Examples of Obama’s Decency
I’ve had some people demanding evidence — any evidence — that Obama is a decent or good man. I’ve learned as a lawyer and a blogger that you can’t convince someone who resists being convinced, and on the issue of Obama’s positive qualities, there is literally nothing I can point to that can’t be dismissed as Obama’s posturing for political benefit. But I think this is a pretty good example:
Barack Obama once said:
Too many fathers are MIA. Too many fathers are AWOL. They’ve abandoned their responsibilities. They’re acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our family have suffered because of it. You and I know this is true everywhere, but nowhere is it more true than in the African-American community.
He also said:
We need fathers to recognize their responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. Any fool can have a child. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.
It took courage to say these things. Bill Cosby said similar things and was pilloried by blacks. Jesse Jackson reacted to Obama’s comments by saying of Obama: “I want to cut his nuts off.” A white candidate saying such things risked being labeled a racist; a black candidate risked being labeled an Uncle Tom.
Obama, to his credit, said these things and got away with it. When I blogged about this in July, I said:
[I]t’s wonderful that he said these things. America has been waiting for years for a politician to say this in a non-racist way — a way that fully acknowledges this country’s history of racial prejudice, but also insists that black Americans move beyond it and take responsibility for their families. It probably did take a black politician to say that. That he said it is a very good thing.
Conservatives should applaud Obama’s words, and resist the urge to reflexively find glee in the spectacle of a public figure like Jackson bashing Obama in such a vulgar way.
I oppose Obama because I don’t like what much of what he stands for. But on this issue, in the language I quote above, he’s right.
Another example: Obama consistently reacted to boos of John McCain by telling his crowd: don’t boo. Vote.
This appears to have been his standard response.
The people who don’t want to be convinced that Obama is a decent guy will dismiss this too, as they dismiss any similar evidence of Obama’s decency. They would prefer to see Obama flagellate himself; they see that he has found a way to turn the booing to his own advantage, and are offended by that fact.
Well, guess what? He’s a canny politician, and he found a way to neutralize the ugliness and turn it into something positive for his candidacy. But the key thing is this: he had a campaign that was nominally conducted on a higher plane. (It wasn’t, always, but it mostly was.) This was easier for him to do than it is for most, because he was running against a man seen as representing the policies of the least popular President in memory. But he still did it — and he enforced the higher plane by consistently calming booers at his rallies.
Also, when it emerged that Sarah Palin’s daughter was pregnant, Obama also clearly said the topic should be off-limits:
Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
“Let me be as clear as possible,” Obama said. “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.”
Obama said reporters should “back off these kinds of stories” and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.
People who want to believe Obama is a bad guy can dismiss this, too, as the politic response. But he didn’t have to go as far as he did. He could simply have said “no comment.” He could have tossed in a (misguided but effective) jab about abstinence-only education. He didn’t have to talk about his mother.
Those who don’t want to be convinced of Obama’s decency will say that he should have denounced the ridiculous rumors about Trig Palin’s parentage. I think it was better for him to leave that particular rumor alone, and not add fuel to the fire.
I think Obama handled the incident with class, and Americans appreciated it.
Those of you who read only conservative blogs may already be aware of all of this, but I’m certain that some of you aren’t. Because some of you have specifically said that you never heard of Obama taking decent actions like the ones I describe above. But he has.
Finally, Obama appears to be a decent family man who loves his wife and children — and, as far as we know, hasn’t cheated on his wife. (Yes, there are fever-swamp rumors to the contrary, but there were rumors like that about Palin, too. Unless those rumors are proved, I’ll assume they’re not true.) It’s a shame when it seems like this quality is becoming rarer, but it is: ask Bill Clinton, or John Edwards, or Eliot Spitzer, or Larry Craig, or Antonio Villaraigosa, or 50 other guys like them.
This, too, is evidence of Obama’s decency and goodness.
I have said many times that I’m not blind to the other side of the coin. Obama played the race card on more than one occasion. He said false things about John McCain. He has associated with some sleazy and awful people for political advantage. And the list goes on. Again, we’re not talking about a perfect guy.
But we’re not talking about an evil or a bad man either. We’re talking about a good and decent man, who has done some bad things, and who believes in far-left policies that will harm this country.
At this point, we’ll be better off if we focus on the policies. And that’s the last thing I intend to say on this subject.
Ditto!
Comment by C. Norris — 11/7/2008 @ 7:15 am
A sad commentary on the damage that “political correctness” has done to this country: Merely stating an obvious fact - i.e., “more black men need to take care of their children” - is characterized as a “courageous” act.
Comment by Bubba Maximus — 11/7/2008 @ 7:15 am
We don’t care about what he says, “You hippoObamic lion bass”, we care about what he does!
Talk is cheap, especially when there are a million, and I use the term advisedly, ‘journalists’ who are willing to cover his back, and attack Palin anyway. Did Obama deny access to the press that attacked Sarah Palin? No, he denied access to those in the press who attacked him. Obama could have eaten a dead baby on the capitol steps and the media would have reported on Obama’s slimming diet.
What has he done that shows him to be a good man? What exactly the fuck has he DONE that leads you to believe that he is a good man?
Oh, and lets consider your “Chris Rock” defense of Obama’s treatment of his family. He loves his kids and is faithful to his wife. “YOU’RE SUPPOSED TOO!!”
Comment by Jack — 11/7/2008 @ 7:18 am
You had months/years to focus on his policies. Conservatives didn’t, because conservatives know they have no authority or credibility on any policy issues. No, you chose another road; racist fear-mongering.
It’s going to be fun watching your side over the next four years pretending that Obama is a bad President.
Comment by chicken marsala — 11/7/2008 @ 7:19 am
I pressed enter by mistake on my previous post.
The Chris Rock defense of behavior you supposed to do. It is another racist double standard. Wanting credit for stuff your supposed to do.
I want to hear your explanation to your daughter when she asks why she has to do 50 hours of mandated community service to graduate high school, after the inevitable indoctrination session about why she is a racist by virtue of the fact that she is white.
AS for the ‘boos’, the only thing they were doing was cutting into his speaking time. Here’s a question, did Obama ever try to quiet the crowd when they were chearing him?
Comment by Jack — 11/7/2008 @ 7:27 am
Everyone is a one issue voter.
Mine:
Anyone who can oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act is evil. Evil, by definition, removes a person from the ranks of decent people.
At risk of invoking Godwin’s law by proxy - Mussolini’s mistress thought he was a decent fellow, too.
Comment by quasimodo — 11/7/2008 @ 7:30 am
“But we’re not talking about an evil or a bad man either. We’re talking about a good and decent man,”
Good and decent men do not attend racist churches for 20 years. Totally disagree with you here. How about you troll outside a KKK rally for a babysitter?
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:34 am
Pat, I’ve held my tongue on the subject so far.
While I agree with you that Obama has done some decent things, I think the trouble for many posters here is that the bad things he has done outweigh the good.
Just where the tipping point is differs for each person. But those who say, based on his actions, that Obama is not a good person have just as valid an argument as you.
Comment by Steverino — 11/7/2008 @ 7:35 am
I typed that wrong. It was would you sit outside a KKK rally looking for a baby sitter? Alot of good men there I bet. They probably don’t cheat on their wives and tell their kids to do good in school too.
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:36 am
We will never make it as long as people continue to convince themselves that abortion is some massive political issue.
Comment by chicken marsala — 11/7/2008 @ 7:37 am
By the way it is hilarious when the only “proof” you have that he is a good man is freakin words. You point to the fact he “said” or he “spoke” not that he “did” or he “acted”. A man is known by his freakin actions not his words. I knew that by the time I was 5.
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:37 am
Chicken go concern trolling over at Kos and see how long it takes you to get banned.
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:38 am
I’d love to see you talk about what ‘actions’ Obama has taken that prove he’s a bad person.
Comment by chicken marsala — 11/7/2008 @ 7:39 am
Say something?
Comment by chicken marsala — 11/7/2008 @ 7:42 am
“It took courage to say these things.”
Hahahahhahahaahahhahahahahhahahahahahha. Sorry words take no courage unless you have reasonable cause to believe that you will be crucified for them. He could tell black people he was a martian and they would still vote for him at over a 95% clip. WTF are you smoking. He had nothing to lose by saying those words. They were an appeal to whites after the Wright issue came up. It was so he could say “look I am not Jessie Jackson or Rev. Wright it is ok to vote for me.” He said that crap after Wright look it up. It was political expediency.
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:45 am
AS for speaking the obvious, oh yes such a courageous act. But how often did he repeat it, as opposed to how often he repeated ‘hope and change’. My bet, he said it once and he won’t be saying it again.
The self destructive behavior of, especially, young black males, not to mention the destruction of the black family is rooted in democratic policies. Go figure. What did Obama have to say about that? Did he identify the origins of the Fannie/Freddie meltdown? NO. Democratic policies. Go figure. And who are his economic advisors? The very same people who cooked the books at Fannie and Freddie.
Just become a criminal defense attorney, you know you want to.
White people know what life is. Most of us just have to knuckle down and slog through it. That is how you accomplish something. When a black male doesn’t get stuff as soon as he wants it (think about Michelle’s comments about raising the bar) the accusations of racism start to fly. If enough of them get together, riots ensue. (If it is a true statement, is it racism?)
Why don’t you start to blog about black run democratic cities, Pat. Why don’t you show us how wonderful those places are to live?
He isn’t a good man…he is pathetically under-prepared, not vetted, under educated and arrogant.
Will he still be a good man when his goons start investigating you as they did Joe the Plumber? Will he be a good man when his goons start investigating you? Will he be a good man when they fire you for not towing the DA’s office party line?
Good luck with that good man.
Comment by Jack — 11/7/2008 @ 7:47 am
Oh yeah it took great courage to have his campaign issue statements that investigations into ACORN voter fraud amounted to racism and voter suppression. Yes those are the actions of one grade A American.
Comment by Mr. Pink — 11/7/2008 @ 7:49 am
Finally, Obama appears to be a decent family man who loves his wife and children — and, as far as we know, hasn’t cheated on his wife.
I know people who know the Obamas socially — their kids play soccer together — and they agree with you. Their impression of Michelle, person to person, is also a lot more positive than the one she gave in the media.
Comment by nk — 11/7/2008 @ 7:50 am
I have to agree with some of the people that say actions speak louder than words.
Was letting a campaign accept illegal donations honorable? Accusing your opponent of using the race card - before it ever happens?
I will always believe he was referring to Palin with his lipstick on a pig comment as he hesitated long enough for people to get the connection and start laughing. Or that he flipped off Hillary and McCain with his innocent scratches.
Or was letting your subordinates do all the dirty work while you soar above the fray honorable?
An honorable man is not just honorable some of the time.
Comment by MU789 — 11/7/2008 @ 7:51 am
How about voting to allow newborns who survived an abortion to be killed?
How about likening his own grandmother to a racist minister?
FWIW, I never said in my comment whether I thought Obama was good or evil. I did say that those who considered his actions and determined he was evil were using the same logic as Patterico was when he considered Obama’s action and concluded he was good. The weights and values differed, but the logic was just as valid for one side as the other.
Comment by Steverino — 11/7/2008 @ 7:53 am
Thank you for your reasonable comments.
President-elect Obama has come up with inspirational ideas to mobilize and inspire voters.
I think they are bad ideas for lots of reasons. But now it’s up to people who think that President-elect Obama has bad ideas to come up with positive, appealing counter-ideals.
But we have an uphill battle because his ideas come with hand-outs; ours are likely to come without handouts.
Comment by Mark — 11/7/2008 @ 7:54 am
Hi. That never happened.
Good thing that never happened, either.
That doesn’t make sense.
You…. are not smart.
Comment by chicken marsala — 11/7/2008 @ 7:58 am
Obama never had to say anything, because the press said it for him.
Comment by gabriel — 11/7/2008 @ 8:00 am
What I fear most from Obama, in domestic policy, is benign paternalism. That he will try to put us all in gilded cages.
Comment by nk — 11/7/2008 @ 8:01 am
What are the actions that prove he is a bad man?
Disabling the AVS system for internet donations. (Fraud)
His house and land deal with Rezko, who recieved millions in govt subsidies to, I say this laughingly, maintain govt. subsidised housing. (Corruption)
Flipping the bird to Hillary and McCain. (Disrespect. Lets see if he ever does that to anyone else)
Supporting the end of secret ballots for Unions.(Coercion and intimidation)
His sponsoring of the Global Poverty Initiative. (That gives the UN taxing powers on US citizens. Taxation without representation, support of corrupt regiems)
His (implied) support for unristriced immigration into this country. (Stupidity, and this will be the real destruction of the black community as Hispanics have a very low opinion of blacks.)
His membership at a church that advocates black liberation theology. (Racism. What would be the result of whites going to a white liberation theology church?)
Those were only some of his actions. But according to Pat, he is a good man.
Comment by Jack — 11/7/2008 @ 8:01 am
To elaborate further, why attack your opponent openly, when a sycophantic press will do 3000 page stories on your opponents wifes drug use from 20 years ago, or make up stories out of whole cloth about your mistress?
Obama knew all too well that he never had to go negative, because the press corps would do it for him.
Comment by gabriel — 11/7/2008 @ 8:03 am
I immediately praised Obama when he talked about the responsibility of fathers. I truly admired him for saying that, even if for very little else. I believe bad men are defined by their actions, and as has been made abundantly clear here and elsewhere, Obama hasn’t really *done* much of anything, and certainly nothing I am aware of, or can recall, that I could label as bad or evil.
I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if such actions come to be known, or take place in office. But I too will give him, and I hope for myself, give anyone the benefit of the doubt that they are not evil until proven otherwise through action.
Comment by Justin — 11/7/2008 @ 8:12 am
You fail to deliver the money quote.
OBAMA: It’s a responsibility that extends to Washington. We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them.
OBAMA: We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and –
OBAMA: — a larger earned income tax credit that can help them pay the bills.
OBAMA: We should expand programs where registered nurses visit registered, uh, visit expectant and new mothers, and we should help new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee that every worker gets more paid sick-leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income.
In Obama’s world, it’s all about what the government MUST do for the people.
Comment by cbharmon — 11/7/2008 @ 8:13 am
“President-elect Obama has come up with inspirational ideas to mobilize and inspire voters.”
Youngster, I think. Obama has the same ideas which Carter promised 40 years ago. They were miserably failures then and will be today. Unlike liberals, when conservatives pointed out the negatives in his ideas, we weren’t simply election campaigning. It’s the d*mn truth.
But as my wise mother commented last week, every generation apparently needs to actually experience the desolation of liberal policies before they understand. Jimmy Carter taught our generation well its hatred of liberalism and Obama will likewise.
I wonder if Obama will wear a red cardigan when he gives his “malaise” speech in 3 years berating Americans for their expectations and mandating turning the thermostats down to 50 degrees.
Comment by LogicalSC — 11/7/2008 @ 8:13 am
First, I am a conservative Republican.
I read this blog often and appreciate the intelligence and thoughtfulness of Patterico and his guest posters. I have never been moved to make a comment until now.
I think the people who have made the majority of the comments on this subject are precisely the reason why our party is in the crapper right now. Look in the mirror, people, and you’ll see why we lost.
Comment by Kevin — 11/7/2008 @ 8:16 am
I have a close relative who’s high up in police circles in the state of NH. He told me that in talking to the Secret Service during the run-up to the NH primary, that the field agents to a man *despised* Hillary Clinton and found Obama a true gentleman to deal with… and the Secret Service knows the candidates 24/7. This relative voted for McCain; not an Obama suck-up… for what it’s worth.
Comment by GuyfromNH — 11/7/2008 @ 8:17 am
So Obama is a DECENT lying, law-breaking Communist thug.
Who knew?
Comment by GaryS — 11/7/2008 @ 8:18 am
I think it is rational to look at Obama’s adult life where almost every move, especially in the public/professional realm, has been calculated. To think that the actions you mentioned are anything but political requires quite a stretch of faith in a man who has hidden much of his life. What we do know about him and his associations is not comforting. So a few sentences about defending family or talking about the role of fathers is not convincing.
The way I look at it…when you decide to marry someone, aside from love, you also assess that person’s actions in private and public, that person’s history, and the people that person chooses to associate with. If any of those areas bring up a big question mark, if you are smart, you walk away or move slowly forward.
I see it as no different with Obama….the public Obama is smooth and “caring” while at the same time his minions are attacking those who dare to criticize him; Obama’s history is full of radicals, Socialists, and those who hate America; A FEW statements of “caring” & “faith” don’t coincide with the history and action of the man….
In this analogy, I have no choice but to accept him as my President for the sake of the kids country….but if I’d had my choice, I would have never married chosen him in the first place.
Comment by sharprightturn — 11/7/2008 @ 8:20 am
The strikeout didn’t work in that last line…It should have read:
In this analogy, I have no choice but to accept him as my President for the sake of the (kids)country….but if I’d had my choice, I would have never (married) chosen him in the first place.
Comment by sharprightturn — 11/7/2008 @ 8:22 am
Bill Cosby gave a speach and the Lame Stream Media slimed him for weeks.
The ‘chosen one’ stole (is stealing now honorable and decent?) the speach and the Lame Stream Media made him a hero.
This shows how low the Lame Stream Media has sunk in the sewer.
I’ll never again believe one word from the Lame Stream Media.
Comment by Scrapiron — 11/7/2008 @ 8:23 am
Where the heck are all of these never - before seen nor heard commenters suddenly coming from? More than a few of the past few threads look a lot like conversations that have just been continued, albeit from another blog.
Comment by Dmac — 11/7/2008 @ 8:28 am
I love it when the Left tries to rewrite history right in front of our lying eyes.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 8:30 am
I picked up on this, while reading Jeff’s item at PW and decided to see what the row was about.
I think (as does Jeff, btw) that graciousness is in order. Pat has exhibited that and everyone with a conscience should support that intention. Bill Whittle agrees. VDH agrees. Every solid thinker agrees. So, let’s make that a given, for those interested in rational thought.
The issue at hand, is whether President-elect Obama is “good” or “not good” at his core.
We don’t know. The evidence is flimsy and ephemeral to say he is “good”. The evidence is anecdotal and associative to say he is “not good”
However, his lifelong attachment to a certain ideology or ideologies that are “not good” at their core, is far from being removed from the public debate. In fact, they are in play and under watch now more than ever.
He deserves a clean slate upon which to write his legacy. As an American first and a loyal patriot, he is my President and the role certainly deserves more respect than it has been given the last 8 years. Understanding that the role of our President is not the person, that it stands eternal regardless of the individual who temporarily fills it, is an important distinction.
But it is senseless to fight ghosts, aparitions and holograms. They aren’t real. Arguing against a “persona” is no more real.
We simply don’t know. That is why it is a waste of energy fighting (especially internally) about whether the “persona” is “good” or “not good”.
Focus on the ideology, the acts, the deeds and let’s not emulate the idiocy of the Bushhitler, Chimpy, asininity of feeble minds. Take the moral high ground and hold it.
There will soon be enough on the table to discuss regarding ideology and acts and deeds. Bill Whittle has had two brillian articles the past two days on the subject.
Comment by cfbleachers — 11/7/2008 @ 8:30 am
Dmac - HuffPo
cfbleachers - Good to see you around. Missed ya
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 8:34 am
JD,
You’re not supposed to continue believing the lies told during the campaign.
Political propaganda needs an expiration date to make that obvious, I guess.
Comment by snuffles — 11/7/2008 @ 8:34 am
“…please don’t take it wrong when I tell you that I believe that [Barack Obama], while a very nice guy, is the Devil….What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he’s around? Nobody is going to be taken in if he has a long, red, pointy tail. No. I’m semi-serious here. He will look attractive and he will be nice and helpful and he will get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation and he will never do an evil thing… he will just bit by little bit lower standards where they are important. Just coax along flash over substance… Just a tiny bit. And he will talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he’ll get all the great women.”
–with apologies to James L. Brooks
Comment by Rich Fader — 11/7/2008 @ 8:35 am
So, sniffles, demonstrate for us how that is political propoganda.
Did Baracky, or did her not, vote for the bill that allows children to be killed that were born alive after surviving an attempted abortion?
Did Baracky, or did he not, call his grandmother, the woman that raised him a racist, and a typical white person?
Plus, that comment that McCain lost your vote in the other thread was just beautiful.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 8:46 am
I don’t know that graciousness is in order as an imperative. Maybe it is maybe it’s not, as a practical matter. Let’s go hunting where the ducks are.
Comment by nk — 11/7/2008 @ 8:49 am
McCain could have had my vote, JD.
But if I wanted to live under a theocracy, I’d move to Iran.
Maybe next time.
Comment by snuffles — 11/7/2008 @ 8:49 am
Didn’t Obama promise to change corrupt government?
Rahm Emanuel New White House Chief of Staff.
Freddie Mac board member when they cooked the books!
Change! Obama style?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/07/emanuel-tied-to-freddie-mac-collapse/
Comment by ML — 11/7/2008 @ 8:50 am
Another thing Obama said, when asked a reporter question about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy….was….
My mother had me when she was 18.
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 8:51 am
No it didn’t. It takes courage for WHITE PEOPLE to say such things.
Delusional?
Comment by ccoffer — 11/7/2008 @ 8:51 am
In order to judge if Obama is a “good” man, perhaps a trip on the wayback machine is in order.
When he ran for office the first time, he was supported by Alice Palmer who wanted to seek another office. Once she lost the primary, she voiced her intention to run for her current seat again. In other words, she asked Obama to step back. He didn’t. So Palmer gathered enough signatures to be place on the ballot next to Obama. The “good” man sent in his goons to discredit not just some of the signatures on the Palmer petition, but ALL of them. Signs of a good man?
But he lost. But by the next time he ran for office, he had hired Mayor Daley’s buddy, David Axelrod. Obama won the primary. OK. But then, Axelrod convinced his former employer, the Tribune, to seek a FOI award on the divorce of Obama’s opponent, a divorce proceeding that had been sealed to protect the children of that divorce. Did the “good” man care that he was going to expose those children to slander and gossip? Nope.
Actions, patterico, not words, are the measure of a man for most of us. You can say anything. It is what you do, how you lead your life, that makes you a good man. I can say you are a “good” lawyer, but if you lose every case, you are then judged by your actions, not what I say about you.
Does a “good” man allow his own brother to live off a dollar a month in Kenya? What about helping those who come up behind you? Isn’t that what he told Joe the Plumber? What about the school in Kenya that he promised to help financially? They have not heard from him since he left.
No, these are not the actions of a “good” man. They are the actions of a man who will say anything in order to advance his own career. These are the actions of a man who does not keep his word. These are the actions of a man who feels he has the right to dictate to others while not being held to the same standard himself.
Do I think Obama is a “good” man? Only if it is applied to being “good” at his own self interest.
Comment by retire05 — 11/7/2008 @ 8:52 am
If it were not for michelle obama complaining that he was never home, she had to do everything, she might as well be single (early this year, before the overhaul), I could agree with you. However, in order for obama to fulfill his ambition, he was unable to be a real daddy/husband because of all his work and traveling, he did however contribute to the household funds, so at least he gets some credit.
Comment by Judith — 11/7/2008 @ 8:52 am
I understand that we can not judge the insides or very soul of a person, but we are told to judge a man by his deeds.
Barack Obama’s deeds include relationships with a US Terrorist, a convicted felon who buys political favors and a Pastor who preaches racism and anti-Americanism from the pulpit.
Obama’s campaign paid ACORN; he trained some of the ACORN leaders, he supports ACORN, the election fraud organization who has not compunction in using our tax dollars to commit fraud.
Obama’s campaign turned off AVS checking - meaning they didn’t care about US laws limiting campaign contributions and dictating that foreigners could not donate to US elections.
Obama has directly lied about his statements regarding sitting down unconditionally with foreign terrorist nations. He lied about knowing his aunt was in the country illegally. He lied about what he was doing in Kenya, helping a relative attempt to win an election there. We could list many more of his lies.
This are not things I “suspect” about Barack Obama (that list is much longer). There are things that I KNOW about him. I judge him by his deeds.
Comment by katablog.com — 11/7/2008 @ 8:55 am
He told them not to boo, that’s great. That deserves a shiny medal, and I know just where to pin it.
I’d be more impressed if he told them to leave Joe the Plumber alone.
Comment by Jim Treacher — 11/7/2008 @ 8:56 am
All good examples of political speech which I can applaud. Hilarious and pathetic that this is all you can point to in support of your benefit-of-doubt posturing, given the absolute reams of examples of his, not just leftism, but out-and-out indecency (infanticide), dishonesty (far too many to name), and deception (his entire GE campaign).
The number of sickening acts by his surrogates that have gone uncommented upon by the candidate overwhelm these rare examples of positive statement.
The totality of the man is so far in the red, if you will, that you post is bankrupt.
Comment by Jaibones — 11/7/2008 @ 8:56 am
All good examples of political speech which I can applaud. Hilarious and pathetic that this is all you can point to in support of your benefit-of-doubt posturing, given the absolute reams of examples of his, not just leftism, but out-and-out indecency (infanticide), dishonesty (far too many to name), and deception (his entire GE campaign).
The number of sickening acts by his surrogates that have gone uncommented upon by the candidate overwhelm these rare examples of positive statement.
The totality of the man is so far in the red, if you will, that your post is bankrupt.
Comment by Jaibones — 11/7/2008 @ 8:56 am
That is not what you said. You stated that McCain lost your vote, which carries the direct implication that he had your vote to begin with. You have never said one thing, nothing, that suggests that you agree with anything John McCain stands for.
Shut up, nishit @ 46. You should never speak of Gov. Palin after the vile things you have said of her and her children.
THEOCRACY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1eleventy
OMG. This is priceless. Baracky has no problem invoking his deity in his defense of opposing same sex marriage, and claimed that his religion informed his politics. Yet somehow, McCain was a threat for a THEOCRACY.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 8:57 am
You would think an educated person would know history is filled with brutal tyrants who were kind to animals and helped old ladies cross the street.
Comment by Wunderlust — 11/7/2008 @ 8:57 am
Thanks, JD. It is nearly impossible for me to get here, in the brief moments I have between tasks…my computer gets blocked incessantly trying to open up Pat’s site.
I went to PJM to post, because I simply can’t get in and out fast enough on my computer to post here. (I went through a backdoor, to “fool google, just to do this…but I wanted to get Jeff and Pat back pulling on the same end of the rope)
I missed you guys too. daleyrocks, the Dana’s, all the good guys…who I already KNOW are “good”! …wish I had a better solution.
Comment by cfbleachers — 11/7/2008 @ 8:57 am
Obama may well be a good man. We just don’t know. He definitely is a manipulative man as Evan Thomas, of all people, pointed out.
I will say this: I do believe this man loves his wife. I’ve carefully watched him every time after a speech or debate and his eyes lock with hers immediately and it’s easy to see a lot of communictaion going back and forth as well as love.
This for me is a very good thing, though there’s always the caveat: Macbeth and Lady Macbeth loved each other very much and look where that got them.
At any rate, I’ll give him a chance. Right now I’m so disgusted with the Republicans giving him a chance is my only option.
Comment by Leroy the Gentile — 11/7/2008 @ 8:59 am
I think Rahm Emanuel is a signal to a lot of people.
Mainly that a vote forObama was not Death for Israel! a la the ever brilliant Joetheplumber.
For example, did you all know that Rahm served as a civilian volunteer for the IDF?
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 9:00 am
Patterico,
I think that sentiments like yours and Rick Moran’s that are the only hope in convincing the under 40 crowd that civility and proper focus are the only good approach if conservative values are going to be considered by those who identify with Democrats. To be sure there are a lot of over 40 types who could benefit from using more civility and useful focus but the future of the party is with the younger folks.
The advantage you have is your age — younger people are more likely to take your views seriously and possibly emulate your example. While Rick writes great stuff, he is an old codger like me and has less impact.
I really do hope there are many more like you who speak out and exert that positive influence. If there aren’t I think the GOP as a party could be in very deep trouble. It will be through young conservatives that young Democrats can be swayed to reconsider their options and opinions.
Comment by voiceofreason2 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:02 am
Why do you only cite what the man SAYS, and not what he DOES? This man’s whole candidacy has been built on a house of sand comprised of what he SAYS, not DOES! The man says he could no sooner distance himself from Reverend Wright than he could from his white grandma. First of all, why point out that she’s white? Because it’s calling attention to race and not to the issue at hand. The issue at hand with Wright was that he had a real and personal relationship with Wright, refused to cut ties with this bigot, and then flipped for the sake of political expediency. This shows decency? To me, it shows disloyalty and a willingness to sacrifice a deep bond for political power.
The man also says that when a human gets rights is ‘above his pay grade’. But his votes show otherwise. Obama has clearly demarcated that even after a child is born, it STILL is not guaranteed the right to life or medical attention. First, do we really want a president who dismisses this question of God given rights as ‘above my pay grade’? Second, how is it DECENT to then state with authority (via his vote 4 times) that it really is not above his pay grade, but that he clearly knows that babies who survive abortion are not granted the right to life? Decent? Hardly.
Obama says that he wants to clean up Wall Street greed and scandal. Then he appoints Rahm Emanuel, who sat on the board of Freddie Mac as it was cooking its books to look financially strong and stable! Whether Emanuel was named in the complaint against Freddie is irrelevant. Obama is giving a position of prestige to a friend despite this person being accused of laziness and turning a blind eye to the impending crisis while on the board of Freddie! Decency? Not.
Deal with what Obama DOES, not what he says, fools.
Comment by RJ Chavez — 11/7/2008 @ 9:02 am
I have never said anything about Palin’s children
I have consistanly said that Palin is a textbook demagogue as defined by the Founders, and that she would split the GOP along the IQ faultine.
And I was right.
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 9:04 am
Rahm was also on the Board of Freddie Mac when they were cooking their books. Good stuff.
wheelers_cat is also known as nishit, quellcrist falconer, and griefer, and there are surely others. It simply pushes memes, no matter what the topic.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 9:05 am
Patterico,
He does not deserve a clean slate transitioning from Senator to President any more than Vladimir Putin deserves a clean slate due to his move from the Presidency to Prime Minister. Obama has a new job, but he is not a new man.
He is the same man who attended a racist, anti-semitic, anti-american hate-mongering church for 20+ years, and still had the gall to endorse the firing of Don Imus for the “nappy hair” comment.
Patterico, I think you are facing so much resistance to your evaluation because we have seen the damage that can be done by an overly charitable estimation of politicians. It’s the same error that makes so many people think that if we just keep talking to the Iranians, they’ll see the light and give up their nuclear ambitions.
I wish that politics could be conducted with perfect civility, and nary a harsh word for anyone, but anyone who tries that in the real world is unilaterally disarming. It’s foolish in foreign politics, and it’s foolish in domestic politics.
I say this because I do really like your blog, and respect your opinion. Your work holding the media in general and the LA fishwrap to account has been invaluable. If you are as tough and fair w/ the Obama Administration, then that’s all we can ask.
Comment by cnh — 11/7/2008 @ 9:05 am
Ya know, I would be so much more willing to praise Barack Obama for being a good man if I had heard ONE positive comment from any liberal over the last 8 years about the basic goodness and decency of George W. Bush.
Bush was elected in 2000 in large part because he promised to restore honor and dignity to the office of the President, after 8 years of I Did Not Have Sexual relations With That Woman and No Controlling Legal Authority and auctions of the Lincoln Bedroom.
And he did. Bush has been faithful to his wife, a good father to his daughters, and a good boss to his staff who behaved themselves and remained loyal to him.
And what did that get him? 8 years of hate and vitriol from the Left.
Comment by rockmom — 11/7/2008 @ 9:06 am
Bullshit. You mocked her Down’s child, incessantly, in thread after thread after thread at PW.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 9:06 am
4 and out
bary o’carter
inneffective, effite and a commie
Comment by PB — 11/7/2008 @ 9:07 am
Barack Obama was spared to the decision to personally go negative or not. The media did all the sliming for him. I think the true test of his decency (with regard to sliming his opponents) was how loudly he contemporanously condemned the media’s actions. I did not see him do this.
Indeed, his campaign’s initial reaction to the Sarah Palin V-P selection was a bucket of vitrol only changed when it became clear that the media would once again carry water for him.
My point quite simply is that this election tells us nothing about Obama’s character because the media did all the “indecent” work for him. Even the slimiest politician would in thier own self-interest would let this mighty wind blow.
As far as how he treats his family, it may be true that he behaves as a good father. So what. I understand that many mobsters treat their families with honor. Again this does not tell us he is a decent or honorable man.
None of this is to say he isn’t a decent an honorable man, just that we have no evidence of it that is worth relying on.
However, the people he choses to associate with does tell us something about his character. I could also point to statements in both of his books that tell us very clearly about the character of this man.
Swampleg
Comment by Swampleg — 11/7/2008 @ 9:08 am
So an example of decency was “Let me be as clear as possible,” Obama said. “I think people’s families are off-limits, and people’s children are especially off-limits.”. Yet again words don’t mean action as his campaign attacked Sarah Palin over Bristol and Trig. Decency is NOT saying one thing then doing the exact opposite. Decency means saying one thing and holding everyone accountable to it. I think Patterico you’re confusing decency with saying the right things to the right people to get elected.
Comment by Zaggs — 11/7/2008 @ 9:08 am
Why? Did he buy that too? You think after running a fraudulent campaign, we should get the the day after election day and wipe the slate clean? This is not something Obama did 20 years ago (that was drugs, and for that, assuming he’s not continued, he deserves a clean slate), this is something he did continually for the last 2 years to win an office that you now want us to wipe the slate clean.
Comment by katablog.com — 11/7/2008 @ 9:08 am
It seems like it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a freelance, high-profile conservative blogger attempt to make this sort of distinction.
Your stand is a good stand. It’s impeded, as I’ve said before, by the conservative blogosphere’s propensity to treat every negative rumor about one of their targets as a fact, and to immediately attribute the worst possible motives to every remotely anomalous event. Readers take it seriously.
A few noteworthy comments by others:
I think the people who have made the majority of the comments on this subject are precisely the reason why our party is in the crapper right now. Look in the mirror, people, and you’ll see why we lost.
But it is senseless to fight ghosts, aparitions and holograms. They aren’t real. Arguing against a “persona” is no more real.
We simply don’t know. That is why it is a waste of energy fighting (especially internally) about whether the “persona” is “good” or “not good”.
cfbleachers is especially worth pointing out - it’s very hard to note the true persona of any politician. There’s a lot of scripting. It’s good to be resistant to forming fixed ideas about the moral character of people you don’t personally know.
It is indeed a good idea to judge by words and actions. The problem a lot of commenters here have is that, to satisfy themselves emotionally, they don’t make a serious attempt to understand actions. You can’t read only conservative, or only liberal, blogs, and seriously understand anything going on in the political world. There’s too much spin.
That’s how some people seem to have equated the 100-year-long problem of verifying voter names with, for example, a campaign to subvert democracy.
It’s funny to watch people who fervently distrust every word said by the media towards people they do like, fervently treat every media report against someone they do not like as gospel.
Comment by glasnost — 11/7/2008 @ 9:09 am
>>> It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.
Of course, Obama misses the corollary: It’s the courage to keep the child that makes you a mother.
or, even better, since it states a right separate from parentage: It takes courage to allow an aborted child born alive to live.
When Adolf Hitler was not killing Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, or Catholics, he was a nice guy.
And, guyfromNH, if I were Hillary I’d despise the Secret Service too. I’m betting that they aided and abetted her husband’s infidelities. John and the steam tunnels, all over again.
Comment by unclesmrgol — 11/7/2008 @ 9:09 am
Jim Treacher, do you know what I think?
In this shakespearean tragi-comedy, Joetheplumber is Bottom, the Comic Rustic.
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 9:10 am
I agree that Obama appears to be a decent man. I’m genuinely grateful that I get to pray for and follow a man who has (apparently) kept his first and most important oath of office–his marriage vows. No matter how often people told me that Bill Clinton’s private life was none of my business, I never could get over his infidelity… and that was BEFORE he shook his finger in the face of the American people and lied to us all. Obama is a refreshing change.
I do wonder how the President-Elect is going to deal with all the expectations of his followers. His campaign was a Rorschach blot of “hope” that is bound to disappoint somebody. His open-ended promise of “change” created a coalition of people who can’t possibly all be satisfied with reality.
The biggest test for Obama, in my opinion, comes when the moonbats demand something they just can’t have. I have no idea how he’s going to handle that moment. A truly “decent” man would gently but firmly tell them they just can’t get what they want, and take the consequences. I hope he does that… but I’m waiting to see.
Comment by Scott Somerville — 11/7/2008 @ 9:11 am
I think there are bad men in this world who can, at times, say good and decent things. Mobsters are loved by their families, who think they are good and decent men for providing and protecting them. Hitler swayed millions of people in weeping, adoring, euphoric crowds much as we saw on Tuesday night. He was beloved. Terrorists are well regarded by their own people, and loved by their families. Many times they are hospitable and charming. They can even, at times, be kind. Mahmoud Achmedinejad has many admirers in his land and our own - he’s a snappy dresser and very charming, we’ve been told. That does not make any of them good and decent men.
My point is not to equate Obama with such men (that would be pointless hyperbole), but to point out that it is manifestly ridiculous and simplistic to say a man is decent because he has said a few nice things. That is a viewpoint that is naive and lacks discernment.
If you look at the core of a human being whose choices, associations, and actions are manifestly indecent, then NO, he is not a good and decent man.
We’ll all see very soon, as we judge the inner man Obama by his choices and actions in power. I know many people have already made their minds up about his decency based upon his obscene associations with terrorists, racists, criminals, and anti-Semites. I know I have.
You are known by the company you keep.
Comment by Redhead Infidel — 11/7/2008 @ 9:11 am
What others have and haven’t done should not in any way reflect what we ourselves do. What others think of Obama has not affected what I think. What Obama has done, his actions, words and deeds, is how he should be judged.
Comment by katablog.com — 11/7/2008 @ 9:11 am
Barack Hussein Obama is like most men with qualities that are admirable and then those that are less so. In short he is conflicted.
As a politician he has made deals with the devil. Ayers, Wright, Ryzko are clearly political decisions to advance his career. Then there is Obama’s clear decision to gut campaign finance hygiene by choosing not to care where his funding came from just so long as he could bury his opponent.
The last President that had such conflicts in his personal and professional morals was Richard Milhous Nixon. We can only hope Obama doesn’t end up there, in Nixon’s house of demons.
Comment by RichardB — 11/7/2008 @ 9:12 am
I did not “mock” Trig Palin, JD.
I said Sarah Palin has every right to bear a Down’s baby, exactly as someone who choses the alternative has every right to terminate.
And I said, real life is not Forest Gump.
Is that a mock?
No that, is the truth.
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 9:13 am
Is being decent attacking your opponent for being “too old, out of touch, cannot use a computer, 72, doesn’t get it?” Is being decent running ads that Palin is stupid or a poor choice for VP? No - that is not decent, and stop trying to pretend he did not run a dishonorable campaign. His change was more of the same. Hopefully, his presidency will not be.
Comment by Susan — 11/7/2008 @ 9:14 am
Is being decent attacking your opponent for being “too old, out of touch, doesn’t have character, cannot use a computer, 72, doesn’t get it?” Is being decent running ads that Palin is stupid or a poor choice for VP? No - that is not decent, and stop trying to pretend he did not run a dishonorable campaign. His change was more of the same. Hopefully, his presidency will not be.
Comment by Susan — 11/7/2008 @ 9:14 am
Decency is not running attacks on your opponent’s service as a POW for this country, especially when you have never served in the military.
Comment by Tina — 11/7/2008 @ 9:15 am
I’m one of those who reads conservative blogs almost exclusively, and have noted the comparative rarity of personal slights or slurs upon Obama, so if you’ve been seeing full-blown ODS running rampant in the rightwing blogosphere, I’ve somehow missed it. Admittedly, the relatively few attacks by the Right on his character are largely because so little is known of the man, who has been encased in a shiny, opaque, protective shell by the media and others, and this shell is made of a special, magical substance allowing it to reflect only sunlight and rainbows. Further, we were told by our betters the way Obama ran his campaign was the only measure we needed to assess his ability to run the country. Very well. How about those millions of dollars of illegal online and foreign campaign contributions deliberately engineered by the Obama campaign, for starters? Do honest, honorable men accept dirty money? And those attacks on Sarah Palin? Crocodile tears for the work of eager-to-please media surrogates. So don’t talk to me about Obama being a decent guy. By all accounts, Lenin had no known personal vices. He did, however, encourage others to rob banks to fund the revolution. Means and ends, that sort of thing.
Comment by Troy Riser — 11/7/2008 @ 9:16 am
katablog
No, he did nothing to earn the clean slate, the ROLE of the President commands that I let him start with it.
Anyone who has read anything I’ve written knows, I will pull no punches on ideological differences.
Soon enough, the slate will begin to be written and then I will offer my thoughts. But not before then. If I move before then, I am everything I have protested vehemently against the last 8 years…spoiling for a fight and not waiting for a reason.
Look, I understand the sentiment of wanting to bloody a few noses and give a “taste of their own medicine”. It’s simply the wrong tactic.
Emulating the worst behaviors that we condemned so vehemently for 8 years…drags us into the sewer and makes us hypocrites. Should we be wary and concerned? Absolutely, there are enough signs and signals that make that the ONLY reasonable response at this point.
But HOW we approach it should be reasoned, rational, calm and not hypocritical. And we should respond to acts, deeds…not suspicions, or what we think might, may or could happen.
Comment by cfbleachers — 11/7/2008 @ 9:17 am
Words have meaning.
“Criticize Obama’s policy and not his person.” means something very different than “Obama is a good man and should be given a chance.” The first, I wholeheartedly agree with. The second is rubbish.
If we point out that Obama said that ‘Families are off limits’ when the press went after Gov. Palin’s daughter, it is legitimate to wonder why Obama didn’t follow his own advice when going after the Ryan family.
If we point out that Obama said ‘Black men should be responsible to their families’ it is legitimate to wonder why Obama didn’t follow his own advice toward the residents of Grove Parc Plaza - the district he represent as a State Senator. He abandoned the families he represented to raw sewage, among other things, after steering state money for housing maintenance to Tony Rezko, among others.
If Obama does not follow his own words - however good or kind those words are - then it is legitimate to say that his words are not an indication of his inherent goodness or kindness. They are only an indication that Obama knows how to say kind words.
Comment by Adriane — 11/7/2008 @ 9:17 am
So, he states that doesn’t think fathers should abandoned their families? Fathers are supposed to not abandoned their families. And you think that he should be praised of it?
H
Comment by dave — 11/7/2008 @ 9:18 am
voiceofreason2, let me make this very clear: you are wrong.
The policy of “going along to git along” has been the downfall of the Republican party. When you become Democrat Lite, what is the point in voting for the imitation, why not just vote for the real thing.
You may think that core conservatism is dead among the under forty crowd. I seen it differently. I see a whole generation near forty that is learning there is no such thing as a free lunch. They are finding out that big government is not the answer and working hard for the things they want, is.
They are having children, raising those children to understand that they have to work for what they want, starting with good grades, and no one is going to do it for you, especially government.
And these responsible, hard working young adults are NOT aborting their young.
We will see a swing to true conservatism, Reagan conservatism, again. When the Democrats and their liberal views and legislation has so bankrupted us morally and financially, the pendulum will swing back the other way. But not until we stop “going along to git along”.
Comment by retire05 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:18 am
Nishit is another that chooses to rewrite history when convenient.
This is one rabbit hole I will not go down. Just wanted to let everyone know who this wheelers cat thing is, and what to expect.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 9:20 am
cfbleachers, we have had two years of Obama being presented as something he is not. It is not “wanting to bloody a few noses”, it is the fact that some of us are not buying the “aura” of the man who is now the President-elect.
Just because he won the election, his history, and his deeds, or the lack of them, cannnot be rewitten.
Comment by retire05 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:23 am
JD, linkage please.
For those of you that read objectively, this is Palin, and what she means in context of a Republican return to power.
Comment by wheelers_cat — 11/7/2008 @ 9:24 am
I keep ending up at this site, I like your observations. I don’t have time to read through all the comments here. However, I can assume that Obama is an intelligent, well read man.
I personally side with Orwell, Rand, and Hayek. And anyone who has read those authors knows, that someone who wishes to enslave you to a collective is not a decent person. If Obama wanted to change the world with a great big charity, that’s a decent man. But when he picks up a gun to make his charity work, it’s not decent anymore.
I’m a father, and I’m raising my children the way I was raised. I respect the President, I respect the electorate, and I respect constitutional democracy. The instant the President shows that he does not respect constitutional democracy, I will cease to respect him. That may never happen and you may be right. I’m guessing I’ll be proven right around, oh, I don’t know, 1:30 PM Central.
Comment by tim Delaney — 11/7/2008 @ 9:25 am
I’m a surprised by the Patterico’s latest pontification. Very little evidence supports his assertion that at the core Obama is good. Quite a bit of facts support the opposite. Of course, Pat can put his head in the sand. After all, Dan Rather claimed that Clinton was an honest man.
1. Obama’s charity begins with your wallet. His giving has almost been non-existent.
2. Obama’s house was bought with corruption. It was only when caught that he paid back the ill got wages.
3. Obama, his wife, his daughters attended a church that preaches racism. The key is that he took his children.
4. Obama, like Clinton, almost never attacked his opponent (while in front). He allowed his surrogates to attack McCain with racist accusations.
5. Obama lies about his relationship with Ayers and other radicals.
6. Obama promised to have public financing of the campaign. He breaks his promises when convenient.
7. Obama supervised the financing of what is probably the most corrupt campaign ever. The $200 loop hole allowed him to take foreign money with impunity. Witness the difference in spending between the last couple of election cycles (x3 for Obama..but judging by TV adds may be x10)…this was unprecedented..doubling the spending in 2000.
Comment by jkstewart2 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:25 am
I applaud the stuff O says about fathers.
As a woman, though, I’d like to see him tell the mothers a thing or two, also.
It isn’t as if many of these women are getting pregnant thinking they are in a stable relationship or are actively planning for a successful family life.
Women have responsibility too. Don’t have unprotected sex with a guy hoping he’ll marry you. Don’t have unprotected sex with a guy that has a babymama or two in the same city.
Don’t plan on having babies outside of marriage unless you can afford it on your own.
It is not just the men.
Comment by MayBee — 11/7/2008 @ 9:26 am
It is funny how you did not add your candidate of choice, John McCain, to your list of male politicians who have cheated on their wives. It may have occurred three decades ago, but it is still relevant to the discussion and should also be included. Even McCain called it his greatest moral failure. There are many like McCain who fail morally when it comes to respecting the sanctity of marriage. You claim to be so unbiased, but you really should have included that fact in this post.
Also, I find it hard to swallow that you find it perfectly decent of Obama to criticize the black American race of people for their lack of ability to maintain their family structures, but that it is not decent of Obama to criticize the Bush-McCain (Republican) approach to politics like giving tax cuts to the richest people in America that has, for example, led us to our current state of economic disaster. Black Americans have an excuse for having a collapse of their family structure. Their ancestors were enslaved for over three centuries in the United States of America and hence had all of their West African family values erased from their culture so that they could be better and more efficient slaves for, for example, the great great grandfather of John McCain. But, what is the excuse that Bush-McCain have for their failed policies? And what is your excuse for continuously supporting failed ideals that, for example, only help the top 5% of this nation grow economically while leaving the remaining 95% hanging? Also, what is the excuse of John McCain for NEVER having met with any of his black family members who are his relatives and whose ancestors were slaves and slave masters? How decent is that of John McCain?
If Obama was decent with respect to these moral issues, I find it hard to believe that he would not approach policy with the same kind of decent moral vigor displayed in some of your examples stated above. You really need to reevaluate your illogical reasoning.
Comment by Da Bombz Diggity — 11/7/2008 @ 9:26 am
A few days ago I stated that I would be removing Patterico’s Pontifications from my Bookmarks/Favorites and I called Patterico an “idiot” for calling Obama a “Good and Decent Man” (actually, I made the comment that “life’s to short to listen to idiots”). I was then told by another poster that if I was calling both Patterico and Beldar idiots, then I would not be missed.
Well, it’s very uplifting to see that about 90% of the posters here (so far) seem to agree with me.
And I did delete this site from my Bookmarks/Favorites. I found this “conversation” through hotair.com…
Comment by Dave Mattheisen — 11/7/2008 @ 9:28 am
And Hitler was really nice to his dogs.
Next topic.
Comment by Ed — 11/7/2008 @ 9:28 am
Comment by retire05 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:18 am
You missed my point entirely. There is effective persuasion and ineffective persuasion. The bomb throwing and hysteria serves the latter. Learning from experienced and articulate conservatives who know how to speak and write effectively advances the cause.
It has nothing to do with “getting along” and everything to do with results not wasted energy on anger.Want an example? Show a young person how to read their pay statement and interpret the percentage of various taxes taken out. Convince them to hold onto that and each year measure their pay against that one. Regardless of how the income changes they have a real metric to gauge how tax policy affects them.
But I guess I could spend my time sending out emails about Obama being a Manchurian candidate….
Comment by voiceofreason2 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:29 am
retire05, you will not find a word I have written anywhere that suggests I wish to rewrite anything.
I know precisely what has transpired the last two years and I have been extremely vocal about it.
I will be again. As soon as there are acts and deeds and ideologies to remark upon, I will be no wilting wallflower.
What I say now…is simply pick the battles. I will not fight for the sake of fighting. I will not descend the depths of depravity that I witnessed the last 8 years and emulate the asinine and turn myself into a hypocrite.
I condemned that behavior harshly, I won’t engage in it or bathe myself in it just because they did.
I will fight a better fight. Take the moral high ground. And if he does something I like…I will compliment him. Because I am the polar opposite of what I condemned. I am a man of honor.
Comment by cfbleachers — 11/7/2008 @ 9:30 am
Yes I am quite sure that, on a personal level, he is a good man. But do not mistake personal goodness for those actions he has taken in his life and those people he has been with. I have my disagreements with those, just as I have had similar with Sen. McCain, Gov. Romney, Sen. Clinton and quite some number of others. Being a good man does *not* mean you are a good leader or are imbued with the ability to make good and wise decisions.
As he ran on character, he has yet to demonstrate any outside of his personal life. Running a savvy campaign with the obedience of a willing press is not the same as being attacked for one’s ideas time and time again by a hateful press. We know less about Sen. Obama, even with his two autobiographies, than any occupant of the White House, ever.
I can quite imagine having a good time and chatting over lunch either with Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain and not venturing into their activities… just to sit down and have a normal, everyday chat. I have no doubt he is personally a ‘good man’ in that area. It is his life that he has hidden with the help of the willing press, that he has obfuscated and had only a few dedicated researchers looking into his actions, that tend me towards thinking otherwise than good or nice on a public scale. He purposely hid his only executive experience and did not want to be held accountable for his actions taken then.
That is not good.
That is not honorable.
It is a reflection of character, not how ‘good’ he is on a personal scale. I look at connections and how they are made and how decisions come about to have those connections. I look at the wide spectrum of terrorism, organized crime, gun running, narcotics trafficking and attacks on the banking system internationally and am disturbed by the similarity of activities being demonstrated by Sen. Obama to others in those realms. I can appreciate the skill that takes to hide such things, and even admire it… I do with Monzer al-Kassar and his ability to turn fruit into automatic weapons at sea, so a mere bit of sleight of hand with the CAC is really an order or five magnitude smaller, but in the same realm.
I don’t find *those* praiseworthy, nor something I would ever want to overlook, considering I have written about these people and their nasty ability to have critics silenced. Luckily I am not at the top of the list in criticism… and yet I can put one point of contact between the politician and the international, criminal arms dealer. That ends any ‘warm and fuzzy’ I have about Sen. Obama. You do not have to be a ‘good man’ for me to admire your skill…
Comment by ajacksonian — 11/7/2008 @ 9:30 am
Patterico…
I see your point in this post. I also read your post about Obama not being a bad guy and elevating to level of our political disagreement. I understand your points. Whether or not I daisagree with you is not my purpose. What I wish to explain is that if you are going to promote Obama as a decent man then you are going to nedd more and better evidence than “Obama once said” What I think your missing is the finer nuances of black political discourse and reasoning and why what he said about black fathers is not controversial or courageous. I show more courage vociferously arguing conservative principles when I get my haircut in a city that I’m not from (risk of a real fight) than Obama ever did behind the Secret Service and in a politcal position that does not allow for any real opposition.
Courage really? Obama said this as a leader of a new movement among blacks to resurrect their communities and divest themselves of victimization while a unknown community organizer? that would have been courageous. No he said it as the Democrat nominee for President, the first Black to win a major party nomination. And as such faced two chances for criticism, slim and none. Was Andrew sullivan going to race bait him? Hillary ended her campaign June 8th Obama uttered those words June 16th his decision was not courageous. In fact his actions are the exact opposite of courageous. While a community organizer he sided with the most depraved parts of Chigaco political society only t cut them loose when their purposes had been served.
If you want courageous Patterico show me an Obama that gets rid of No Child Left Behind, or campaigns on school choice. He said something about school choice once too, yet that is somehow missing from anything he has to say about education now. Obama is the least courageous politician I have ever witnesed. He believes in nothing that may hurt him politically.
Patterico I find it hard to cheer for something that 99.99% of black people know to be true but use to demagouge white people and the Republican party anyway. That the big lie. We black folk know the goverment cannot save us but cling to it regardless. It is an inheirited slave mentality. The same slave that wanted Hariet Tubman to go away and not make massa angry is the same one that now clings to the Democrat party. This may be a hard and ubly truth to swallow but it is true. And too many black people know it and remian silent anyway.
Obama would be decent and courageous if he called on black people to stop killing their babies at a rate of 60%. That puts him in Planned Parenthoods crosshairs, and is deeply offensive to your average Esence reader. You see we just aren’t supposed to talk about such things. When Obama’s rhetoric gets there Patterico we can talk about courage.
Comment by Rodney — 11/7/2008 @ 9:31 am
Are you sure about this?
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 9:32 am
I will forever be convinced that Obama is a Chicago thug politician who learned well from the Daley machine.
He has well learned the good cop, bad cop routine. He had Kos and HuffPo playing bad cop, with the media picking up stories from them. Then Obama himself could stand above it all after the story had done its damage, just like he did with his Senate race.
Comment by Daniel — 11/7/2008 @ 9:41 am
I whole heartedly agree that he is a decent person. I am totally against his policies and believe them to be damaging to America. But he was my professor in law school for a very small class and I got to know him pretty well. He is a good man who sincerely wants to help. He’s misguided and mistaken, but he’s got a good heart. Thanks for staying classy Paterrico.
Comment by JPutch — 11/7/2008 @ 9:43 am
Patterico, you use Obama’s statements about attacks against Gov. Palin’s family as a reason to think that he is a decent man. However, you left out some of what he said.
Obama: “I will fire anyone in my campaign who attacks Gov. Palin’s family.”
That’s a quasi-quote.
They kept churning out the dirt, and he never mentioned it again. Not a single firing. Not even a single public reprimand.
How does being a liar make one decent?
Comment by Troll Feeder — 11/7/2008 @ 9:44 am
I absolutely agree that the loyal opposition must focus solely on policy disagreements. We must be relentless in drawing the distinctions between our prinicples and those of the coming administration, but focusing on Obama the person will be fruitless, backfire, and accomplish nothing but earning the enmity of Americans.
I don’t doubt that President Obama has admirable personal qualitites. Let’s get on with preparing our criticism of liberal policies, and not trying to mock or criticize President-elect Obama the man.
Comment by Chad3337 — 11/7/2008 @ 9:45 am
Political propaganda needs an expiration date to make that obvious, I guess.
Comment by snuffles — 11/7/2008 @ 8:34 am
As so should you!
Comment by Another Drew — 11/7/2008 @ 9:48 am
That’s great. Too bad he continues to support the welfare system that caused men to abandon their responsibilities in the first place.
Comment by Bill Scrunty — 11/7/2008 @ 9:48 am
If past is prolog Obama fails in the decency category.
- He is an ardent supporter of abortion and voted against the Born Alive act at every opportunity. - Add to that he brought up his children in the “Reverend” Wright’s hate-filled church.
A decent man would have done neither, especially since he now tries to claims his memberhip in the church as just politically expedient. Sacrifice your children for expediency?
Comment by John Steele — 11/7/2008 @ 9:49 am
Obama could have nipped all this crap thrown at Palin in the bud. He chose not to. And don’t tell me he couldn’t control his followers and the MSM. He could and he did not. Screw him and his apologizers.
Comment by dave — 11/7/2008 @ 9:50 am
Don’t like to pile on normally, but agree with the majority of posters. A qualifier, I believe that BO believes he is a decent person and therein lays the real problem. Look at his abortion stance, you might be horrified at partial birth abortion, he sees it as not unfairly “burdening” his daughters and others. That is not surprising if you look at his parents. His mother was a hippie flake and his father was just plain not there. Our ethics are formed by our childhood experience and ideally directed by ethical parents. He was looking for direction, just went to the wrong place, e.g. Reverend Wright. That said, the fact that he believes he is a good and decent person, does not mean he is. The 9/11 terrorists believed they were doing the right thing when the plane hit the WTC.
Comment by Paul Gross — 11/7/2008 @ 9:55 am
Obama couldn’t stop Palin from opening her mouth, dave.
Comment by snuffles — 11/7/2008 @ 9:55 am
I see the Republican Underground forming here. It’s folks like these that voted Constitution Party in Oregon and cost the Republicans a seat.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/7/2008 @ 9:55 am
I’ve always felt that Obama has tended to act decently.
Doesn’t mean I support him. I oppose his policies, and I don’t like this cult of personality that seems to have sprung up about him, and that I think he has encouraged.
He may be a decent fellow, but he sure has a big ego, and seems even more arrogant to me than most politicians.
Of course I’ve known decent people who are also arrogant- they are not mutually exclusive you know. And I figure Obama will try to do what he thinks is best-
My experience however is that people with big egos tend to fall victim to “The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions” trap.
Guess I’m just saying that being a decent fellow isn’t enough. After all, Carter was and is a very decent man. In fact I’d go so far as to call him a good man. But he was a terrible President.
Comment by Cicero — 11/7/2008 @ 9:56 am
JD, yes you bring up a good point. There is a bit of ambiguity surrounding this topic. First, the United States of America was not declared until 1776. But as we know, American settlers were on the present day United States of America for centuries before that declaration. In fact, the first colony was founded at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. Most history books reference 1619 as being the date when the first Africans reached British North America in Jamestown. But, there is also evidence that in 1526, slaves were brought to North America’s Sapelo Sound which is present day the state of Georgia. So, taking 1526 as the original year slavery began on present day United States of America and taking 1865 as the final year of slavery due to the 13th amendment, I calculate 339 years.
Comment by Da Bombz Diggity — 11/7/2008 @ 10:00 am
What … WHO played the race card? You seriously doubt that McCain used it to his advantage with this terrorist crap?
Comment by joe c — 11/7/2008 @ 10:02 am
So apparently the race question is not at all settled.
Comment by JD — 11/7/2008 @ 10:02 am
Decency implies virtue. Can good intent [or the absence of bad intent] alone be a sufficient watermark for decency?
I, myself, have wrestled with the issues of Obama’s cynicism and opportunism versus decency and good intentions.
I have come to the conclusion that he is an empty suit–an cynical opportunist. I do not think he wants to save the country and our world. I think he wants to be President Obama, just like many other groomed politicians. Does this make him decent? Well it doesn’t make him indecent. Does the absence of indecency make him per se decent? I am of the mind that this is not the case.
I wrestle with this. I want to be generous, but I think his level and brand of cynicism and opportunism negates decency. So, to me, he treads somewhere in virtue’s limbo. What level of respect does that rate?
Comment by TMQ — 11/7/2008 @ 10:04 am
Lawyers are also trained to weigh evidence. Interpret Obama’s words and actions as you say - that they were sincere, not political maneuvering. Now set that against his desire to use government to take from Joe the Plumber to give to Jane the Floridian. Is that decent?
Jefferson and Madison didn’t think so.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison stood on the floor of the House and objected, saying:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
Is it decent to force students to undertake community service against their wills? Is it decent to announce plans to attack Pakistan but give Iran a pass?
Is it decent to select judges based on “empathy” rather than fealty to the Constitution?
Certainly, weigh all factors. But by what standard? Pol Pot was said to be a very mild mannered fellow. I wouldn’t want him in Congress. Woodrow Wilson was no doubt ‘decent’ by your standards.
Is the only thing that counts good manners?
Comment by Jeff Perren — 11/7/2008 @ 10:05 am
OMG. Patterico is now taking words Obama said (note: he did nothing) as evidence that he is a decent guy. Newsflash: Bad people SAY decent things all the time. They just don’t act upon them.
(In fairness, I didn’t read the whole post. It was kind of ‘wordy’.)
Comment by Kevin — 11/7/2008 @ 10:06 am
Is Obama a decent man? I have no idea. He might be, might not. We’ll all see soon enough.
But he’s a weak man. He does not control his followers. He’ll tut tut at those smearing his opponents, but they face no consequence. Those who attacked Palin remained in the campaign with the same level of influence. The astroturf king, David Axelrod, remained in charge, even as his dishonesty was exposed. He defended truly evil men like Wright and Ayers until they became inconvenient to him. He listen to Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines who benefitted greatly from the subprime crisis. He selected as his running mate a corrupt career politician who has steered millions of dollars to clients of his son’s lobbying firm. Didn’t know that? Please see R. Hunter Biden for details. You certainly won’t find them in the paper.
Now it appears that he has chosen as Chief of Staff a man who helped cover up wrongdoing at Fannie and Freddie. Ed Morrissey has some details at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/07/emanuel-tied-to-freddie-mac-collapse/
Even a decent man may be corrupted by being in a mob of jackels. Obama’s advisors suggest that his decency has a very dim future.
Comment by Ken Hahn — 11/7/2008 @ 10:06 am
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 11/7/2008 @ 9:55 am
Downstate OR resents Portland and the Willamette Valley as much as Downstate IL resents Cook Co.
There is a small, but active secession movement there to split the state, the Constitution Party is just the public face.
Comment by Another Drew — 11/7/2008 @ 10:07 am
2 words:
Bull. Shit.
Comment by docweasel — 11/7/2008 @ 10:08 am
I think Obama is a decent guy. However, it was not courageous to “go Cosby” with the black community. At the final stages of the primary race, it became very apparent that Obama had to do this to secure more white votes. He had the black vote totally in his pocket by then, but needed to show whites that he was not afraid to take on his bro’s.
Comment by Ron — 11/7/2008 @ 10:10 am
I’m not sure what Patterico means when he claims that Obama is a “good” or “decent” man. Are we talking about the presence of great virtue or the absence of great vice?
In reality almost all people do some good things and some bad things. The trouble comes in what ratio we do those things and how others value those things. That ratio/valuation judgment seems to flip a switch in our heads, and we start labeling people “good” or “bad” based on how we see the scales balance.
Is Obama a good man? I don’t know. It really depends on how you define it. Frankly I think Patterico is setting the bar rather low. Being truly “good” involves much more than doing what you should do anyway. It also has a lot more to do with how you act when no one is watching.
For me, I wouldn’t call Obama an especially “evil” politician - but he’s certainly no great exemplar of virtue either. Just a guy, with some disastrous ideas and a fundamentally flawed understanding of human nature. Good? Not so much.
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek — 11/7/2008 @ 10:10 am
Nice of you to try to give the President-elect the benefit of the doubt. Real sporting of you. Of course, he is now the head of a party that provided no such courtesy to President Bush and savagely attacked him from day one. And I am talking about its leaders and not just the rank and file. See if you can find a quote from Obama like, “Hey guys, that Bush-Hitler, war criminal stuff is a little over the top, isn’t it?”
Comment by a. moral — 11/7/2008 @ 10:18 am
President elect Obama starts with a clean slate.
