***Scroll down for updates***
…and the media haven’t reported it. What the…?
Every time I hear Barack Obama speak, I’m reminded of the expression, “Like shooting fish in a barrel.” He is the embodiment of it.
His ideas are so incongruous and on-the-fly, I wonder why mainstream media aren’t picking his statements apart. Yes, I know it’s too easy. There’s no challenge in it. Yes, I know mainstream media liberals want him to win. But news organizations report news, and a Democratic candidate advocating a civilian quasi-military security force is news.
On July 2, Obama gave a speech to an audience of what appears to be military veterans. Relevant to this post is this nugget (emphasis added):
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Listen to the whole thing to get the context. It was painful for me. His voice exudes inexperience, and its phony quality makes me think of chalk scraping against a chalkboard:
Here’s where it gets interesting: In subsequent media reports and the official transcript, the “civilian national security force” statement does not appear. (See WorldNetDaily) Why? Did the Obama campaign realize how strange it sounded?
The week after the “security force” statements, Obama likened Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terrorists, simply for doing the job of enforcing immigration laws! He made this statement before members and supporters of the hispanic racialist group La Raza. Two seemingly opposing statements uttered before two different audiences.
Future president of the United States, what would this proposed civilian national security force do, exactly? Will it profile Muslims, or help secure the border, like the Minuteman group, whom George Bush called vigilantes? May it conduct immigration raids, which certainly are part of national security? If so, how do you reconcile “terrorizing” illegal aliens with immigration raids and forming a quasi-military force of civilians to help the military “achieve national security objectives?”
What does that mean?
No response from BHO headquarters.
Bloggers and right-leaning news organizations have been all over this. Check out Google blog search and Google news.
Now that I’ve returned to political blogging, I’m paying attention. And I’m astounded how Barack Obama has gotten away with this stuff. A nation of sheeple, we are.
(Hat tip: Hot Air)
Update: Commenter CorbinKale writes:
“More to the point, [Obama’s] voting record on gun control says that he has no plans for any ARMED civilian security force. Maybe, it is some program to get neighbors to spy on neighbors? He just thought that was what the Vets wanted to hear. You won’t hear it again.”
I strongly suspect we won’t. 
Commenter Mwalimu Daudi writes:
“I remember how some folks went ballistic when the Minutemen simply sat and watched the Mexican border. I predict nary a peep out of those same folks about this monstrosity.”
I don’t know if it’s that people are stupid or that the MSM is so in bed with Obama that they are now part of his PR program. I’m thinking it’s the second, because if the people were that stupid then Obama’s lead would be double digits and McCain would look like Mondale in 84…
This will make the news but only on stations like FNC and the like where it’s not an Obama love in…
Comment by vegas art guy — 07.17.08 @ 2:00 pm
Obama has leashed the Clintons, those masters of machine politics. That will tell you much about the man. He, like his predecessors, will tell anyone what he thinks they need to hear to win their vote. He will promise everyone that he will be the leader they desire.
More to the point, his voting record on gun control says that he has no plans for any ARMED civilian security force. Maybe, it is some program to get neighbors to spy on neighbors? He just thought that was what the Vets wanted to hear. You won’t hear it again.
The incongruence of his statements will come back to haunt him just before the general election. Conflicting videos will be played side by side. Sadly, some voters don’t let facts interfere with their choice of candidate.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.17.08 @ 2:21 pm
Spiffy. Just what we needed. An American version of the Sturmabteilung.
I remember how some folks went ballistic when the Minutemen simply sat and watched the Mexican border. I predict nary a peep out of those same folks about this monstrosity.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 07.17.08 @ 3:28 pm
Was Obama serious? Hard to tell these days. But the very idea of a federal civilian security force as powerful as the military…well, certainly makes posse comitatus a moot point, among other dangers. Will it compete with the FBI? CIA? NSA?[though almost 95% military already.] DEA? ICE? ATF? State police? State militias? Or will it combine all of them into one powerful pretorian guard?
