| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Big Cat
Frequent Poster
363 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2008 : 8:43:38 PM
|
Barack Obama's $1.1 Million Botanical Garden -- Er, $100,000 Gazebo (Graphics Updated)
By Tom Blumer (Bio | Archive)
September 7, 2008 - 14:35 ET
The media and the Obama campaign (but I repeat myself) are comparing the "experience" of'the Democrats' presidential nominee to that of the GOP's vice-presidential pick -- meaning, one must assume, that the debate over his experience vs. John McCain's is over, in McCain's resounding favor.
Let's look back a couple of months at a post I put up on July 14 (with minor revisions) that gives a, uh, concrete example of one of Barack Obama's management "experiences" -- one that the national media has (of course) totally ignored.
______________________________________________________
Barack Obama's $100,000 Gazebo
Here's an interesting story I found in the Chicago Tribune archives (obtained from ProQuest library database; for fair use and discussion purposes):
Story Continues Below Ad
ENGLEWOOD IS EYED FOR BOTANICAL GARDEN
Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Jan 15, 2000. pg. 5
A group of politicians, school administrators and community activists unveiled a plan Friday for a $1.1 million botanical garden in the city's Englewood neighborhood.
The proposal calls for a walk beneath the "L" tracks on Princeton Avenue, from 59th Place to 62nd Place. Backers said they hope it will help spur redevelopment in the impoverished area, boost neighborhood pride and soften the impact of traffic and pollution from the nearby Dan Ryan Expressway.
State Sen. Barack Obama (D-Chicago) said he planned to seek state funding for the effort and estimated that ground could be broken in early 2001.
The proposed garden also would include a gazebo, a parrot sanctuary and a walk of fame.
Gee, that sounds exciting. Let's go visit:
(Google Maps image is more than likely from before the Sun-Times visit described below occurred, and before the related report and video were posted.)
Imagine that. No garden. No parrot sanctuary. No walk of fame.
How can that be? What happened? The Chicago Sun-Times tells us the answer, while revealing that "at least" there's a gazebo -- but not much of one (video is at link; HT Jennifer Rubin via the TIB All-Stars July 12 collection at Weapons of Mass Discussion):
Obama's $100,000 garden grant wasted
He vowed to 'work tirelessly' to build an oasis for Englewood. It never happened.
July 11, 2008
As a state senator, Barack Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer who failed to deliver on a plan to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods.
..... what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.
Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through.
..... Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it.
..... a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.
Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said through a spokesman he wasn't responsible for monitoring the work; the staffs of Gov. Blagojevich and former Gov. George Ryan were.
..... In 2001, at Obama's direction, a $100,000 Illinois FIRST grant went to Smith's group. The garden site was part of Rosewood Estates, an affordable-housing development being built by the group, whose unpaid board chairman was Brian Washington, a Sun-Times security guard.
Plans called for more than 50 homes, but only a dozen were built, Smith said.
The remaining $1 million for the botanic garden was never raised.
Those legendary $400 hammers for the military have nothing on this $100,000 gazebo.
A trifling matter? I don't think so. More like a revealing one:
Obama feels no sense of responsibility for the results of money directed to someone HE chose. This isn't "the buck stops here" of Harry Truman fame; this is "the buck went somewhere else."
Gubernatorial staffs aren't responsible for monitoring projects like this. State agencies are. If the agency involved didn't do their job (according to the article, it's the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity), that's one thing, but the blame-shifting to other pols is either hopelessly naive (a legitimate possibility, given the candidate's seemingly endless well of ignorance) or irresponsible.
If you look at the full text of the press release that announced the project, you'll see that Kenny Smith was on hand, and that he made representations about how he was "work(ing) with a variety of governmental agencies and not-for-profit groups to secure funding this project including the Chicago Transit Authority, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the American Society of Landscape Architecture. We have made some progress ...." My bet: Smith had, at most, met with these orgs once or twice, and was blowing smoke about the realistic chances of getting money. For a nominal $550 in campaign contributions, Smith got 100 grand, which "somehow" has mostly gone bye-bye. Bottom line: Obama got hustled. Did he even look into how the rest of the "fund-raising" was going before directing the release of the grant funds?
Perhaps that's why Obama seems oddly indifferent to what ultimately happened. The response from his spokesman (and not the candidate) is tired boilerplate about "provid(ing) residents with a livable neighborhood." Zzzzzz.
The larger point is this: The guy is hopelessly gullible, can't even get a $100,000 grant right, and now wants to have the final say in matters relating to a $3-plus trillion federal budget and a $14-trillion economy in a town chock full of con artists and tricksters.
Yikes.
It would be cool if some enterprising photo-opster could make up a "Barack Obama $100,000 Gazebo" sign (or something more clever -- use your imagination), take some pictures at the site, and post them. Until that happens, this well-done contribution from NewsBusters reader "tnculp" will do very nicely:
Cross-posted
|
|
|
Big Cat
Frequent Poster
363 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2008 : 9:26:46 PM
|
Sisterhood of the Protected Female Liberal Journalists
By Michelle Malkin September 10, 2008 10:29 AM My syndicated column today picks up on Obama official Howard Gutmans odious comments on the Laura Ingraham show last week and applies his standard to working mothers in the liberal media elite.
***
Sisterhood of the Protected Female Liberal Journalists
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
Sisterhood of the protected female liberal journalist
Lets talk Mommy Wars, double standards, and the media elite. Last Friday, Obama Campaign National Finance Committee member Howard Gutman attacked Sarah Palins ability to be a good parent and have a high-powered public life at the same time. In a finger-wagging appearance on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Obamas operative scolded the Republican mother of five children for not putting her professional career on hold.
Your responsibility is to put your family first, Gutman lectured as he singled out Palins Downs Syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter. The proper attack is not that a woman shouldnt run for vice president with five kids, its that a parent, when they have a family in need, should get out of the public sphere and stay home.
The Gutman standard has now been proffered by countless Obama hacks and water-carrying commentators. Damningly, its high-powered working mothers in the journalism business helping to broadcast the anti-Palin slams or doing nothing to defend her.
CNNs Soledad OBrien denied Palin attacks on her network, even as her colleague John Roberts asked: Theres also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Downs Syndrome. Children with Downs syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?
NBCs Meredeith Viera asserted that only blogs went after Palins motherhood abilities while running for veep, even as her colleague Brian Williams slyly raised feminists fears or doubts that she should be able to do this, that she should be doing this.
How would CNNs OBrien like the Gutman standard applied to her? Shes been working overtime covering the presidential campaign season, anchoring daily coverage, nighttime conventions, and producing documentaries that require large chunks of time away from home. Disneys Family Parenting website lauds her as a modern mom balancing a thriving career as one of Americas top news anchors along with her four children two daughters now ages 7 and 6 and twin boys who are 4. Where are the Palin-bashers to lambaste OBriens professional pursuits?
How about Katie Couric? Her husband died at 42 when her daughters were 6 and 2 years old. With two young children devastated by the loss of a father, she opted not to quit journalism. She anchored NBCs Today Show through his illness and death, continued working an intensive, time-consuming schedule as one of Americas most visible broadcast journalists while a single mother with two fatherless children at home, and then jumped to CBS News, where she maintains a rigorous on-air schedule, travel plans, and off-air social calendar. Where are the finger-waggers?
Also at CNN, Campbell Brown flew to Las Vegas last year to moderate a political debate while 8 months pregnant. Fox News host and left-wing blogger Alan Colmes, last seen questioning Sarah Palins commitment to prenatal care because she worked and traveld late in her pregnancy, had no comment. When she initially left the Today Show in 2007, Brown said she was stepping down to devote more time to family and baby. She immediately turned around the next day and jumped ship to CNN, where she has anchored wall-to-wall CNN Election Center coverage and will launch a new nightly show in November.
And at NBC, famous balancer of work-and-motherhood Viera replaced Couric on the Today Show. She has three children at home and a husband who has battled multiple sclerosis and two bouts with colon cancer. By the Gutman standard, Viera should have left the business years ago to tend to her family in need.
As a working woman in the media for 16 years and a working mother in the media for the last eight. I know the commitment and energy it took for these women to get to the top. Ive filed columns from hospital beds, written books while nursing, brought my toddlers to TV studios, and told bedtime stories on the cell phone while boarding planes. Ive worked hard to strike the balance we all seek. Ive made good choices and bad choices, and have no regrets about the opportunities Ive taken and the opportunities Ive rejected. I couldnt have done it without a supportive husband willing to forego his own career goals the kind of spouse that the media has ignored in Todd Palin and the kind of spouse Im sure the Sisterhood of the Protected Female Journalist all have.
I dont challenge the commitment these fellow working mothers in the media have to their home lives. What I challenge is their silence and complicity as the Palin-bashers impose a Family First double standard on conservatives. The sorority is closed to the Right.
***
K-Lo has a point here. But its not whining to expose double standards. Its an object lesson.
John Hawkins has a video show of solidarity from the conservative sisterhood.
Posted in: Double standards, Katie Couric, Sarah Palin |
 |
|
|
Big Cat
Frequent Poster
363 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2008 : 10:28:49 PM
|
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Abraham Lincoln |
|
|
|
pepa
Obsessed Poster
1255 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2008 : 08:41:31 AM
|
Palin's Ethics Scrapes May Undercut Pledge to End Old Politics Timothy J. Burger and Tony Hopfinger
Thu Sep 11, 12:01 AM ET
Sept. 11 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate sent a signal that he would end business as usual and cronyism in government. Her record shows the Alaska governor engaged in some of the same practices she and McCain now condemn.
Palin's office approved a state job for a friend and campaign aide with whom she shared a land investment, financial records and interviews over the past two weeks show. She hired a former lobbyist for a pipeline company to help oversee a multibillion-dollar deal with that same company.
She named a police chief accused of harassment to head the state police. And she sent campaign e-mails on her city hall account while serving as mayor of Wasilla -- conduct for which she later turned in an oil commissioner on ethics charges.
These incidents raise ``some serious questions about her judgment and serious questions about her standards of ethics in public service,'' said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington. Suggesting a real estate investment partner for a job ``may be acceptable in Alaska; it would not be acceptable in Washington, D.C., a place whose norms she wants to change.''
Palin defeated an incumbent governor, a fellow Republican, in 2006 charging that her party's old guard had committed ethical lapses and become too cozy with special interests, including oil companies. A central theme in this year's presidential campaign has been that Palin's record demonstrates the change a McCain administration would bring to Washington.
Recent statements by the governor may erode that claim. In her acceptance speech last week, she suggested that she opposed the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere,'' a $223 million earmark for a bridge to an island where only 53 people lived.
For It, Against It
When Palin, 44, campaigned for governor, however, she said she was in favor of the bridge. In 2007, she canceled the project in the face of national outrage. The state never returned the money allocated by the federal government, with some of the funds going toward other state and local projects.
And as mayor of Wasilla, a job she held for six years until 2002, Palin hired lobbyists to get federal funding for local projects. Wasilla secured $27 million in earmarks for the town of about 9,000 that included a rail project and a youth center.
Shortly after she was elected governor, Palin's office signed off on hiring Deborah Richter -- who attended college for a year then worked in bookkeeping and finance jobs -- as director of a division that distributes dividends to Alaskans from the state's oil-wealth savings account.
Richter, who said she's known Palin for 13 years, was Palin's gubernatorial campaign treasurer and ran her inaugural committee.
Sharing an Investment
The Richters and Palins also shared an investment: 30 acres of rural property near a lake in Petersville, Alaska, worth $47,300, according to Matanuska-Susitna Borough data.
``It sounds like a patronage deal for someone who ran your campaign; that's pretty normal,'' said Bill Buzenberg, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington. ``What's not normal is that they have business dealings together.''
No evidence has emerged to suggest that laws were broken in the appointment, and Richter said she ``didn't go in there with any promises from the governor or the chief of staff or anybody. I turned in my resume'' to the governor's transition team ``and I didn't know if anyone was going to call me.''
``She was qualified,'' said Pat Galvin, commissioner of the Department of Revenue and Richter's boss. Galvin said he also interviewed other people for the job and that Richter has done well. He said Palin's office approved his selection of Richter.
Not Palin's Decision
Palin's gubernatorial spokesman, William McAllister, said the decision to hire Richter was Galvin's. ``I have no knowledge of land ownership or college degrees,'' he said.
Deborah Richter gave up her share of the property last September in a divorce settlement that followed an affair with Palin's legislative director, John Bitney. Bitney and Richter both acknowledged the affair in interviews. Bitney said Palin fired him over it; Richter is still on the job. They are now married.
Last month, Palin signed a law granting TransCanada Corp., Canada's largest pipeline company, an exclusive state license and up to $500 million in subsidies to proceed with work on a $27 billion pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Alaska to other U.S. markets.
Once a Lobbyist
Marty Rutherford, the chief coordinator behind Palin's pipeline effort, once worked as an Alaska lobbyist for a TransCanada pipeline subsidiary, according to state records. Rutherford, deputy commissioner at the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, earned $40,200 as a lobbyist for 10 months in 2003 working for Foothills, the subsidiary.
Rutherford said in an interview that she only did consulting work for the company, including reviewing natural gas legislation. She said the work had no bearing on her future job as coordinator of Palin's pipeline team.
``I intended to leave state government when I went to Jade North, but as time went on I realized my heart was in government,'' she said, referring to the firm she briefly worked for.
Palin told the Anchorage Daily News last December that Rutherford's work with Foothills wasn't a conflict because it had been five years earlier.
Trooper Investigation
The governor already has triggered an investigation by the Alaska legislature into whether she fired the state commissioner of public safety, Walt Monegan, for not removing a state trooper involved in a contentious divorce from Palin's sister.
Palin has denied exerting any pressure on Monegan and said she dismissed him because she wanted to take the department in a new direction.
Since McCain picked Palin, seven Palin aides have declined to be interviewed on the matter by an investigator hired by the Alaska legislature, according to the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
Earlier this year, Palin found herself apologizing for her handling of Monegan's replacement. About six weeks before she learned McCain wanted her to be his vice president, she named Kenai, Alaska, police chief Charles Kopp to replace Monegan.
On July 25, two weeks after being appointed, Kopp resigned amid scrutiny over a 2005 sexual-harassment complaint against him while he was chief in Kenai. The complaint resulted in a letter of reprimand from the city, which Palin told reporters she never knew about and had believed that the allegations were unsubstantiated, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
Not a Harasser
In a July press conference, Kopp denied any harassment. ``I've always done every job I've ever done with honor and integrity,'' he said. ``There is one thing I am not. I am not a sex harasser.'' Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.
Asked about these episodes in Palin's career, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds lauded her reform efforts. Bounds said Palin has allowed the public to scrutinize state financial information, ``cut wasteful spending by a quarter of a billion dollars just last year and ushered in landmark ethics legislation.''
The moment that crystallized her image as a reformer came when she turned in state Republican chairman Randy Ruedrich after discovering he was using his state e-mail account to conduct party business.
Palin and Ruedrich were serving together as commissioners on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state regulatory agency, at the time. Ruedrich resigned from the commission in November 2003, and was later fined $12,000, according to a 2004 article in the Anchorage Daily News.
In 2006, Palin found herself asking forgiveness for a similar offense from her past, according to a July 28, 2006, article in the Anchorage Daily News. She had sent campaign e- mails from her Wasilla mayor's office in 2002, when she made an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor.
``For any mistakes like that (were) made, I apologize,'' Palin said of the e-mail controversy in July 2006, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
quote:
***" I have had so much smoke blown up my skirt that I feel like a piece of ham." - pepa***
|
|
|
|
1Patriot
Active Poster
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2008 : 6:53:13 PM
|
| I think all these attacks on Palin, especially when they attack her family or question her ability to juggle it all, only endear her all the more to the millions of women who work their butts off, take care of their homes, and still have time to raise their kids, etc. It's easy to identify with her since she is "one of us". And when the media and other adversaries insinuate that she can't/shouldn't do this, they are not only attacking her, they are attacking every woman who has made the choice to balance a career and family. They are only shooting themselves in the foot. And it also shows that they are so desperate. I love it! |
Edited by - 1Patriot on 09/11/2008 7:18:56 PM |
|
|
|
1Patriot
Active Poster
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2008 : 7:17:18 PM
|
There is an estimated 125 people that were shot and killed in Chicago over this summer. That's nearly double the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period. Now, since Obama now claims to understand the surge's success in Iraq, will he try it in his own hometown where murders in Chicago exceed troop deaths in Iraq? Foreign policy? Domestic policy? How does Obama stack up? Very poorly. More people where he lives shot dead than in Iraq.
Maybe the $100,000 Gazebo and botanical garden was suppose to help you forget about the 125 people murdered in his own town this summer. |
Edited by - 1Patriot on 09/11/2008 7:20:05 PM |
|
|
|
pepa
Obsessed Poster
1255 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 12:54:30 AM
|
Detriot News
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin panned for follow-through
Alaska lawmakers in both parties say governor leaves details to others after initial proposals.
Tom Hamburger and Kim Murphy / Los Angeles Times
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Three years ago, when a Democratic state legislator tried to get bipartisan support for investigating charges of unethical conduct by a senior Republican official, only one member of the GOP answered the call -- Sarah Palin.
Palin pursued the allegations -- as well as ethics charges against another top GOP official -- so vigorously that both had to leave office.
The public acclaim that followed helped propel her into the governor's office a year later with promises of reform and a more open, accountable government that would stand up to entrenched interests, including the big oil companies.
Yet a strange thing happened on the ethics issue once Palin became governor: She appeared to lose interest in completing the task of legislating comprehensive reform, some who supported the cleanup say.
The ethics bill she offered was so incomplete that its supporters undertook a significant rewrite. Moreover, when it came to building support for the bill, politicians in both parties say the new governor was often unaccountably absent from the fray.
And the seeming paradox of the ethics reform fight -- the bold, even courageous readiness to take on a tough issue, coupled with a tendency to drift from the nitty-gritty follow-through -- appears to be a recurrent theme of Palin's record as a political leader. Some lawmakers were so perplexed by her absence from a recent debate over sending oil rebate checks to Alaska's citizens, for example, that they sported buttons at the state Capitol reading "Where's Sarah?"
A spokesman for the governor's office rejects such criticism. Bill McAllister, Palin's press secretary, said, "She has always been sufficiently informed and engaged. ... In just two years in office, she accomplished more than most governors in their entire careers."
Even her critics credit Palin with a major role in pushing a state known for its relaxed approach to political ethics into a long-overdue housecleaning. And Palin has pushed hard to make oil companies pay more for access to the state's oil and gas reserves.
At the same time, she has fallen short of her proclaimed goals in other areas, especially when it comes to how she governs.
Her administration has not been marked by the transparency she promised: She invoked executive privilege in refusing to disclose information about one ethics case, and last week she moved to hobble a legislative inquiry into the governor's role in the firing of a state public-safety official.
Several legislators also say that the governor's office is not a place for open debate: Palin does not tolerate much dissent, they say, sometimes cutting off relations with those deemed unhelpful or critical.
And she shows only marginal interest in crafting policy proposals and getting them passed, these critics say.
"Her ethics proposal had to be beefed up substantially with very basic additions," said Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat who tried to get the governor's attention on ethics and other issues. It lacked such provisions as language making legislators subject to prosecution for bribery if they exchanged votes for campaign contributions. To Gara and some others, including Republicans who often have supported the governor, their experience on the ethics bill has proved disconcertingly similar to their experience with Palin on other topics.
"When it comes to the real work of crafting policy, she's often not there," Gara said. He acknowledged her broad accomplishments but added: "I don't know if she's disinterested in details or not comfortable with them, but the bottom line is: She is not truly a hands-on governor."
quote:
***" I have had so much smoke blown up my skirt that I feel like a piece of ham." - pepa***
|
|
|
|
1Patriot
Active Poster
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 10:44:40 AM
|
| hummm....let's see...should I believe the Detroit Press??? or the 80% approval rating by her entire state. |
|
|
|
pepa
Obsessed Poster
1255 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 11:39:19 AM
|
Polls of 500 West Michiganders is statistically a waste of time. This is why the polls are wrong.
"I find his approach worth taking," Ron Long, 60, of Pella, Iowa, said of Obama, whom he supports. "I think the Bush-McCain legacy is you can solve problems by killing people."
quote:
***" I have had so much smoke blown up my skirt that I feel like a piece of ham." - pepa***
|
Edited by - pepa on 09/12/2008 12:20:00 PM |
|
|
|
imwp0228
Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 3:45:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by pepa
"I find his approach worth taking," Ron Long, 60, of Pella, Iowa, said of Obama, whom he supports. "I think the Bush-McCain legacy is you can solve problems by killing people."
So let's just sit down and negotiate with people that want us dead. Pepa, if you are speaking of the "war on terror" I'm sorry but these terrorists need to be killed. We need to send a message that if they kill one of us, we are going to kill ten of them.
You have your relatively peaceful life because somebody is willing to kill, or be killed, for you. We should be behind our president for his willingness to continue to show these murderers the sharp end of the spear.
Pepa, if you don't like you life in the USA, then leave, but shame on you for your ragging on the President for sending our miltary to do a job that your sorry ass probably doesn't have the stones for.
Since you like quotes here's one for you. "I didn't start this fight but I sure as hell mean to see it through."
"Lawmakers, lawyers, and judges, watering down the U. S. Constitution since, 1787." |
|
|
|
1Patriot
Active Poster
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2008 : 3:54:51 PM
|
amen brother! My son happens to be one of those who are protecting his sorry ass! |
|
|
|
pepa
Obsessed Poster
1255 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2008 : 10:13:01 PM
|
Interesting this article is a year old or more and still holds true.
Return to the Article
March 19, 2007
Bush and Ahmadinejad's Game of Chicken
By Ian Bremmer & Willis Sparks
At first glance, George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad couldn't be more different.
