Obama's Global Tax

Calabrio

Calabrio

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
8,793
Reaction score
3
Location
Sarasota
In case the media has completely ignored this-
Barrack Obama's global poverty tax....act. bill was before the Senate the other day.

It would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid directly to the United Nations. By 2020, that'll be $845,000,000,000 over what we already spend.

Take a quick look:

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml
 
Obama bill: $845 billion more for global poverty
Democrat sponsors act OK'd by Senate panel that would cost 0.7% of gross national product
February 14, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


Barak Obam

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can – and must – make … a priority," said Obama, a co-sponsor.

It would demand that the president develop "and implement" a policy to "cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief" and other programs.

When word about what appears to be a massive new spending program started getting out, the reaction was immediate.

"It's not our job to cut global poverty," said one commenter on a Yahoo news forum. "These people need to learn how to fish themselves. If we keep throwing them fish, the fish will rot."

(Story continues below)

Many Americans were alerted to the legislation by a report from Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media. He published a critique asserting that while the Global Poverty Act sounds nice, the adoption could "result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States" and would make levels "of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations."

He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends."

The plan passed the House in 2007 "because most members didn't realize what was in it," Kincaid reported. "Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require."

A statement from Obama's office this week noted the support offered by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.

"Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere," he continued.

The bill institutes the United Nations Millennium Summit goals as the benchmarks for U.S. spending.

"It is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day," a statement issued by supporters, including Obama, said.

Specifically, it would "declare" that the official U.S. policy is to eliminate global poverty, that the president is "required" to "develop and implement" a strategy to reach that goal and requires that the U.S. efforts be "specific and measurable."

Kincaid said that after cutting through all of the honorable-sounding goals in the plan, the bottom line is that the legislation would mandate the 0.7 percent of the U.S. GNP as "official development assistance."

"In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that (U.N.) declaration commits nations to banning 'small arms and light weapons' and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention of Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

Those U.N. protocols would make U.S. law on issues ranging from the 2nd Amendment to energy usage and parental rights all subservient to United Nations whims.

Kincaid also reported Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the "Millennium Project," confirms a U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP would add about $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already donates overseas.

And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels," Kincaid writes.

On the forum run by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, one writer reported estimates of taxes from 35 cents to $1 dollar a gallon on gasoline would be needed.

"This is disgusting, sickening and angers me to the depths of my soul," the forum author wrote. "Obama wants us to support the world. I wonder how they intend to eliminate poverty. Most of the money always winds up in some dictator hands and in the U.N. coffers."

WND calls to Obama's office, as well as the offices of others who supported the plan, were not successful in obtaining a comment.

Another forum participant said, "Yes, and we should also eliminate sickness of any kind and get rid of poverty as well. Then, too, we should make certain that everyone in the world has equal assets, equal money, a college education, etc… After that, or maybe while we are solving all of the world's little problems, we can take care of the polar bears, eliminate the internal combustion engine, and, and, and… Oh dear, if only we would just go ahead and do all the things the dreamers want us to do. Let's stop using oil and burning coal while we're at it. Then we can make it illegal to be overweight and then we can. ..."

One forum contributor said since the legislation doesn't specifically demand "taxes," but instead leaves the mandatory "implementation" up to the president, "maybe the tooth fairy will leave [this new money] under the president's pillow."

Kincaid reported several more budget-minded senators have put a hold on the legislation "in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote."

The legislation requires the president to do whatever is required to fulfill a strategy that would result in "the elimination of extreme global poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide … who live on less than $1 per day."

It further requires the president not only to accomplish that goal but, "not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this act," to submit a report on "the contributions provided by the United States" toward poverty reduction.
 
Barack Obama, Leftist?