He’s on his way to Berlin…must be checking out brown khaki cloth? /sarc
The disgrace of it all is that of course the MSM doesn’t pick up on any of it…too dumb or too in bed, and the RNC no longer seems to have an active fact-check/speech-check operation anymore, like to one the RNC had during Reagan’s 1980 campaign. Thus, Obama can mouth platitudes, offer ideas that shoot the Constitution all to pieces, and nobody bats an eye…
The UberMessiah has apparently already been ordained and enthroned.
Comment by coldwarrior415 — 07.17.08 @ 3:34 pm
LaShawn,
I tell my husband everyday, the more Obama speaks, the more he embodies Eddie Murphy’s character in his early 90’s movie “The Distinguished Gentleman.” And in all honesty, his rise to the top isn’t all that different from the movie’s.
Comment by MaE — 07.17.08 @ 3:43 pm
It’ll be an empathetic force of do-gooders whose calming and encouraging words will make evil doers change their ways, natch
Comment by Hawkins — 07.17.08 @ 4:24 pm
Barack Obama Proposes Formation Of Civilian Army Equal In Size To U.S. Military!…
A video that the MSM won’t show you. In fact the Obama campaign doesn’t have it on their website and no transcript can be found for this speech he made in Colorado Springs on July 2, 2008.
Trackback by Stuck on Stupid — 07.17.08 @ 4:48 pm
“Civilian”?
“National Security”?
“Force”?
The only thing that comes to mind are the suits that follow a Farrakahn or Malcolm X around. Does he mean like that?
What in the hel! does he mean? What is wrong with the Army/National Guard system for national security? Too accountable? Too militaristic (Rolling eyes, here)?
I can see the new civilian force paying me a visit, now. To enforce the planks of the liberal agenda. Guns? Take ‘em. Lives outside of city? Move him. Drives a vehicle? Confiscate that. Got a Bible? Too antagonistic to sexual minorities, take that away.
Comment by kc — 07.17.08 @ 5:52 pm
In the past couple of days, He Who Would Have Us Believe He Walks On Water has called for some sort of “civilian national security force” the size of our military, and also said that ICE agents are “terrorizing” illegal aliens. LaShawn Barber asks: Where’s the media coverage?
Pingback by Bent Notes — 07.17.08 @ 6:28 pm
The WorldNutDaily crew is at it again. If you look at the transcript of the speech, and listen to the YouTube audio, it’s clear that Obama didn’t follow to the letter the speech as drafted throughout the entire speech. It’s not uncommon at all that the “transcript” printed in daily newspapers is actually the prepared text distributed to the media BEFORE the speech itself.
And if you read the draft of the speech and listen to the audio in context, it’s more than likely that Obama was referring to putting as much money into civilian channels as military channels to secure our nation’s defense. As in: There are diplomatic ways to try to secure America’s security that don’t necessarily require sending in the military to wage war. Both military and civilian resources need to be available to achieve a comprehensive security.
[By the way, the speech was given at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. and much of the speech addressed young people and Obama’s “call to service” if you will. There is, however, a very large military presence in Colorado Springs, e.g. Fort Carson, Air Force Academy, Peterson, Schriever, NORCOM, and a lot of retired military in that town.]
OK, I’ll give you “Obama didn’t follow to the letter the speech as drafted throughout the entire speech,” but the question still remains: Why haven’t the media mentioned the remarks since the speech? Surely, they could at least write stories with the same points you’ve raised. It is newsworthy. Don’t you think it’s worth mentioning in a mainstream news story, for crying out loud? - Admin
Comment by diogenes — 07.17.08 @ 6:48 pm
Honestly, I don’t think it was a big deal, in the context of the speech he gave; for reporters, there was a lot more to cover in that speech.
I will concede that, if you pull out that one sentence as a lot of bloogers have, it does make you scratch your head a bit, but if you listen to the context, it’s understandable.
Comment by diogenes — 07.17.08 @ 7:32 pm
And people wonder why I am stocking up on ammo.
Comment by Ricardian — 07.17.08 @ 7:52 pm
Barack Obama’s Red Guard…
Just as strong and as well-funded as the US military? Presumably, President Obama would be the Commander in Chief of this second army of federal civil servants. The story made me think of the Red Guard….
Trackback by Plains Feeder — 07.17.08 @ 8:35 pm
diogenes
The “World Nut daily?” Don’t you mean “Every Day Americans”? That’s all bloggers are. Average Joes who now have a voice and a forum with which to express their views. Bloggers speak for the MAJORITY, not the Obama Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself. Mr. Obamakhan gets a pass by the media for every single stupid statement he makes and Americans deserve to hear about the real person, not the cardboard cut-out presented by the Yo-Yo’s who are SUPPOSED to be objective. The fact that he changed the speech on the fly and screwed it up that badly ought to be a warning sign to all of us. What’s next? Maybe he screws up a speech when addressing Wackomujinadad while sucking up to him? Then what? He is FAR too inexperienced and has surrounded himself with a bunch of people more corrupt and full of bull sh.. than himself. They will do anything to gain the White House simply to satisfy their egos, even if it means plunging this once great country ever deeper in the pile of socialist, “don’t hurt anyones feelings” crap it is already in. This was at one time a proud country that has been slowly and steadily torn apart and castrated by the democratic party with their ‘America owes the world’ attitude and policies. He’s a wimp to put it simply, and putting a wimp in the White House in this day and age will be the biggest mistake this country has ever made. We’ll go from castration to estrogen pills before we can even pick out a good pair of panties and a bra that REALLY fits.
Love it or leave it…Enough said.
Comment by Be Afraid — 07.17.08 @ 10:03 pm
Let’s go ahead and use the accepted English term — brownshirts. (And that is the first thing I thought, as well.)
Fact of the matter is, we already have the force he is talking about, because the US military, along with the National Guard and the local and state police, are civilian bodies. We just need to remind them of that.
And then there is always the militia, but Obama doesn’t like that.
Comment by Phelps — 07.17.08 @ 11:13 pm
Congrats, by the way. You’re about the first blogger I’ve read that conceded ANYTHING voluntarily. You better be careful, though; people might label you a flip-flopper!
Comment by diogenes — 07.17.08 @ 11:13 pm
Thanks, LaShawn, for doing a post about this. I saw this linked on Hot Air a couple of days ago and can’t believe the MSM has not reported anything about this. On Michelle Malkin some commenters have brought it up, but it should getting a LOT more press. Like Plains Feeder states, this is just like the Chinese Red Guard student organization that wrecked havoc on that nation in the 1960s.
It is truly shocking that a presidential candidate would want this type of communist organization every bit as funded as our military, presumably with weapons. Imagine La Raza in this “civilian national security force” patrolling our streets.
This is the craziest, scariest proposal by any presidential candidate ever. This should not be forgotten and constantly brought up before the election. Obama needs to explain what he means by proposing such an organization.
Comment by Gabe — 07.17.08 @ 11:22 pm
Phelps–
you have me very confused. How are the military, the National Guard, and the police civilian bodies?
That makes absolutely zero sense.
Comment by Trish — 07.17.08 @ 11:43 pm
Could this “civilian force” be Obama’s Geheimstadtspolizei?
Or perhaps his Sicherheitsabteile?
Comment by Bill Brown — 07.18.08 @ 2:05 am
Fear the government that fears your guns. If only the government has the guns, then they can do as they please. Obama has shown that he is going to start taking those steps is elected president. Remember the next POTUS gets to pick at least one member of the Supreme Court, and we still have the 2nd amendment by just one vote.
Comment by vegas art guy — 07.18.08 @ 10:56 am
Jeez, I thought “America, love it or leave it” was exposed as the fraud it is back in the Nixon/Archie Bunker days…….
PLEASE take the time to read and listen before you jump to conclusions that others lead you to. If you’re so willing to conclude that Obama meant his own little group of brownshirts, consider this:
In that July 2 speech, there’s nothing before the statement in question, or after that statement, that would hint that that was his intention.
Before July 2, he’s never said anything that would lead one to believe he’s looking for brownshirts. And there’s nothing he’s said since July 2 that would logically lead to that conclusion.
Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party would get far if they were publically espousing American brownshirts.
Take a chill pill, folks, and THINK!
Comment by diogenes — 07.18.08 @ 1:05 pm
Diogenes,
I agree that the rhetoric about brownshirts is a bit hysterical if not simply hyperbolic. But I think the point is that a Presidential candidate proposed the creation of a “civilian national security force” and not one of the people that are SUPPOSED to ask questions felt the need to ask for clarification.
Perhaps Obama meant that he wanted to expand the Peace Corps, and by “well-funded” he only meant to the extent of the work he would require for them. Or maybe he wants to create his own SS out millions of high schoolers. In either case, WE DON’T KNOW. And the fault for that lies with the media, the Obama campaign and Obama himself. Sometimes silence is deafening and you can’t help but scream back.
Comment by Gabe — 07.18.08 @ 2:00 pm
Maybe because they didn’t think any clarification was really necessary, since nobody but the radical fringe of Obama haters would think, for even a millisecond, that his words would be construed the way they have been by neocon bloggers?
But I’m sure that, if enough of the whackos participate in this feeding frenzy, and if enough whackos get more and more outrageous about their interpretations of what Obama meant, the Obama people will post the correct info on “Fight the Smears.” Because that is exactly what this whole exercise is: just another smear attempt.
Comment by diogenes — 07.18.08 @ 2:21 pm
Don’t take my word for it, look at Obama’s words:
“As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer.
“So we are going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We’ll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, to be there for our military families. And we’re going grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
Comment by diogenes — 07.18.08 @ 4:50 pm
diogenes,
Try this:
If the concerned citizens, who are speculating about Obama’s statement,(“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”)will calm down and be patient, I am certain that Senator Obama will clarify his statement before the general election.
Name-calling derails the discussion and detracts from your impact. Questioning a candidate’s public statements, and speculating about their meaning in the absence of clarification, does not constitute a smear attempt.
I look forward to Senator Obama’s clarification, but I am not holding my breath. From my first post, you can see that I believe he was just throwing out what he thought the crowd wanted to hear, and he has no intentions of delivering anything that could be called a civilian national security force. Call me Cynical.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.18.08 @ 5:34 pm
“restoring our standing in the world” WHAT? The President of the United States of America takes an oath to uphold OUR Constitution, and we are citizens of the greatest country on God’s green Earth. I don’t believe that Barack Obama believes in American exceptionalism, and don’t understand why he is running for President in THIS country!
Comment by Tom TB — 07.18.08 @ 6:07 pm
What “clarification” does he need to offer? He said what he meant to say in that speech, if anybody would take the time to actually read it and think. Heck, you don’t even have to read it: LISTEN TO THE TAPE! Not just two sentences plucked out of the middle, without any context.
But that takes time and effort and, most importantly, an open mind. There are damn few of those here, what with “America, love it or leave it” and expressions that we’re the best damn country in the world, we’re God’s chosen people, and the rest of the world be damned! Haven’t we seen, in the last eight years, where that gets us?
We had the sympathy, the empathy, and the support of almost the whole world behind us after 9/11, and we pissed most of it away by believing we could do whatever we want to whoever we want whenever we want to do it. Even if that’s true (and I don’t think it is) the time may come when we wish we hadn’t acted like the schoolyard bully.
Comment by diogenes — 07.19.08 @ 1:06 am
I did listen to the tape. He clearly states that we need a civilian security force ON PAR with our military. I don’t think he means it, though. Besides, it doesn’t jive with his call for community activism, environmental cleanup or Veteran career counseling.
We have seen the folly of trying to appease those who despise us. Sending the Peace Corps to teach people not to crap in their drinking water and picking up trash along our roadways is good and all, but it has absolutely no bearing on dealing with people who think they will be rewarded with virgins in Heaven for killing my countrymen. You have to kill them, until there are no more to be killed. They can’t be reasoned with. Negotiations with those fanatics is an exercise in concessions that benefit ONLY our enemies. They laugh as they violate our agreements.
Sympathy from the world is worth squat. That ‘we benefit by being a victim’ mentality is one of the reasons we are in the state we are in now. Confining your critisism to the past eight years is very revealing, too. Like the Taliban saw Bush elected and suddenly scrambled to attack? Yeah, right. Open mind.
The United States IS the best damn country in the world. We are no bully, either. The U.S. has done more to CONFRONT bullies and foster liberty than any nation in History. ‘Love it, or leave it’ is a fantastic sentiment. Be grateful you have the liberty to leave. I have stood on the front line against nations that would shoot you down for attempting to escape their tyranny. If anyone thinks there is a better nation, one whose approval they seek, they are free to renounce their U.S. citizenship and fulfill their ambitions. What they are NOT free to do is to trade away our freedoms for some imaginary security and hope that other nations will ‘like’ us. I won’t tolerate it, as that falls under the ‘domestic enemy’ clause in my Oath to the Constitution.
When you say, “believing we could do whatever we want to whoever we want whenever we want to do it”, I have to believe you are talking about Iraq. You may not be aware that was authorized by a UN resolution. You might, also, be unaware that there was a coalition of willing participants in enforcing that UN resolution.
Here is the thing you won’t see in any press release. The UN resolution was just the excuse we used to try to promote a Democratic government in Iraq. The real REASON was that a potential Democracy in the middle of the Middle East is the worst nightmare of radical Islamists. THAT threat of a Middle Eastern Democracy is the reason we haven’t been attacked again. I think it has been called a ‘psychopath salt-lick’, attracting our enemies, and preventing them from focusing their efforts on U.S. soil. There is no Al-Quaedia we can invade, and Afghanistan already defeated the USSR, so we aren’t falling into that trap as the central front to draw out our enemies. Afghanistan requires cooperation from the tribes and is more suited to SpecOps forces. Iraq was the best, legal place to get our enemies to expose themselves.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.19.08 @ 3:36 am
We have A Civilian National Security Force already. Please promote it in your community.
http://www.TheCrest.org
Comment by quicksilverdime — 07.19.08 @ 9:33 am
Damn, you’re so right, CorbinKale. I am SOOOOOO psyched now. Is there anything I can bomb?? Somebody or something else that W doesn’t particularly care for?
Comment by diogenes — 07.19.08 @ 2:10 pm
I knew we could agree on something.
Contact Clinton for your bombing missions. I think there is another aspirin factory in Sudan.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.20.08 @ 1:04 am
Do they actually allow you to vote, C K ? I mean, they allow you a day pass and everything?
Comment by diogenes — 07.20.08 @ 1:19 am
Predictable. When your reasoning fails, make personal attacks.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.20.08 @ 4:18 pm
When “reasoning” consists of calmly explaining why we could invade a country, under the pretense of WMD, to that we could try to export democracy at the end of a rifle…
When you cooly suggest that Iraq was a really convenient place for us to attract terrorists, so that they wouldn’t attack us here in the U.S. — without any regard as to whether or not Iraq might not appreciate being volunteered to act as a battleground for a battle that wasn’t theirs…
When you, in your best Archie Bunker imitation, suggest that “America, Love It or Leave It” is a “fantastic sentiment”….
your rants got all the respect they deserved.
None.
Comment by diogenes — 07.20.08 @ 8:24 pm
My cool, calm ‘rants’ are meant to explain how things are. Clearly, you have a vision of how you believe things should be, but your vision has fatal flaw. It fails to take into account two facts.
1. We live on Earth.
2. We are dealing with humans.
Failure to realize that human nature is the primary factor in ANY interaction on this planet, will lead you to a faulty conclusion, every time. Utopian fantasies are the classic example of such deficient reasoning. They sound like great ideas, but they never survive human contact.
