Is Obama Avoiding Facing the Military?
That’s how it appears:
A coalition of military groups is planning a nationally televised town-hall-style meeting with the presidential candidates near Fort Hood, Tex., the largest active-duty military installation in the country. But so far, only Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has agreed to attend.
CBS has agreed to broadcast the meeting live from 9 to 11 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, Aug. 11. The candidates would face questions directly from an audience of 6,000 people, made up of veterans, service members and military families from the base.
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate.
Obama advisor Phil Carter says that Obama “unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed.” That is unfortunate!! Except, the organizer of the event says she has always been flexible on dates: “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”
I guess he pledged to aggressively seek an agreement with the director on dates for the military event.
Considering that a large part of the job Obama seeks is Commander-in-Chief, why wouldn’t he want an excellent chance to articulate his Iraq policy since that’s a main campaign issue.
Then again, he’s shown more willingness to meet with the enemy than our own high-ranking military leaders before now.Paul (ae2fbe) — 7/13/2008 @ 1:23 am
Should we have the audacity to hope that Obama will change his mind and meet with our troops?
Obama won’t participate in this meeting because…
1. He won’t be able to control either the questions or the questioners.
2. He’ll actually have to defend both his past and current positions on Iraq and GWOT before a knowledgeable, even battle-tested, audience.
3. He knows the end result will be disaster: he’ll be humiliated on national TV and look like the not-ready-for-primetime-fool we’ve always known him to be.
Nope, better for Obama to issue a carefully-worded statement from Mt. Olympus and find some way to change the subject. That’s what “community organizers” do best, you know.MarkJ (7fa185) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:11 am
Invite Iran’s Imadamnutjob, Hugo Chavez or Nk’s Kim and Urkel would be only to glad to attend and without preconditions.
Where will Obambi get the bodies for his proposed shadow government paramilitary?madmax333 (08b259) — 7/13/2008 @ 6:33 am
Obama is too busy making speeches in Germany to Europeans to debate his opponent in front of American voters, so it is not surprising he could not fit in a visit to a military base either.
You gotta keep your priorities straight.sherlock (b4bbcc) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:19 am
Obama did not agree to meet with the military without preconditions, you guys. Only with our enemies. He knows where his friends are.MIke K (b9ce3e) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:26 am
MarkJ nailed it. The Dalai Olama is terrified of exposing himself to a crowd not filled with sycophants and true believers. The thought of making a statement and not receiving an ovation in response fills him with dread. When a rock star plays a song and is greeted with the sound of crickets chirping … that’s it! You go off to play the oldies circuit. That’s not such a bad thing if you were a star long enough to put out an entire concert’s worth of hits; when you’re a one-hit-wonder, however, and that one hit didn’t make it to number one. . . .
That’s why his campaign is based around the most basic, simplistic platitudes one could imagine: Yes We Can; Change We Can Believe In. Surface sheen with murky depths. He knows that he has to rely on people liking him more than liking his policies. America is hurting but Daddy Obamarama will make it better. How he will make it better is of secondary consideration when it comes to the campaign. It’s there, buried in PDF’s on his web site, for those who insist on substance to discover; and if they’re leftists like him they will be happy with what they find. Undecided moderates who venture there may not like what they find there — and that’s the reason for the glitz: Things will be better, because they can’t get much worse; We will fix things, don’t ask how; The candidate is so great, anything he does must be equally magical.
Within that mindset, the thought of going before a crowd that will accept nothing less than substance and clearly delineated positions is an absolute anathema.Icy Truth (cfc1c6) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:10 am
This is the man who says he will meet any terrorist, yet will not meet our military or sit down with O’Reilly…what a coward. I am sure people in N Korea, Iran, Venezuala, et al, are praying for his victory…steve (13fe9e) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:12 am
As long as Obamessiah believes he is ahead in the polls he will avoid having any townhall meetings with McCain, and certainly not in front of, or with, any military participants. O!’s anti-military base would pitch [another] fit if O! is the least bit solicitous of the military command. O! already has backhanded the troops in Iraq and Gen. Petreaus, why reverse that? And O! is painfully lacking in basic historical and geographical knowledge about the Middle East.