Two foreign newspapers introduce the notion of Barack Obama as a Leftist. The Times of London reports that Republicans intend on painting him as such in the general election, based on his voting record in the Senate and in the Illinios state legislature. La Jornada of Mexico celebrates Obama as potentially the first Leftist President in American history, and a harbinger of what awaits the hemisphere (via Memeorandum and TMV):
LEADING Republicans believe they can trounce Barack Obama in the presidential election by tarring him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are increasingly confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine has finished with him. ... “It will be easy to portray him as even harder-left than Hillary,” said Norquist. “Hillary could lose the election, but Obama could collapse. People already know Hillary and she is not popular, but the disadvantage for Obama is that Republicans can teach people who don’t know him who he is.”
Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House and Republican guru, recently described Obama as the “most leftwing candidate to run since George McGovern” – a reference to the anti-Vietnam-war Democrat who lost 49 states out of 50 to Richard Nixon in the 1972 election. Norquist believes Obama’s questionable Chicago connections will stir things further.
​
Luis Linares Zapata agrees, but he's a lot happier about it. In La Jornada, he writes that Obama has initiated the "most attractive electoral phenomenon in the recent history of the US":
Obama aims at modifying deeply the ways, habits and privileges of the politicians in Washington, and to destroy the knots that block or detrimentally affect the public programs. His priorities are socially oriented, including everyone and not leaving out, as is happening now, a great proportion of Americans from important benefits. But, above all, he has succeeded in imbuing people with the feeling that a profound change is unavoidable for the future of the country. He wants to transform not only politics, to make it a decent and responsible activity, but to change society itself to make it fairer, less excluding, and more unified. The possibility that a colored man [perhaps a poor translation of "man of color"] will become the Democratic candidate, against all initial predictions, is growing as his movement gains impetus. Last Tuesday’s primaries show unequivocally his robustness. Despair is creeping into the opposing field. Everything signals an unsteady Hilary who has lost her way and even her composure to the point of changing her strategist. The coming Super Tuesday 2 will be the definitive confrontation, when states with numerous delegates participate. If Barack wins thereafter the presidency of the United States, he will be the first leftist politician in that country and another signal of the present and future times in this continent.
​
The foreign press certainly recognizes Obama as a Leftist. It's not outrageous that the Republicans see him the same way. Mexico's pundits have seen their share of Leftists promising Utopia, and Linares Zapata recognizes the strain of politics north of the border as well.
Take a look at Barack Obama's economic plan, for instance. It provides some specifics for Obama's stratospheric rhetoric, but really just gives us a series of proposals to further entrench the federal government as the nanny of the American family. For instance, Obama proposes to create a government-run savings program that provides matching funds on savings. In other words, Obama wants to collect tax money to redistribute it to savers, in a plan that works much the same as employer 401k plans. Why should the government pay people to save their money, especially outside the 401ks that work better and have much higher caps?
Do you like the IRS? Want to trust them to do your tax returns? Rather than simplify taxes, Obama instead wants to have the IRS prepare your returns for you and send them out for your signature. Since the IRS gets all of your income information already, he wants the IRS to calculate how much you owe, without apparently considering that most Americans itemize for deductions. It doesn't cut down on preparation time in any case, but merely transfers the cost to the federal government-- as well as more power to the IRS.
Let's also consider the workplace pension plan Obama will create. It will create a system of accounts that can follow a worker who moves from employer to employer, and will also provide for pensions when working for small and midsize companies that do not offer one. We already have this system; it's called Social Security, and it's slowly going broke. When George Bush tried to bolster it with private accounts -- integrated into SS, not a new parallel system as Obama proposes -- Democrats screamed bloody murder.
And what happens when the federal government sets up a competing pension system for American workers? Do you think that employers will continue to offer pensions, or do you suppose they'll shrug that off and let the government take up the slack instead? We will have created another massive new entitlement system, when we can't afford the ones we have now.
Under Barack Obama's vision for America, the federal government will run vast parts of the economy. Would that make him the first Leftist President? Only if he gets to the White House ahead of Hillary Clinton.


Posted by Ed Morrissey on February 17, 2008 8:40 A
 
04SCTLS said:

Two foreign newspapers introduce the notion of Barack Obama as a Leftist. The Times of London reports that Republicans intend on painting him as such in the general election, based on his voting record in the Senate and in the Illinios state legislature.
Click to expand...