Archie Bunker? I never expected you to respect me, or my opinions, but there is no call to insult me. While you disparage my right to vote, I have taken an Oath to defend your rights. I am under no delusion that I will influence your world view, but there may be some who will benefit from our discussion.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.20.08 @ 9:46 pm
Great thoughts. DON’t have a clue as to what you’re getting at, but great thoughts nonetheless. At least, if I hadn’t realized we live in a world with other human beings.
Surely you cannot be suggesting that it is perfectly OK for us to invade another country (Iraq) so that we can create a mess in their backyard instead of our own? Because that’s about as immoral as it gets, and to even begin to think that we may have sunk so low, supposedly in the name of “democracy”, makes it pretty clear that we no longer deserve our exalted status. If that is what you believe we did in Iraq, how can you then say we’re not bullies? Under such circumstances, calling us “bullies” may be the best treatment we could expect!
And as for the Archie Bunker reference: sorry, but the “love it or leave it” BS doesn’t deserve better than Archie Bunker. Why is it so damn difficult for paleolithic hardasses to realize that some of us love our country well enough, but we’re not so arrogant to think we’re perfect and justified in whatever we do, and that we need no improvement? I’m not comparing America to another country that’s better, up and down the line, although there are some things that other countries do better than America does. But I am asking my country, America, to be all it’s capable of being.
But that’s not the issue here, anyway. It’s whether or not Barack Obama was trying to pull a fast one by suggesting that, if he got elected, he’d surreptitiously establish a fascist Brownshirt corps to deprive us of our freedoms. If you believe THAT, then I wonder if YOU live in this world with other humans.
Comment by diogenes — 07.20.08 @ 10:23 pm
I love the smell of condescension in the morning.
Comment by Gabe — 07.21.08 @ 8:44 am
I’m loving seeing how the neocon movement is now reaping the seeds they’ve sowed over the past 8 yrs and in a panic as Americans are waking up. Obama ‘08!
Comment by hr — 07.21.08 @ 1:49 pm
Your vision of America becoming all it is capable of being is a wonderful idea, a worthy goal, a laudable undertaking… except it won’t work. It is a Utopian fantasy. A Socialist pipe dream where we trade our liberties for pretend security and prosperity. Ask the folks in Florida and Michigan about their primary votes. Obama said he was fine with completely writing off the citizens of two states because he didn’t think he would win there, and Clinton didn’t think she needed them. That is human nature, my friend. They VOTED to discount the votes of their own party members! THAT is Democracy? You bet it is. That is why I am here defending our Republic. When your kind gains power, people like me get our votes discounted, as you have proven. That is the difference between us. I want freedom for all of us, but you want power to restrict me, because you think you have a better solution. You seem unaware of your own human nature. I am going to bet you won’t mention your witty remark about my being allowed to vote anymore, but it is the perfect example of the flaw in your agenda, and the dangers of tyranny of the majority.
You keep ignoring two inconvenient truths, Iraq was ALREADY a mess, and the U.N. voted to sanction the invasion due to Saddam’s failure to comply with the U.N. resolutions. I am not ’suggesting’ we took advantage of the situation, I am TELLING you we took advantage of the situation. You may cringe and wring your hands at the harsh realities of the world, but the alternative was more attacks in America. I may be a paleolithic hardass, but I don’t think we are perfect, and I believe you love your country. I just think you have a simplified world view, which could be remedied by a study of human nature.
You seem to be saying that the U.S. is guilty of not being moral and nice, and we need to be punished by being taken down a notch from our exalted position. Which of our cities do you want attacked first? Make it a good one so we can regain some of that world sympathy you put so much store in. And then what? I believe Heinlein once said,”It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion, and usually easier.”
Back to the topic at hand, you can bet Obama is trying to pull a fast one. He has no intention of doing anything he says. He wants to be President, so he is working overtime telling different groups what he thinks each wants to hear. He can’t be impeached for lying during the election, so what does he care? If he loses, he probably won’t be the candidate next time, so he is going all out. He is, certainly, the agent of ‘Change’. He has changed his position on every major issue since the Primaries. Integrity and consistency are qualities we need in a President, and those are qualities of which Obama has none.
Comment by CorbinKale — 07.21.08 @ 4:19 pm
Diogenes, I think CorbinKale is right about human nature.
Group virtue is not the same as collective virtue. as a collective, it’s surely lacking, but to CorbinKale’s point, that’s really NOT the point of what he’s saying.
CorbinKale says:
“I look forward to Senator Obama’s clarification, but I am not holding my breath. From my first post, you can see that I believe he was just throwing out what he thought the crowd wanted to hear, and he has no intentions of delivering anything that could be called a civilian national security force. Call me Cynical.”
Keep waiting.
Comment by THEBIGDODDY — 07.21.08 @ 4:52 pm
Here’s my problem with Obama and his career as a “community organizer”. I worked for the Port Authority of NY&NJ at all three airports, the Holland tunnel, and the World Trade Center. I can tell anyone precisely what I did, and what I accomplished. What did Barack Obama do in Chicago? Can we see a public housing project that’s better today than it was before he gave up the academy for public service?
Comment by Tom TB — 07.21.08 @ 5:34 pm
CorbinKale, your cynicism is your problem, but please tone down the “I know better than anybody” attitude.
My flippant comment about your being allowed to vote was just that, flippant. I was referring to the fact that mentally deranged individuals usually cannot/do not vote. Granted it was hyperbole, but for you to hear that flippant comment to mean that I or any other group is looking to take away your right to vote is, well, paranoid.
Florida and Michigan? Not going to rehash all that stuff, except to say that, from a lot of outsiders, it was pretty clearcut: the DNC set rules, Florida and Michigan (for whatever reasons) didn’t follow the rules, and they got punished. Was there politics at play there? You bet. But again, it’s not some underground conspiracy to eliminate people’s vote.
Now, moving on. I’m sorry that you cannot see how it may not be a good thing for our President to invade a foreign country until false premises(lying to his own countrymen to boot). It’s way off-pooint to ask “which of our cities do you want attacked first?” because that’s not the issue. Who says that invading Iraq ensured that none of our cities would suffer another terrorist attack? That wasn’t why Bush went into Iraq; that was a fall-back way-after-the-fact rationalization for why we invaded Iraq, when WMDs weren’t there as he claimed.
We went after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we were having some success, and then suddenly Bush decided we had to divert our attention and go after a paper lion in Iraq. If anything put one of our cities at risk, it was that decision.
As for your closing rant on Obama the Politician, I agree, at least in part. He is a man seeking to be elected President and, like anyone else seeking that position, he wants to say and do things that will increase his chances (at least according to his own estimation). But how does that make McCain a better option? The longer this campaign goes, the more it seems that time has passed McCain by, and that he simply doesn’t have the cognitive capacity to do the job anymore.
All this is way behind the point, however, which was the silliness of many posters who feared Brownshirts in the Obama closet. On that, I believe, we can agree. The rest of the philosophical debate will play out in the next few months… and then you may have four or eight more years to rail against Obama’s policies.
It’s great to be an American.
Comment by diogenes — 07.21.08 @ 8:37 pm
diogenes, please tell us what Barack Obama has accomplished in his life. John McCain refused an early release from a North Vietnamese prison facility unless his brothers-in-arms were released as well. Barack Obama denounced his pastor of 20 years when it became politically expedient.
Comment by Tom TB — 07.21.08 @ 10:22 pm
That isn’t the topic, Tom, but I will fully agree that McCain’s actions forty years ago were as heroic as any I’ve heard. That, however, doesn’t make you presidential material, especially not after time has passed you by and you cannot correctly and immediately recall vital information that a President needs. Czechoslovakia, Iraq/Pakistan border, Shias/Sunnis is basic but immeasurably important stuff, and McCain way too often draws a blank.
Again, tremendous hero for what he did in those Vietnamese prison camp hell holes. But……..
Comment by diogenes — 07.21.08 @ 11:53 pm