Most importantly, O! is lost without his teleprompter.
He is a very good orator. That’s it.Darleen (187edc) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:16 am
This is the greatest candidate and campaign of modern times? His choices are calculated and self-serving. He and Chicago think they can land the office by controlling how much truth gets out; as well as playing up to foreign countries. But still the smoothest teleprompt idiot since Tony Robbins… with just about as much substance.Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:33 am
I like your comparison of Obama to Tony Robbins. And I approve THAT message.SAM (d671ab) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:02 am
We can safely bet that the ‘trons will see America as ‘coming to its senses’ if Backtrack buys his way in (…a definite worry what with Soros cash and slimy Chicago money).
If the second coming of Lincoln gets tossed on his ass, it will of course be racist and likely to bring another sore-loser lawsuit.
Oh yeah. And the posts about lib-roots who attack dead people just underscores the ironic truth: they can’t handle disagreement, they DON’T embrace diversity.Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:13 am
We need Obama as POTUS to help the moonbats decompress and bring some sense of justice to American politics since the evil of 2000 when SCOTUS selected Bush while casting aside the wise deliberations of the Fla. SC.
And don’t forget how elderly Jewish voters were hoodwinked into voting for Pat Buchanan by that awful dem-designed butterfly ballot. The fact remains that all these years later, the far left (which seems to be a majority where I live) continues to suffer from BDS and some are calling for his hanging when finally out of office.
My point is wondering who will be their target for the paranoia and hatred when Dubya is history? So then I hear it still won’t end as Obama will support and agree with a call for some International Criminal Court to charge Bush and Cheney with crimes against humanity.
My observation in Palm Beach and Broward counties, S. Fla. is that liberals only want freedom of speech to apply to THEIR speech and everyone else should just shut the hell up. I’ve been told over and over again that I am stupid and lack compassion bu ignoring the hell Bush puts people through daily.madmax333 (07afbe) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:49 am
And some commenters here feed into that mindset with their feelings at the fore and no actual facts to site. Lovetron mewls about being accused of being a socialist or wanting sex with O1 but he/she/it continues with the revisionist history and same old dem talking points endlessly or just outright cluelessness about what’s going on with Iraq.
Just because one has intellect and reasoning abilities does not mean one uses logic. Else why are Jews currently favoring Urkel by a 2 to 1 margin? And why aren’t blacks behind him 100% like in the old Soviet Union commie voting slates or the voting for Castro?
Looking forward to a looney bin in Denver, but will the media obfuscate the actual proceedings?
Oh come on now, Fort Hood is just, well, Fort Hood… Now the Brandenburg Gate…that would be more fitting for our Obama and his audacity of granduer and self-regard.Dana (aec96d) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:03 am
And he’s not going to sponsor a NASCAR, either. Too much like military, probably. Plus, of course, those NASCAR fans can spot phonies.Mike K (b9ce3e) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:10 am
madmax333: Invite Iran’s Imadamnutjob, Hugo Chavez or Nk’s Kim and Urkel would be only to glad to attend and without preconditions.
This is begging for an RNC commercial: Obama will meet with the dictators of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions … but he refuses to meet with the military groups at Fort Hood.aunursa (09c81f) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:15 am
He’s going to become the anti-military candidate no matter how many times he praises he troops. His problem is that he doesn’t believe in what they are sacrificing their lives for, and they do. This is a volunteer army, and those that didn’t want to serve the Iraq mission 1) could have chosen to not join or 2) have had plenty of time to get out.WLS (02df99) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:21 am
Barrack bin Osama is too chickenshite to face that many military people.Vituperator (7e815d) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:06 pm
“This isn’t the ‘anytime, anywhere’ that I knew.”Josh Painter (c04332) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:09 pm
How do you think McCain would react if this meeting was an economic summit where he would have to discuss raw economic issues? And field questions from economic veterans and experts with Obama. Do you think he would rush into it knowing fully well, by his own admission, that the economy is not his strong suit? Would he rush into that kind of debate with Obama with this same zeal? Mmmgh…I wonder… ” A strong man is he whose weakness is not known.” Love2008love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:24 pm
#19- I rather suspect McCain would show at a debate sponsored by Economists. One sponsored by the Democratic National Committee, on the other hand? Not so much. The perception on the Left, is that the Military is chock-full-of Republicans, or at least, people who don’t like Dems. It’s a misperception, of course-when I was in during the nineties I knew quite a few NCO’s who were both career service, and ardent supporters of the Democratic Party… but something tells me that guys like B. Obama don’t understand that even a good Liberal can hear and answer the call to Serve.Cannonshop (4a7435) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:39 pm
In short, this move to not attend by Senator Obama is a VERY poor choice. He’s unlikely to get as truly Neutral a forum or as strong a chance to show he really IS a candidate for change rather than a charlatan playing politics as usual.
