Friday, August 26, 2011

WTF! Is Rick Perry too macho? Look Out Rick Perry: Barack Obama - A Community Organizer Grandmaster of the Alinsky Method - More WTF: A majority of Americans blame George W. Bush for our current economic woes.


Faith and the Fishwrap of Record - Michelle Malkin
The editor of the New York Times just got religion: He thinks it’s time to ask GOP presidential candidates “tougher questions about faith.” Oh, brother, where wast thou in 2008? The Fishwrap of Record led the whitewashing of Barack Obama’s wacky black liberation theology pals and freaky-deaky Chicago pastors.
Now, the skews-paper is ready to start asking “tougher questions about faith?”

Just a reminder before I get to his latest doozy: NYT editor Bill Keller is the same one who claimed “we are agnostic as to where a story may lead; we do not go into a story with an agenda or a pre-conceived notion. We do not manipulate or hide facts to advance an agenda. We strive to preserve our independence from political and economic interests, including our own advertisers. We do not work in the service of a party, or an industry, or even a country. When there are competing views of a situation, we aim to reflect them as clearly and fairly as we can.”

In his latest demonstration of journalistic agnosticism, Keller writes that GOP candidates are members of “mysterious or suspect” churches who deserve greater scrutiny:
This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum are all affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity, which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction.
“Fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity?” Newsflash: Santorum is a member of the same fervid church that Keller grew up in — the mysteriously suspect Catholic church.

Also covered here: God and Man at the Gray Lady, Part Deux - Ed Driscoll

ABC Tattles on NBC: Comcast Employees Top Donors to Obama and 'Victory Fund' - Newsbusters
On Jake Tapper's Political Punch blog, ABC's Devin Dwyer reports that the majority owner of NBC is a major backer of the president: "Employees of media giant Comcast have contributed more money to President Obama’s reelection bid than employees from any other organization, according to a new analysis of Federal Election Commission data by the Center for Responsive Politics."
While Comcast employees gave $5,000 each to Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, "Comcast employees contributed nearly $80,000 directly to Obama for America and roughly $200,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint account benefitting both the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee, through the first half of 2011 records show."

WTF!

Peggy Noonan: Is Rick Perry too macho? - Hot Air
Mr. Perry’s primary virtue for the Republican base is that he means it. He comes across as a natural conservative, Texas Division, who won’t be changing his mind about his basic premises any time soon. His professed views don’t seem to be an outfit he can put on and take off at will. In this of course he’s the anti-Romney. Unlike Ms. Bachmann, he has executive experience, three terms as governor of a state with 25 million people.

His primary flaw appears to be a chesty, quick-draw machismo that might be right for an angry base but wrong for an antsy country. Americans want a president who feels their anger without himself walking around enraged…

Obama Asks Voters to Help Him Gather Dirt on Rick Perry: How Low Can He Go? - Hot Air (Green Room)
Last week during one leg of President Obama’s “non-campaign related,” taxpayer-funded bus tour of battleground states, he told a crowd, “There is a group of folks who think that I’d rather see my opponent lose than see America win.”
It was reassuring to learn that the president loves his country more than he cares about his own political ambitions, though the implication didn’t quite square with an observation a week earlier from a White House strategist who said, “Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney.”

An article at Politico explained:
Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s reelection campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early-stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee. [Emphasis added]
Granted, it’s an odious strategy, informed by the most cynical brand of political gamesmanship. And it’s that much more obscene coming from a man who promised to transcend the old ways of Washington and deliver the nation into a new era of post-partisanship.

*********
In case your forgot....

The most dramatic examples of Mr. Obama's commitment to old-style politics are his repeated endorsements of Chicago's machine politicians, which came in opposition to what people of all ideological stripes viewed as the common good.


In the 2006 election, reformers from both parties attempted to end the corruption in Chicago's Cook County government. They probably would have succeeded, too, had Mr. Obama taken their side. Liberals and conservatives came together and nearly ousted Cook County Board President John Stroger, the machine boss whom court papers credibly accuse of illegally using the county payroll to maintain his own standing army of political cronies, contributors and campaigners.