The wording there seems to suggest that "painting" him as a leftist due to his record is somehow dishonest and/or disengeniuous. If he is being "painted" as such due to his record (assuming it is an accurate representation of that record) wouldn't that be accurate and valid?
 
ONEBADMK8 said:
He is a pices of dog$hit just like Bush.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to think either man is a "piece of dogsh!t" regardless what policy disagreements I have.

Ted Kennedy, now he's a piece of crap... but it's not because he's a liberal, it's because he's a man of low character. I'm not aware of GWB or Barrack Hussein ever leaving a girl to drown to death based on political opportunism.
 
Of course Obama is a leftist. Who ever heard of a right wing democrat.
The foreign press is just more left as are most foreign countries.

here's some more views on america from the foreign press which insular americans never read.

Shagdrum you gotta take these foreign messengers with a seasoned grain of salt.

Watching Watching America (Updated)

Dave Schuler | Sunday, February 17, 2008
watchingamerica.gif
Are you aware of Watching America? It’s a site that provides a wonderful service, publishing translations of articles on the U. S. from newspapers, magazines, and online sources all over the world. They are mostly articles about the U. S. written by foreign authors for a foreign audience and provide an interesting counterpoint to what you might read in our own media.
The editors of Watching America strive neither for favorable nor unfavorable content, attempting instead to portray as accurately as possible how we’re portrayed in the overseas press.
Their above-the-fold front page articles right now are
America Gets Ready to Turn the Bush Page, an article about the American presidential election from France’s Le Figaro. I’ve commented extensively on this article here.
Change and Barack, America’s First Leftist President? from Mexico’s La Jornada, a somewhat swooning article which I think exhibits a lamentable lack of understanding of the American political spectrum.
You might also find this article interesting:
Tomorrow’s America and Us from France’s Le Monde, an article on the prospects for American policy regardless of who is elected in November.
After finding one blooper in one of their translations from German I’ve been checking their translations from the languages with which I’m familiar (mostly German and French) and have found them to be mostly decent, workmanlike translations.
By the way, they’re looking for translators. I’m entertaining the idea of doing an occasional translation for them from Russian, since they don’t seem to have a great deal of coverage of the Russian press. John Burgess, are you listening? They could use your help!
 
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/02/obama_the_messiah.html


Is Obama a (or the) Messiah?

Is Obama the Messiah? People are asking these days and it's not so hard to understand why: the desperate throngs, the tears, the great awakening of a slumbering demographic. All that larger symbolism.
The emotional landscape of many American voters is calamitous of late -- frightened by our Babylonian war, unhappy with our President and depressed by the cleansing crush of the credit crunch -- so it's not surprising that the coming presidential election would take on a certain biblical coloring.

The Messiah question is a loud one coming from all corners. Even a blogger for Mother Jones, the hot heart of the far left, worries that the Obama-passion will be used for nefarious purposes by right-wingers, he himself writes "Barack Obama has a messiah complex and no one will convince me otherwise."
The salty 62-year old Chris Matthews of MSNBC puts the phenomenon of Obama on the good book scale, telling the NY Observer that "I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament. This is surprising.”
Timothy Noah has been on his "Messiah Watch" for over a year now for online magazine Slate though he says he doesn't suggest it is Obama that believes in himself as the second coming but rather "that a few excitable souls in the media bear the apparant conviction that Obama is the Redeemer."
And of course, in case you doubt how deep into the zeitgeist this has gone, the blog "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" is bursting with visual evidence.
I turned to my friend Joel Stein, who wrote a column for the LA Times last week on Obamaphilia -- the notion that many, including Joel, have developed an unbecoming infatuation with the Senator from Illinois.
ME: So Joel, did it ever occur to you that it wasn't a crush you were experiencing with Obama but a religious revelation?
Joel: I'm pretty sure my feelings for Obama is a crush, but maybe it's a relgious revelation. I've never had one of those....
ME: Describe your feelings when you watch him.
Joel: When I see him, I actually don't feel great. I feel like I do at a comedy club, only instead of "Make me laugh, :q:q:q:q:q:q:q" it's like, "Make me care." And then he does make me care. Which shocks me even more, because my guard is up. Dude is good. Like Dave Attell good.
ME: Do you think a messiah would work well as a president?
Joel: The messiah would make an excellent president. I had a photo above my desk at Time of Reagan campaigning for President, and he's standing on the bumpers of two parked cars with his arms out, just radiating. That's half the job, making people feel saved. And Obama does that. If you make people feel like you can save them, half of them are already saved. You've seen There Will Be Blood. You know how it works.
ME: Being Jewish, Joel, how would that messiah as president shake out for you?
Joel: Being Jewish, I don't feel good about feeling moved by any speakers. I'm programmed so I'm only comfortable if they're boring the crap out of me. Preferably in an ancient, unattractive language. My Mom, who's a huge Hillary supporter, keeps saying he's a preacher, which she means negatively. And it makes me feel uncomfortable from a racial perspective when she says it. But she's not entirely wrong. And I kind of like it. Maybe I'd like church.
ME: One last question -- your mom compares him to a preacher and says it's negative, and all these articles out there say coverage is too positive, and
you yourself worry about your girlish crush. So is it wrong to be so positive in politics?
Joel: It's scary to be positive about a politician. You know you're going to regret it because no President in my lifetime has ever even met the limited expectations I've had - and now I have huge expectations. It's like joining a cult or the PTL Club. You're going to have to explain your enthusiasm for the rest of your life when it all unravels. I'm sure someone was as passionate as I am about Obama about Richard Nixon.

_________________________________________________________________

Some people are so easily impressed, especially the "Yutes"
 
see shagdrum now you're getting more seasoned.

Further:

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj.1.seasoned - aged or processed; "seasoned wood" unseasoned - not aged or processed; "unseasoned timber"
2.seasoned - rendered competent through trial and experience; "a seasoned traveler"; "veteran steadiness"; "a veteran officer" veteran
experienced, experient - having experience; having knowledge or skill from observation or participation
 
04SCTLS said:
see shagdrum now you're getting more seasoned.

Further:

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj.1.seasoned - aged or processed; "seasoned wood" unseasoned - not aged or processed; "unseasoned timber"
2.seasoned - rendered competent through trial and experience; "a seasoned traveler"; "veteran steadiness"; "a veteran officer" veteran
experienced, experient - having experience; having knowledge or skill from observation or participation
Click to expand...

:D
 
Shag you'll like this one word

Demagogue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogy
Demagogy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes

However I think Obama and his supporters actually believe
he can change the world especially after the strong emotions Bush has brought out in some people over the last 8 years.
 
shagdrum said:
Gotta admit, my first thought in reading that is "Obama = antiChrist"? (I saw a special on the history channel recently on revelations, the end of days, and the antiChrist).
Click to expand...

This Rapture end of days stuff seems to come up every 20 years or so but can't really be something to live by.
Obviously people have died preparing and waiting for this throughout the ages and what a sad thing to look forward to at least for this seasoned(he he) observer.
 
04SCTLS said:
This Rapture end of days stuff seems to come up every 20 years or so but can't really be something to live by.
Obviously people have died preparing and waiting for this throughout the ages and what a sad thing to look forward to at least for this seasoned(he he) observer.
Click to expand...

Ohh, I am not saying that is what I believe, just pointing out my inititial reaction.
 
How Republicans might sink Obama

In 1976, they nearly beat Carter with the fear card.

By Walter Rodgersfrom the February 19, 2008 edition

OAKTON, VA. - A fresh-faced Democratic presidential candidate promising change. An economy in turmoil. A nation soured on Republican rule.
It sounds like a recipe for a big win for Sen. Barack Obama this November. It also sounds a lot like the 1976 campaign, which I covered as White House correspondent for the Associated Press. And if history is any guide, don't count the GOP out just yet.
In August 1976, after winning the Republican nomination in Kansas City, Mo., Gerald Ford invited GOP VIPs to his summer retreat in Vail, Colo., to plot strategy for the November election against Jimmy Carter, who at that time enjoyed a nearly insurmountable advantage in opinion polls. Indeed, as summer peaked, Mr. Carter was doubling Ford's support in surveys – capturing nearly 70 percent.
Yet there they stood: Ford, his vice presidential nominee Bob Dole, Nelson Rockefeller, a line of Republican biggies that seemed to stretch across the golf course where they assembled, all mouthing banalities about how the GOP could come from behind and win.
At the far end stood John Connally, the Democrat turned Republican who, in his extemporaneous remarks, laid out a strategy for miraculously closing that huge gap in the polls.
It is the same strategy Republicans could use well to defeat Senator Obama should his current momentum propel him to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
Last in line, and almost as an afterthought, the clever Mr. Connally feigned indignation and effectively asked, "Who is this Jimmy Carter? We don't know anything about him!"
It was a brilliant soliloquy aimed at planting doubts in voters' minds. Connally, so ably schooled in Texas politics, continued that theme for the next five minutes, dismantling Carter's promises of change and hope. The former Texas governor skillfully set the tone for the entire post- Labor Day Republican election campaign.
Weekly, Carter's numbers began to drop. It was so simple. Sow doubt and fear about the outsider from Georgia, the newcomer, inexperienced in international affairs in the age of the Soviet Union. Connally nurtured skepticism about Carter's ability to lead America out of the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate traumas.

Like Obama, Carter was promising hope and change. But the yearning for change was epidermal, and something more powerful was lurking deeper in the American psyche then, and I suspect, now. Connally played the fear card, the fear of the unknown candidate and what foreboding tragedies Carter's thin résumé in national politics might produce.
By the time Americans voted in November 1976, Carter had to stay up till nearly 3 o'clock in the morning to learn if he had really won. With polls closing so rapidly in Ford's favor, had the campaign lasted another week, I suspect Ford might well have won the presidency on his own terms, despite Watergate, embarrassing revelations about CIA scandals, and the humiliation of Vietnam.
Should he ultimately become the Democratic nominee, Obama's credentials currently seem paper thin. A one-term senator from Illinois, he appears as inexperienced as he is telegenic. He talks of getting out of Iraq in his first term, but he has not explained how.
Does he realize that powerful interests such as the Israeli lobby, Saudi Arabia, and Big Oil may see a continuing American presence in Iraq in their interests and they are more than capable of thwarting the intent of an inexperienced first-term president?
To extricate more than 100,000 US troops from Iraq, Obama will have to get the US defense establishment in his corner. That's not an impossible task, but it won't be easy, given the Pentagon's traditional allegiance to Republican presidents.
Surely, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, not long after he becomes his party's candidate, a latter-day Connally is going to ask indignantly, "Who is this Barack Obama? What does he know about keeping the oil flowing in the Middle East? Does he understand that militant political Islam is waging an open-ended war against the West? What are his qualifications for dealing with China after the Olympics honeymoon ends? And how prepared is he to negotiate with disillusioned American allies as well as a resurging and belligerent Russia?"
Obama is basking in the glow of tinselly primary victories now. But even if he defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton, he faces a very hard sell if he is to move beyond the current popularity contests where smiles serve as a substitute for substance.
If he cannot pass the Connally test and convincingly tell voters who he is and what he will do, the Republicans will have him for lunch in November.
• Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN.
 
04SCTLS said:
How Republicans might sink Obama

In 1976, they nearly beat Carter with the fear card.

By Walter Rodgersfrom the February 19, 2008 edition

OAKTON, VA. - A fresh-faced Democratic presidential candidate promising change. An economy in turmoil. A nation soured on Republican rule.
It sounds like a recipe for a big win for Sen. Barack Obama this November. It also sounds a lot like the 1976 campaign, which I covered as White House correspondent for the Associated Press. And if history is any guide, don't count the GOP out just yet.
In August 1976, after winning the Republican nomination in Kansas City, Mo., Gerald Ford invited GOP VIPs to his summer retreat in Vail, Colo., to plot strategy for the November election against Jimmy Carter, who at that time enjoyed a nearly insurmountable advantage in opinion polls. Indeed, as summer peaked, Mr. Carter was doubling Ford's support in surveys – capturing nearly 70 percent.
Yet there they stood: Ford, his vice presidential nominee Bob Dole, Nelson Rockefeller, a line of Republican biggies that seemed to stretch across the golf course where they assembled, all mouthing banalities about how the GOP could come from behind and win.
At the far end stood John Connally, the Democrat turned Republican who, in his extemporaneous remarks, laid out a strategy for miraculously closing that huge gap in the polls.
It is the same strategy Republicans could use well to defeat Senator Obama should his current momentum propel him to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
Last in line, and almost as an afterthought, the clever Mr. Connally feigned indignation and effectively asked, "Who is this Jimmy Carter? We don't know anything about him!"
It was a brilliant soliloquy aimed at planting doubts in voters' minds. Connally, so ably schooled in Texas politics, continued that theme for the next five minutes, dismantling Carter's promises of change and hope. The former Texas governor skillfully set the tone for the entire post- Labor Day Republican election campaign.
Weekly, Carter's numbers began to drop. It was so simple. Sow doubt and fear about the outsider from Georgia, the newcomer, inexperienced in international affairs in the age of the Soviet Union. Connally nurtured skepticism about Carter's ability to lead America out of the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate traumas.

Like Obama, Carter was promising hope and change. But the yearning for change was epidermal, and something more powerful was lurking deeper in the American psyche then, and I suspect, now. Connally played the fear card, the fear of the unknown candidate and what foreboding tragedies Carter's thin résumé in national politics might produce.
By the time Americans voted in November 1976, Carter had to stay up till nearly 3 o'clock in the morning to learn if he had really won. With polls closing so rapidly in Ford's favor, had the campaign lasted another week, I suspect Ford might well have won the presidency on his own terms, despite Watergate, embarrassing revelations about CIA scandals, and the humiliation of Vietnam.
Should he ultimately become the Democratic nominee, Obama's credentials currently seem paper thin. A one-term senator from Illinois, he appears as inexperienced as he is telegenic. He talks of getting out of Iraq in his first term, but he has not explained how.
Does he realize that powerful interests such as the Israeli lobby, Saudi Arabia, and Big Oil may see a continuing American presence in Iraq in their interests and they are more than capable of thwarting the intent of an inexperienced first-term president?
To extricate more than 100,000 US troops from Iraq, Obama will have to get the US defense establishment in his corner. That's not an impossible task, but it won't be easy, given the Pentagon's traditional allegiance to Republican presidents.
Surely, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, not long after he becomes his party's candidate, a latter-day Connally is going to ask indignantly, "Who is this Barack Obama? What does he know about keeping the oil flowing in the Middle East? Does he understand that militant political Islam is waging an open-ended war against the West? What are his qualifications for dealing with China after the Olympics honeymoon ends? And how prepared is he to negotiate with disillusioned American allies as well as a resurging and belligerent Russia?"
Obama is basking in the glow of tinselly primary victories now. But even if he defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton, he faces a very hard sell if he is to move beyond the current popularity contests where smiles serve as a substitute for substance.
If he cannot pass the Connally test and convincingly tell voters who he is and what he will do, the Republicans will have him for lunch in November.
• Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN.
Click to expand...



Yeah, I'd prefer to see the campaigns for the general not play off emotions, but playing off emotions is to easy a temptation to fall to and it will always go there in an election.
 
shagdrum said:
Yeah, I'd prefer to see the campaigns for the general not play off emotions, but playing off emotions is to easy a temptation to fall to and it will always go there in an election.
Click to expand...
Until the 19th Amendment is repealed...get used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 157 (members: 0, guests: 157)
Back
Top