lovie – What gives you the impression that Baracky would do any better with economics? See his Phiily debate and his incoherent answers on capital gains taxes, etc …JD Esq. (5f0e11) — 7/13/2008 @ 12:55 pm
#21love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 1:17 pm
JD read my comment again and tell me where I indicated that. My point is that McCain wont be as zealous as he is to go for a debate on economics as he is on national security. Whether Obama beats him in that kind of debate is another matter. Besides JD, we all know that when it comes to the economy, the democrats do better but that is besides the point. We all have our areas of strength and weakness. Wisdom is to avoid any confrontation in our area of weakness. I am sure Obama and McCain know that.
love, Do you know so little about Sen. McCain that you would actually question whether or not he would show up? HE isn’t the wimp in this equation.Icy Truth (cfc1c6) — 7/13/2008 @ 1:20 pm
we all know that when it comes to the economy, the democrats do better
— Since when? And who’s “we”, love? You and all of those critters runnin’ ’round yer brain pan?Icy Truth (cfc1c6) — 7/13/2008 @ 1:26 pm
#23 yes, they do better. Just ask Nancy pelosi about calls for drilling for our own oil. Ask her Highness about leveling the playing field for those who did not make any preparation for retirement. Seems she thinks you should pay sharply higher taxes on those accounts so that the so-called poor and illegal aliens both can share in the largesse of America. Tax those investment dividends more heavily. Tax those filthy rich Republicans at confiscatory rates? Why not when you will get the votes of most of those who don’t pay a plugged nickel to IRS now?madmax333 (8f02a3) — 7/13/2008 @ 1:57 pm
Who is to blame for that doubling in gasoline prices since dems took over Congress? Has to be the omnipresent and eminently blameable idiot GW Bush, eh? If he has so much power, why doesn’t he then just issue executive orders to drill in ANWR and offshore, start new nuke plants and refineries? Is not it a matter of national security when the oil sheiks who support terrorism are rolling in oil monies?
“My question is this, Senator Obama: why didn’t you serve your country by joining the armed forces like this upstanding gentleman over here? Was it because you hate your country, or just because you’re a coward? Oh, and have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Boo-fucking-hoo. Obama’s too smart to walk into a hostile forum that presents him with no opportunity for gain. Cry about it.Leviticus (ff34c3) — 7/13/2008 @ 2:04 pm
So much for the Great Need of the Hour: Unity is how we shall overcome.DRJ (ec597e) — 7/13/2008 @ 2:08 pm
#23love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/13/2008 @ 2:12 pm
So the republicans have a better record on economic prosperity than the dems huh? Okay. Just one question for you Icy, comparing the Bush years and the Clinton years, who did better economically? But why ask, since like most people on this blog, your partisanship has deeply flawed your sense of judgement. Am waiting for you to make the argument that economically, Bush has done better than Clinton.
Americans – not the government or Presidents – make the economy work, and tax increases and regulation don’t help.DRJ (ec597e) — 7/13/2008 @ 2:31 pm
“Obama’s too smart to walk into a hostile forum that presents him with no opportunity for gain.”
Its interesting that you say this as Obama solidly carried Bell County (and stomped on McCain)which is where Ft. Hood is located; in light of the voting popluation there, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume the hostility would be greater toward McCain rather than Obama?Dana (aec96d) — 7/13/2008 @ 3:02 pm
love2008 – McCain proposed an entire series of encounters – ones that would be run by nominally neutral organizations. In other words, not in McCain’s nor BHO’s control. BHO was allowed to name the dates. BHO declined.
Any way you slice it, BHO is running away. By any measure, McCain is the more transparent candidate.
I defy you to explain otherwise.Ed (d17ceb) — 7/13/2008 @ 3:18 pm
#27 – love2008
— Two tax rebates, reduced income tax rates across the board, phase-out of the marriage penalty, lower interest rates, low unemployment, higher tax revenues, lower cost of collecting taxes, increased exports, increased domestic investment, increased GDP, lower percentage of people below the poverty level (and a lower number of people compared to most of the Clinton years), fewer work stoppages (strikes), lower percentage of the work force in unions [Yes, that’s a good thing].
Clinton balanced the budget by means of a tax increase; predictably, one of the results of this was a recession.Icy Truth (cfc1c6) — 7/13/2008 @ 3:41 pm
I of course meant that having a higher percentage of the work force with union membership is a bad thing.Icy Truth (cfc1c6) — 7/13/2008 @ 3:47 pm
BHO will do it all. He’ll meet with hostile leaders… he’ll heal the painful divisions between class and race. He’ll bring our troops home without actually campaigning near them. Seems like he just can’t do the actual footwork of getting us there! POSEUR.Vermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/13/2008 @ 3:47 pm
#14love2008 (0c8c2c) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:03 pm
So putting it in another language, Americans are fairing better economically under Bush than they did under Clinton? Is that the feeling you get talking to average, blue collar, working-class Americans everywhere? While responding, remember that McCain has publicly condemned the state of the economy under this Bush, calling it “unacceptable”. Even the republican presidential candidate agrees with me. This is not to say that Bush is entirely to blame for it but being the one at the helm of affairs, the blame stops at his table. It’s just the way it is.
Putting it in yet another language, did you notice how the economy went from great to awful in the ~30 minutes it took to swear in President Bush and Vice-President Cheney? And have you noticed that the SCREECHING from the (Anti-American) Left, the DNC and their allies in the media NEVER LET UP? For EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS?! My God, where are the bread lines?
Further, surely you’ve noticed that the media are themselves in an advertising-induced Depression. Coincidence?
George Bush, like Harry Truman, will be defined by the multiplicity and magnitude of the problems he faced. He’ll also be defined by the cowardice of his opponents, along with many of his supporters. And, he’ll be defined by how well he actually did. (See: Reagan, R.)PSGInfinity (e7314f) — 7/13/2008 @ 4:57 pm
love2008, it does not matter what McCain says, the Bush administration saw a great deal of economic growth, and long periods of low unemployment. That was the reality – in contrast the media attention on the economy has been uniformly negative, often in direct contrast to the facts.SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:05 pm
So this general feeling of depression about the economy is all media hype? This administration takes no blame whatsoever. Not ineffective policies. It’s the media’s fault. Unfortunately they are not going to be on the ballot come novemeber.love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:16 pm
love2008, the current economic issues revolve around poor mortgage lending practices that date back to well before the Bush administration. Some of it encouraged by government subsidies of such poor lending practices through FHA, Ginnie Mae and other programs whose loose lending standards were encouraged by both parties.
The rest of our economic problems are related to the rising demand globally for petroleum. “Ineffective policies” ? You mean like the ideologically motivated opposition to domestic oil exploration? hardly a Bush administration policy.SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:23 pm
I like you SPQR. Bush should hire you. You are the smart one.love2008 (1b037c) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:32 pm
love2008, it is not that much work to learn some of the basics of economics. Why don’t you make an effort?SPQR (26be8b) — 7/13/2008 @ 5:39 pm
“Its interesting that you say this as Obama solidly carried Bell County (and stomped on McCain)which is where Ft. Hood is located; in light of the voting popluation there, wouldn’t it make more sense to assume the hostility would be greater toward McCain rather than Obama?”