The since-deceased Stroger's self-serving mismanagement of county government is still the subject of federal investigations and arbitration claims. Stroger was known for trying repeatedly to raise taxes to fund his political machine, even as basic government services were neglected in favor of high-paying county jobs for his political soldiers.


When liberals and conservatives worked together to clean up Cook County's government, they were displaying precisely the postpartisan interest in the common good that Mr. Obama extols today. And Mr. Obama, by working against them, helped keep Chicago politics dirty. He refused to endorse the progressive reformer, Forrest Claypool, who came within seven points of defeating Stroger in the primary.


After the primary, when Stroger's son Todd replaced him on the ballot under controversial circumstances, a good-government Republican named Tony Peraica attracted the same kind of bipartisan support from reformers in the November election. But Mr. Obama endorsed the young heir to the machine, calling him -- to the absolute horror of Chicago liberals -- a "good, progressive Democrat."


Mayor Richard M. Daley -- who would receive Mr. Obama's endorsement in 2007 shortly after several of his top aides and appointees had received prison sentences for their corrupt operation of Chicago's city government -- was invested in the Stroger machine's survival. So was every alderman and county commissioner who uses the county payroll to support political hangers-on. So was Mr. Obama's friend and donor, Tony Rezko, who is now in federal prison awaiting sentencing after being convicted in June of 16 felony corruption charges. Rezko had served as John Stroger's finance chairman and raised $150,000 for him (Stroger put Rezko's wife on the county payroll).


Mr. Obama has never stood up against Chicago's corruption problem because his donors and allies are Chicago's corruption problem.


Mr. Obama is not the reformer he now claims to be. The real man is the one they know in Chicago -- the one who won his first election by depriving voters of a choice.

******

January 8, 2008 -

Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu

Another one of those articles from back in the day that if people would have bothered educating themselves (I’m speaking to you seemingly intelligent white people) on this idiot president we would not be as fucked as we are now. Ignorance is a bitch.

By Kyle-Anne Shiver
If I were the least bit prone to gratuitous sympathy, I would be tempted now to feel quite sorry for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Poor, poor woman. She was quite nearly brought to all-out tears yesterday in New Hampshire, as she soliloquized over the sad state of her drooping campaign and how completely personal this is for her.

Barack Obama seems to have effortlessly achieved voter adoration, fresher, younger, more at ease within his own skin than she will ever be. He would appear to be as much a natural as her own Bill. It may appear to a great many observers that Barrack Obama is just one incredibly audacious, even lucky, albeit frighteningly charismatic dude.

These personal qualities are not the sole reason he is where he is, and I suspect the wily Mrs. Clinton knows this full well. I suspect it must bother her that Obama also appears to have mastered the playbook used by her own political teacher, the legendary amoral guru of left wing activism, Saul Alinksy.

Hillary has met not only her match in Alinsky tactics, she has met the master of bloodless socialist revolution, in my opinion.

Also: Barack Obama - A Community Organizer Grandmaster of the Alinsky Method - Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals

*******
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Saul Alinsky, and Their Influence on Obama
The Cloward-Piven Strategy was published in The Nation in 1966. The strategy was developed by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, professors at Columbia University in NYC. Piven was married to Cloward. They wrote an article titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” advocating increased enrollment in social welfare programs in order to collapse that system and force reforms, leading to a guaranteed annual income. This political strategy has been referred to as the “Cloward-Piven strategy.”

The Cloward-Piven Strategy was inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving). In their 1966 article, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty,” Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands. The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book, “Rules for Radicals.” When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

It should also be noted that Mr. Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer. Influence on Obama

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” (Saul Alinsky's dedication of his book "Rules for radicals")

*******

Poll: 51% still blame George W. Bush for economy
Though more Americans see the economy in bad shape than did at the beginning of the summer, their views of whether to reelect President Barack Obama have barely changed — and a majority blame George Bush for the problems, a new poll says.
Eighty-six percent of those surveyed for an Associated Press-GfK poll released Thursday say the economy is in “poor” condition, up from 80 percent in June. And, according to 49 percent of those surveyed, things have gotten worse in the past month.

No comments: