Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
metta

Republican pundits

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Other Country: Germany
Timeline

As a democrat, there are two or three Republican/conservative media pundits that I pay serious attention to. They are David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer.

Why?

Because they articulate their views in a very intellectual and balanced fashion. Especially, David Brooks. He is a very congenial and soft-spoken. But, beyond that, both can present an issue from a very crystallized and cogent perspective.

For that very reason, Brooks and Krauthammer are the conservative wordsmiths and intellectual power houses among the media pundits.

That said , Krauthammer's defining of Obama in his article that Dev posted a few minutes before the election moratorium is one that really should be studied by all.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=124205

(Obama's Revealing 'Distractions', The magic wears off)

April 25, 2008

By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the "distractions" foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. "It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the ####### for tat that consumes our politics" and "trivializes the profound issues" that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.

Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those "Saturday Night Live" parodies were so devastatingly effective.)

Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama's own anthropological observation that "bitter" working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.

In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?

What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.

Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers' home. Obama's own campaign says that they maintain "friendly" relations.

Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, "I feel we didn't do enough."

Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man he is.

Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question regarding the flag pin. Now, I have never worn one. Whether anyone does is a matter of total indifference to me. But apparently not to Obama. He's taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins. After 9/11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing it. Then last year he explained why: Because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

Apart from the self-congratulatory fatuousness of that statement -- as if in this freest of all countries, political self-expression is somehow scarce or dangerous or a sign of patriotic courage -- to speak of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.

But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads -- spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state -- and lost by 10 points.

And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other "issues." It was because of those "distractions" -- i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Problem with this assessment is that it emphasizes the tired old nonsense that is the worst kind of political smear based on a few short sound bites that have been so torn out of context that they didn't even get close to getting across the point they were to get across in their proper context. I watched the Wright interview on PBS last night. It's been quite interesting. Not for a political hack like Krauthammer but for people who really want to know. Balanced my patoot. ;)

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Germany
Timeline
Problem with this assessment is that it emphasizes the tired old nonsense that is the worst kind of political smear based on a few short sound bites that have been so torn out of context that they didn't even get close to getting across the point they were to get across in their proper context. I watched the Wright interview on PBS last night. It's been quite interesting. Not for a political hack like Krauthammer but for people who really want to know. Balanced my patoot. ;)

Political smear? No, sirree!

Even diehard Obamaphiles are admitting that their guy is hurting bad from unenforced errors. Just look at the realclearpolitics.com headlines today:

Obama Needs to Stand Tall in This Chaos - Bob Herbert, New York Times

Popular Vote Claim Gives Clinton Edge - Michael Barone, US News & WR

Why Clinton and Obama Are Electable - John Dickerson, Slate

Will the Real Obama Please Stand Up? - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard

McCain Tightropes On Bush's Legacy - Ronald Brownstein, National Journal

McCain's Money Mess - Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times

Obama Got an Unfair Shake in PA - Colbert King, Washington Post

Calling Attention to Wright is Not Racist - Peter Wehner, National Review

Embracing Obama's Inner Partisan - John Heilemann, NY Magazine

Pres Election Crucial for Hoyer, Dem Congress - Kimberly Strassel, WSJ

Static Obama Needs a Bolt of Energy - Michael Tomasky, The Guardian

Undoing America's Ethanol Mistake - Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, IBD

In Defense of Earmarks - Malloy, Duffy, & Mallory, Washington Post

Biggest Airline Merger Ever May Be Huge Failure - Evan Sparks, American

America's Mortality Inequality - Christopher Caldwell, Financial Times

The South Won and Ruined America - Michael Hirsh, Newsweek

Defining Success in Iraq - Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard

Especially the one by Obama acolyte Bob herbert where he says:

Senator Obama has been thrown completely off his game by a combination of political attacks (some fair, some foul), a toxic eruption (the volcanic Jeremiah Wright was a gift from the gods to the Clintons and the G.O.P.), and some pretty serious self-inflicted wounds.

You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon. The candidate and his aides are brainstorming ways to counter the Clinton death-ray machine and regain the momentum. They need to generate some new excitement and enthusiasm, and they need to do it soon.

Despite all the new voters who have been brought into the process, Democrats are filled with anxiety about their prospects in November. A nervous operative told me on Friday: “If we lose this election, it would be like Johnson losing to Goldwater.”

This is Obama in NYMag

obama080505_250.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Problem with this assessment is that it emphasizes the tired old nonsense that is the worst kind of political smear based on a few short sound bites that have been so torn out of context that they didn't even get close to getting across the point they were to get across in their proper context. I watched the Wright interview on PBS last night. It's been quite interesting. Not for a political hack like Krauthammer but for people who really want to know. Balanced my patoot. ;)

Political smear? No, sirree!

Even diehard Obamaphiles are admitting that their guy is hurting bad from unenforced errors.

I see. So what are you saying? That no political candidate was ever hurt by political smear? You might want to consider changing them shades. That pink color is not helping your vision.

Edited by Mr. Big Dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Especially the one by Obama acolyte Bob herbert where he says:

Senator Obama has been thrown completely off his game by a combination of political attacks (some fair, some foul), a toxic eruption (the volcanic Jeremiah Wright was a gift from the gods to the Clintons and the G.O.P.), and some pretty serious self-inflicted wounds.

You can almost feel the air seeping out of the Obama phenomenon. The candidate and his aides are brainstorming ways to counter the Clinton death-ray machine and regain the momentum. They need to generate some new excitement and enthusiasm, and they need to do it soon.

Despite all the new voters who have been brought into the process, Democrats are filled with anxiety about their prospects in November. A nervous operative told me on Friday: “If we lose this election, it would be like Johnson losing to Goldwater.”

This is Obama in NYMag

obama080505_250.jpg

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Germany
Timeline
Problem with this assessment is that it emphasizes the tired old nonsense that is the worst kind of political smear based on a few short sound bites that have been so torn out of context that they didn't even get close to getting across the point they were to get across in their proper context. I watched the Wright interview on PBS last night. It's been quite interesting. Not for a political hack like Krauthammer but for people who really want to know. Balanced my patoot. ;)

Political smear? No, sirree!

Even diehard Obamaphiles are admitting that their guy is hurting bad from unenforced errors.

I see. So what are you saying? That no political candidate was ever hurt by political smear? You might want to consider changing them shades. That pink color is not helping your vision.

What I am saying Rheinhart is that Obama unlike Hillary can't take the knocks. He's still dazed out on the ropes since Pennsylvania. Even his main cheer leaders on the bleachers have started booing at him.

The sad fact is that he is running away from another debate with Hillary and instead giving press conferences at gas stations.

What the hell is going on? :o:o:o

Maureen Dowd, that team Obama booster is now ridiculing her heroe

there’s something eerie going on in this race. Hillary grows more and more glowy as Obama grows more and more wan.

Is she draining him of his precious bodily fluids? Leeching his magic? Siphoning off his aura?

It used to be that he was incandescent and she was merely inveterate. Now she’s bristling with life force, and he looks like he wants to run away somewhere for three months by himself and smoke.

Hillary is not getting much sleep or exercise, and doesn’t, like the ascetic Obama, abstain from junk food and coffee and get up at dawn to work out on the road. She’s still a long shot and she’s 14 years older than her rival.

Yet she’s the one who is more energetic and focused and beaming, and he’s the one who seems uneven and gauzy, often fatigued and unable to disguise being fed up with the slog. Even his speeches don’t have the same pizazz.

A man at a sports bar in Latrobe, Pa., advised Obama, “Get some sleep, Barack, you look like you’re tired, man.”

When the candidate noted he’s been running for president for 15 months, the guy offered another tip: “You need a drink.”

Obama disdains convention and touts his new politics, but on Friday, he had a news conference in an uninspired setting — a gas station emptied out by his Secret Service detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
Problem with this assessment is that it emphasizes the tired old nonsense that is the worst kind of political smear based on a few short sound bites that have been so torn out of context that they didn't even get close to getting across the point they were to get across in their proper context. I watched the Wright interview on PBS last night. It's been quite interesting. Not for a political hack like Krauthammer but for people who really want to know. Balanced my patoot. ;)
Political smear? No, sirree!

Even diehard Obamaphiles are admitting that their guy is hurting bad from unenforced errors.

I see. So what are you saying? That no political candidate was ever hurt by political smear? You might want to consider changing them shades. That pink color is not helping your vision.

What I am saying Rheinhart is that Obama unlike Hillary can't take the knocks.

No, actually, that is not what you said. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...