Obama Will Need a Rove
Mar 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm by Cos
So, Obama’s successful legislative record only bore fruit in its seventh year, after America got sick and tired of Bushco and the new Illinois Senate Majority leader appointed Obama to sponsor high-profile legislation that finally passed.
And of course Obama took all the credit.
If he gets elected President (shudder), he’s going to need a Rove: someone to tell him how to think, what issues to support and how to be absolutely the best front man without depth or experience this country has since since the likes of, uh, George W. Bush.
And we all know how well that turned out.
Walk with me down Memory Lane: When Bush was elected, anything and everything he wanted was stymied until 9/11. Next thing you know, we’re in Iraq, not hunting down the person we’re told was responsible for the attacks. We implemented security measures at airports even though we knew those hijackers were coming in and out of this country through a revolving door.
Federal agencies designated to protect the health, safety and welfare of our hard-working citizens were decimated. (I don’t need to give you a bunch of links to click through to support all this. SG readers are already in the know.)
Meanwhile, Bush ate our budget surplus, left behind by his predecessor. We became an obediently fearful nation as the weapons of mass destruction mantra was fed to us; meanwhile, food inspections plummeted and tainted food recalls soared, coal mines collapsed, bankruptcies and foreclosures hit all-time highs, and the global respect we held as a superpower was reduced to global disgust as the World’s new superbully- lying our way into war in order to handsomely reward Halliburton, et al.
And then we finally, finally get some majority representation in Congress, only to have the new Speaker of the House take impeachment off the table as her first order of business. Way to make the Bush Administration responsible for its actions! Imagine giving your child $50 for failing English.
And with all this in our recent history, we’ve moved along with our thought processes as though we’re onto the next season of American Idol.
We may as well let Simon officiate the Democratic debates.
I’ve said my piece.
- Cosmic Hammer
Repeating a lie over and over, does NOT make it true, even though Rove was able to make it seem so to a lazy and uninformed public.
Here’s a NYT article on Obama’s many accomplishments as a state legislator. Oh look - he accomplished LOTS of stuff , much of it well before his seventh and last year in the state senate.
Oops.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.htm
Rubes. Bone. Throw.
One question: you’re actually comparing Bush to a man who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law, was elected president of the prestigious Harvard law Review and taught constitutional Law at at the University of Chicago Law School?
Um, OK.
Been sleeping for 7 years have you?
Yeah, Cos! Obviously you need another dose of kool aid. Oh Ye of little faith, B.O. superstar has answered every question ever asked, in such unambiguous terms that anyone who question’s his omniscient authoiteh is being willfully ignorant and undeserving of being heard? I’ll bet you criticized Gdubya when everyone just knew he was right too.
Apparently, SG has been put on the Obamanation heresy watch list.
Irony is a woman who claims to have a jaundiced eye on the corporate media, but has bought into it hook, line and sinker.
You might want to check the byline before you comment.
Ron, it is funny, how much they sound like born-again Christians, isn’t it?
He seems to be doing pretty well without a Rove so far.
That’s kind of a silly post, with very little content other than the unsupported assertion that “Obama’s gonna be like Bush because he doesn’t have much experience”.
Riiight. A very big part of the problem with Bush is that he WAS surrounded by neocons who came into the White House with an agenda, which included establishing a major U.S. military presence in the Middle East. They’d been writing about doing exactly this for about a decade before they seized power. Dick Cheney actually chose Bush as his running mate at the start, moreso than the reverse. (There’s a reason this is the “Bush/Cheney administation”, using both names.)
So it’s just a frivolous and unsupported analogy to equate Bush with Obama. It doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about Obama, and amounts to political spin and nothing more. This is the kind of stuff is that’s degraded the Dem primary discussion on both sides.
Look, political experience is obviously a good thing to have, for a politician. And in a perfect world both Obama and Hillary would have more experence (she’s not exactly a grizzled veteran of serving in public office herself). But they are what they are, and we’re gonna have to ride behind one or the other eventually if we hope to avoid four more years of the crap we’ve been going through under the current regime. Or (shudder) eight more years.
Or, to put it another way, Bush’s inexperience turned out not to be a problem for his administration. They’ve been able to do a a great deal of what they wanted.
Obama’s inexperience may or may not be a problem for his administration if he’s elected. But he’s not Bush, and doesn’t really resemble Bush politically. It’s just a bad analogy.
New Rove same as the old Rove: Karl Rove.
Obama is clearly ten times the mental capacity of Bush. And the article above might well be called simplistic.
Nevertheless, it raises a legitimate question. The answer is Obama’s choice for Foreign Policy Advisor (or is it the other way around?), Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder (with David Rockefeller) of the Council on Foreign Relations (of which Michelle Obama is a board member of the Chicago branch) and creator of The Database (a file drawer in a cabinet at CIA headquarters in Langley, which contained the data on all the mujaheddin he cobbled together to throw at the Soviets in Afghanistan while serving as Carter’s National Security Advisor) which name was later shortened to “The Base”, and still later impishly translated into Arabic: “al Qaeda” (”the base”, from qa’ada, “he sat” قعد — the word in common Arabic is used to describe the Western-style toilet, as opposed to the Eastern style, which is a hole in the floor one squats over; if you were a terrorist group, would you call yourselves “the white man’s toilet”?).
So, briefly, Obama’s mentor is the inventor of the CFR, and the inventor of al Qaeda, the author of “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” (ie., a firm believer in the PNAC doctrine of America the Only Power), a revanchist whose dream is of subduing Russia above all.
so Raw Story is carrying this drivel… why?
I think Se. Barak Obama is more than capable of being his own inside Kar Rove. After all, Karl is in the corner crawled up like a shrunken and non effective shimp.
Well the analogy is less than perfect to be sure but Obama certainly has a mean streak like Bush, he’s not above demagogery (sp?), he doesn’t tell the truth, and he has a lot of right-wing advisors on his team. And he is very inexperienced - how that would play out we don’t know.
Why does Obama want to be President by the way? For what purpose does he want to use that power? Does anyone really know?
The analogy that Obama is like Bush isn’t just imperfect, it’s useless and doesn’t reflect reality. They don’t resemble each other. It’s sophistry to say they do. Gee, they’re both humanoids, therefore they’re alike!
Essentially you’re saying, Amelia, that Obama is a politician: All politicians lie, to one degree or another. I have no doubt Obama must have shaded the truth somewhere (though I don’t know specifically what’s being referred to as a lie). So has Hillary. But neither is the kind of serial liar that Bush is, and neither has lied in such important and disastrous ways as Bush (though if anything, Hillary comes closer than Obama does on that count).
Obama does have some right wing advisors, and I’m not the least bit pleased with that. But, once again, so does Hillary - what is the DLC if not Liebeman-esqueright wing advisors? And most voting record “studies” I’ve seen show Obama to be very similar to Hillary, and in fact slightly to the left of her, for whatever that’s worth. But as far as the Bush analogy goes, neither Obama nor Clinton have the kind of right-wing-neoconservative-posse-from-hell that Bush has.
I could go on in a similar vein about the other points in the Obama/Bush analogy, but you get the drift. They’re just not much alike. It’s simply partisan spin to pretend they are.
Obama and Clinton are both second choices for me (or really third or fourth choices). They’re not what I wanted, but they’re what we’re left with. And they’re both better than the alternative.