employers may be under."
There are other examples...somehow I'm beginning too think he's the biggest phony in the race. And it really bothers me.
-
@ Green Job
[Read the article: Bob Johnson's after-the-fact apology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How is Obama going to debate a GOP nominee after praising Reagan? The last GOP debate I saw was a Reagan love fest.
Spot on.
-
@dbb2114
[Read the article: Dolores Huerta: "Como se llama" Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]dbb, before you tell sesanders that Obama's Reagan remarks are taken out of context, I'd suggest you take a look at "The Audacity of Hope" to see what Obama had to say about Reagan.
Clearly, he praises The Gipper.
I wonder how convincingly Obama (if he nabs the Dem nomination) will be able to debate the Repub nominee if the GOPer invokes Reagan's name and "thanks" Obama for his glowing assessment of the Reagan years.
Obama is also the guy who bragged that Joe Lieberman is his mentor.
-
If this poll is indicative, then Hillary is much more electable than Obama is...
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NVDEM
Get used to Hillary-bashers. She's headed to the White House.
-
@LaurieNY
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spot on.
I know Obama supporters, too, who say -- "no way! If Hillary gets the nomination, I'll stay home or vote for the Republican nominee." Now, that's divisive. Or stooopid.
Many Obama supporters say, "I like Obama, but I like Ron Paul, too. They both tell it like it is." Or, "I like Obama, but John McCain is a straight-shooter, too. I'll vote for McCain if he gets the GOP nomination and Obama doesn't get the Dem nomination."
I won't disparage the young who apparently have been seduced by Obama's rhetoric -- but, apparently, they think that Obama, McCain, and Ron Paul are all in basically the same category.
Maybe they know something the rest of us are overlooking?
-
Missing? Oh, so they'd rather have a Ron Paul who is against the Iraq War...
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..but also against just about every program or policy that pertains to the common good of a just society.
-
@eric1976ce
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With all due respect, eric1976, Hillary did not vote for Goldwater in 1964 -- she was born in 1947 and only 17-YO that election year. At that time, a voter had to be 21-YO in the U.S.
Amendment XXVI (the Twenty-Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971, standardized the voting age to 18.
-
@eric1976ce
[Read the article: Paris goes big for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, you are right, that as a 17-YO she "supported" Goldwater -- her dad was a conservative, her mother wasn't.
When she was first at Wellesley College she was even president of the Young Republicans on her campus, but resigned her post when she changed her political ideals and backed the Democratic anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy, in 1968.