“Solidly carried Bell County” in what? I assume you mean recent polls (and not the primary, depending on whether or not it’s open or closed – if the latter, it would be a poor point of inference).Leviticus (683c59) — 7/13/2008 @ 7:45 pm
#35 I’ve heard about how truly awful things have been for the entire Bush administration. Supposedly legions of homeless people are starving on the streets of Ft. Lauderdale and Maimi. I laugh and say how sad it is that those unfortunates always have money for booze, ciggies and drugs. Probably many have mental illnesses and love being on the streets since they turn down shelter and I doubt Bush policies have aggravated mental illness other than the far left bozos endlessly upset over 2000 and 2004.madmax333 (5487e0) — 7/13/2008 @ 8:07 pm
One may hope that enough THINKING people will see through the shell game the democrats are playing with things like energy exploration and taxes. You’d think some people could observe the implications of history, but they are insane because they still believe that marxism will be best for the country. Afterall it worked out so well In former USSR and eastern Europe and works great now in N.Korea, Cuba and Red China. My hope is that liberals will see the wisdom of the great leadership in the guise of Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe and carry their sorry arses to Venezuelaor Zimbabew.
Phil Carter’s a punk bitch. If it’s the same Phil Carter that used to have the Mil/Law blog.thebronze (dc3fe0) — 7/13/2008 @ 9:44 pm
Verrrrry interesting. In #22, love says, “we all know that when it comes to the economy, the democrats do better”. In #23, I say, “Since when?” In #27, love says, “Just one question for you Icy, comparing the Bush years and the Clinton years, who did better economically?” and “Am waiting for you to make the argument that economically, Bush has done better than Clinton.”
So, in #31, I list each area of the economy where Bush has outperformed Clinton. And then . . .
Three additional posts from love, but no response to my direct response to love’s question. Can we assume that the argument is conceded?
And just think, I didn’t even mention that 12 of the largest bankruptcies in US history occurred during the recession that Clinton left for the next administration to deal with; or the dot-com bubble that helped initiate that recession, something that began during Clinton’s first term.Icy Truth (9033e3) — 7/13/2008 @ 10:05 pm
Vermont Neighbor wrote: But still the smoothest teleprompt idiot since Tony Robbins… with just about as much substance.
Howdy, Neighbor! Great minds think alike.L.N. Smithee (ef90eb) — 7/13/2008 @ 11:14 pm
Clinton was president when the American side of the internet bloomed, and just after the cold war really ended and paid its post war dividend, but still by general economic indicators, his economy fared worse than Bush’s (aside from just after 9/11).
Of course, this is pointless. Congress has far more control over the economy than the president does and anyone arguing about which prez had a better economy is just being silly.
Oh, and if you read the papers, you probably ran across that story indicating that the negative economic mood is largely psychological, unwarranted, and created by the media. I guess love2008 doesn’t read the papers. Probably thinks we need to get back to the gold standard too.
Of course, it’s yet another red herring. The fact is, Mccain would appear on an economic forum well prepared, even though he made a self deprecating joke about his lack of economics skill. Mccain is begging for as many debates as Obama will permit while Obama is hiding from town hall meetings and forums (that he used to claim were his forte). You might believe that Obama’s policies are better (if you somehow know what they are), but you can’t credibly claim Obama is anywhere near as open or straight-talking as Mccain.Juan (4cdfb7) — 7/14/2008 @ 2:50 am
One reason that Obama likely is afraid to appear at this venue is that, quite simply, he’s an ignorant imbecile when it comes to the military. Check out the recent post on NewsBusters about his JCOS gaffe.
You have to realize that Obama is, bottom line, just an Illinois state legislature with virtually no political or world experience. For all intents and purposes he’s a nimrod. How the hell did he fool half the people in this country into believing his bull?marvl (f07c11) — 7/15/2008 @ 12:09 am
I almost missed that! I turn it over to you, the originator, the creator, the owner of Tony-Robbins-with-a-tan. I’m happy we collided on the internets.
D’neighborVermont Neighbor (31ccb6) — 7/15/2008 @ 12:33 am