Obama’s range of possible governing styles is huge-it’ll be somewhere between Hugo Chavez and Bill Clinton (although hopefully without the scandals.) Clintonesque governing (especially post 1994) is not greay but okay; Chavez’ is not.
Take Reagan’s advice to heart-trust but verify. The people have spoken, and what matters now is how Obama governs, not his past.
We’ll get another clue in just over an hour, when he holds his first press conference.
Comment by MartyH — 11/7/2008 @ 10:18 am
Ron, I disagree completely. He ran the chance of alienating African-Americans. Cosby has taken a lot of heat himself form community leaders.
Comment by CrushOnObama — 11/7/2008 @ 10:22 am
Do you believe essentially that with the election of Barack Obama, the United States of America is devoid of problems surrounding race? I don’t think that the United States of America has ZERO problems surrounding race. Remember that Obama is an individual black person who has managed to do great things. Certainly, there are other black individuals who have done the same, but that doesn’t negate the sociological evidence that scores of blacks are behind the general American population with regards to income, education, prison population, and so on… In my opinion since the proportion of blacks in America is about 13%, then 13% of blacks should be represented for example in America’s prison population. But, this is not the case. In fact, blacks make up nearly 45% of the US prison population. That is just an example. But, there are plenty additional statistics that show that blacks are underrepresented in the economy and education and overrepresented in negative aspects of society like prisons.
Comment by Da Bombz Diggity — 11/7/2008 @ 10:27 am
Mr. CrushOnObama,
You are the typical Obama kool-aid drinker… You think the black community would have turned in mass to vote for McCain? Nope - this was a political decision. Why didn’t he come out and say these things earlier in his political career?
Having said that, I am glad that Obama made these comments and that the black community starts to take some more responsibility. Who knows, we may see more folks turn from a “blame the government, (but want a handout from said government)” mentality to a more conservative “take responsibility for my own actions” approach to life…
Ron
Comment by Ron — 11/7/2008 @ 10:30 am
Guys, there are SEVERAL delicious cherries in this turd sandwich. Why are you complaining?
/Patterico
Comment by Lehosh — 11/7/2008 @ 10:31 am
Obama kicked his mentor (Alice Palmer) off the ballot for the
Illinois senate.
That was NOT a good and decent act.
Comment by Michelle — 11/7/2008 @ 10:34 am
“Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”
http://change.gov/americaserves/
I see your good man is planning on reviving involuntary servitude by “requiring” people to perform “service”.
Democrats have always been in love with the idea of forcing people to “serve”, in their cotton fields, in the armed forces, and now this.
They don’t see us as free men with rights, but rather as tools to be used as they see fit. God spare us from “good” liberal Democrats who have power.
Comment by Dave Surls — 11/7/2008 @ 10:35 am
Well said!
Comment by Vik Rubenfeld — 11/7/2008 @ 10:36 am
Hmmm… just to be clear… I mean, “Well said, Patterico!”
Comment by Vik Rubenfeld — 11/7/2008 @ 10:37 am
Oh, and PS:
Comment by TheUnrepentantGeek — 11/7/2008 @ 10:38 am
A few days ago I stated that I would be removing Patterico’s Pontifications from my Bookmarks
And yet, here you still are - how about keeping that promise this time?
Comment by Dmac — 11/7/2008 @ 10:39 am
Here’s what happens when you give good liberals power…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
And, you folks don’t have to remind what a good man Roosevelt was. I’ve been hearing it all my life.
Comment by Dave Surls — 11/7/2008 @ 10:39 am
This is not really a significant factor in determining whether or not someone is a decent and good human being. Certainly, not loving one’s spouse and children would weigh more heavily on the negative side than would loving one’s spouse and children would weigh on the positive side. Plenty of thieves, thugs, dictators and bureaucrats have loved their families. (By the way, there may actually be good reason why a guy doesn’t love his wife and kids. It would be a tragic situation, but it does happen.)
Patterico, I think you jumped the gun on reaching a conclusion that Obama is a decent and/or good man.
Comment by Ira — 11/7/2008 @ 10:41 am
Patrick is on a similar wavelength to the one John McCain was on when he told an anti-Obama heckler at a rally in early October that “I have to tell you [Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of.”
The vitriol unleashed in response to Patrick’s civility and balance is astounding. I suppose there are people, right and left, who are addicted to vitriol. But for the hatred, they would be hollow.
Comment by Tim McGarry — 11/7/2008 @ 10:42 am
It is not all that difficult for a man, particularly a politician, to talk as if he were a good man. But actions are a great deal more effective than words in helping define a man. Obama has siblings all over Africa and we know of at least one who lives in a hut in Kenya, alone and in need. Obama acts as if the man didn’t exist. Not a sign that he is a “good man.” Obama has an aunt in Boston who lives in public housing and has no income of her own- she is in the US illegally. What has Obama done for her? That’s right. Nothing. A good man? I’ll reserve judgemnt on the question.
Comment by mhr — 11/7/2008 @ 10:42 am
This man is now our President.. for better or worse.. my wife.. an extremely intelligent woman, ADORES him.. ditto my son.
However, I CANNOT forget his voluntary affiliations with EXTREMISTS, both religious and political.
Ditto.. several obvious efforts during the campaign to MUZZLE media outlets.
McCain was a LOUSY candidate..and he suffered from some terrible handicaps.. the economioc meltdown.. Obama’s race, which allowed ANY criticism to be labelled racist.. the OBVIOUsly BIASED media.. I could go on and on!!
I would love everyone on this web page.. whatever their religion, to pray that our new President’s actions are guided by NOBLE impulses.. and that he is in GOD’s hands.
Comment by robert schwalbaum — 11/7/2008 @ 10:45 am
Comment by Dmac — 11/7/2008 @ 10:39 am
For my New Year’s wish I would like sniffles and his ilke to do that too.
Comment by Another Drew — 11/7/2008 @ 10:49 am
Too bad, Robert Schwalbaum. Looks like your wife must be evil too.
Comment by BitterClinger — 11/7/2008 @ 10:50 am
Hmmmm.
Obama’s words are completely worthless.
Don’t listen to what he says.
Watch what he does.
Comment by memomachine — 11/7/2008 @ 10:53 am
Hey, I am no fan of Barack Obama. But I keep thinking about how the Progressive Left acted when GW Bush was elected. I keep thinking about the rude bumperstickers, and the endlessly repeated lies, and the fury and vitriol.
That last part is important. There must be a name for a Greek Curse: to act like those you abhor…even unaware that you do so. We are supposed to be better than that.
That does NOT mean I approve of BO. I’m different from most of you, because I teach people like Barack Obama every single semester. He wanted something, and now he has it. He isn’t deep and subtle, and I actually don’t think he believes in much other than his own sense of entitlement (much like Bill Clinton).
We can scream and rend our clothing and do all the things we deplored of the Democrats. Or we can truly be the Loyal Opposition. Continue to press for information. Hold the man accountable for his statements, past, and actions. Watch how the new President handles his new responsibilities.
This pursuit of perfection was counterproductive (all the McCain haters helped elect Barack Obama, remember).
But I well remember an interesting exchange from many, many years ago that bears retelling.
My PhD advisor was in the first group of researchers to win a Presidential Young Investigator Award. And as such, she was invited to a dinner at the White House, and sat at Ronald Reagan’s table.
Someone in my lab at the time groused that “Reagan was going cut the Fellowship program!” But the program was in its first year, and no budget information about the next year had been released.
The fellow in my lab was so partisan, he couldn’t even say that he thought it was great that Reagan was part of that program. Anything at all from Reagan was bad.
I confronted him and told him that if Reagan gave him 100 bucks, he would be furious it wasn’t 200 dollars.
He cussed me out.
So I don’t want to see conservatives act like that. There is plenty of time to go nuclear. For now, how about we say “Let’s see what the guy does, and if it is like he has done things in the past, we can start yelling then”?
Why act like the folks at DK or DU?
Instead, we should take all that energy and try to articulate, positively, why “our” way is best. Hearts and minds, without the histrionics. We’ll need that attitude in the coming months and years. Because I don’t think that Barack Obama is going to solve any problems. I think he will make things worse.
We have to change public opinion, based on the election returns. And shrieking and demonizing others will not do the job.
My opinion only. But ask yourselves one final question: does the infighting make Howard Dean happy? Because, you know, it does.
Comment by Eric Blair — 11/7/2008 @ 10:57 am
I still don’t understand how pointing out some nice words that Obama said makes him a “good guy.” Character goes far deeper than rhetoric. And if Obama has shown himself on numerous occasions to be duplicitous, to the point of smearing McCain, or at least tar and feathering him as a racist, how can he be at the end of that a “good guy?” Patterico seems to be using the same tactic of characterizing those who disagree with him as being beyond any reason as a cover when he says ” you can’t convince someone who resists being convinced, and on the issue of Obama’s positive qualities, there is literally nothing I can point to that can’t be dismissed as Obama’s posturing for political benefit.” So that is a way to dismiss others arguments out of hand. It seems to me that Patterico suffers the same affliction, although in his case, he can’t be convinced that Obama ISN’T a good man.
Obama’s flaws in character are what defines a good man vs a bad man. Those are deeper than words. the man was willing to destroy his opponents, he used thuggery, or at the very least, was aware of his surrogates use of thuggery to gain the white house. Would John McCain have