Bush is the Ivy League-educated son of a former president. Ahmadinejad, the son of a blacksmith, rose to power from relative obscurity following a brief stint as Tehran's mayor. For many around the world, Bush is the living symbol of American military might. Ahmadinejad relishes his role as underdog president of an underdog nation.
But they also have a lot in common. Similarities in their temperaments and domestic political positions reveal why the standoff over Iran's nuclear program may eventually lead to military action.
Each president now faces considerable heat at home. Bush has taken hits over the war in Iraq from some who believe it should never have been waged and others who insist that poor planning cost him an opportunity to remake the politics of the Middle East. The botched federal response to Hurricane Katrina, a growing federal budget deficit, and doubts over the administration's credibility and competence have added to his headaches. Bush hasn't enjoyed majority public approval in more than two years, the longest such stretch for any U.S. president in more than half a century. Can he live with a legacy that includes a nuclear Iran?
Ahmadinejad faces sharp criticism for his handling of Iran's rusting economy. The relative unknown swept to victory in June 2005 on promises to create jobs, lift millions from poverty and curb inflation. More than a year and half later, unemployment and the gap between rich and poor remain steady. Inflation has actually risen. Conservative pragmatists charge that Ahmadinejad's incendiary rhetoric allows foreigners to portray Iran's government as irrational and dangerous. His heavy-handed social policies invite derision from reformists. But resolute support for the nuclear program buoys his domestic popularity and helps him change the political subject.
Iran's ruling clerics, not the president, have ultimate responsibility for the country's foreign policy. But Ahmadinejad is now the public face of Iran's determination to join the nuclear club. The mullahs may not always approve of his belligerence, but pushing aside an elected president would come at a political cost.
Both presidents held relatively strong domestic political positions before their allies took heavy losses in recent elections. In November, Bush's party lost majority control of both houses of the U.S. Congress. Many fellow Republicans have distanced themselves from their president, particularly over the war in Iraq.
In December, divisions among Iranian hardliners ensured that Ahmadinejad's allies took a stunning beating in municipal elections, the first national balloting since Ahmadinejad won the presidency.
But the most crucial similarity between the two men is that, when it comes to foreign policy, both are temperamentally ill-suited to play anything but offense. Anyone who thought Bush would interpret the Republican election defeat and growing turmoil in Iraq as signs he should shy from a head-on fight with Tehran are surely startled that he has turned up the rhetorical heat on Iran's involvement in Iraq and its nuclear ambitions.
Iranian media coverage of Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, increasingly includes criticism of his handling of both the economy and foreign policy. An influential adviser to Iran's parliament has publicly charged that the president spends Iran's oil revenues "unreservedly and without much consideration."
Conservative official newspapers accuse him of pursuing an unnecessarily belligerent and reckless approach to relations with the West. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly did not meet with Ahmadinejad for more than two months late last year. All this in a country where the elite likes to keep its political disputes behind closed doors.
But those who expected a chastened Iranian president as the deadline approached for Iran's compliance with the latest U.N. Security Council resolution have ignored his history. Instead of calls for consultation and hints of compromise -- even if only to strengthen Iran's diplomatic hand -- Ahmadinejad offered only more defiance. Nuclear development in Iran "has no brakes," he has insisted. "The Iranian people ... will defend their rights. . . . They will resist the oppressors and will not concede one iota," he has added for emphasis.
On the nuclear issue, both men have raised the political cost of backing down. If Iran is the "world's primary state sponsor of terror," as Bush says, how can he allow the country to go nuclear? He promises to seek a diplomatic solution, but his insistence that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable" leaves U.S. negotiators with little to offer. If Iran will not concede one iota to its "oppressors," as Ahmadinejad has pledged, why should his government ever accept an internationally brokered compromise?
Politicians, even those as strong-willed as Bush and Ahmadinejad, sometimes reverse themselves. But the importance each has publicly attached to this issue ensures that he who blinks first will forfeit plenty of precious political capital.
In addition, both presidents have antagonized the very international actors, Russia and China, that might help forge a deal. The Bush administration has asked both countries to support coercive diplomacy aimed at forcing Iran to back down after ignoring their objections to war with Iraq and pointedly criticizing their foreign and domestic policies.
Ahmadinejad continues to provoke Israel and the United States, making it more difficult for Russia, China and others to defend Iran's right to a nuclear program. Why, Russian and Chinese diplomats must wonder, won't Ahmadinejad keep quiet and make their work a little easier?
We're left with a game of chicken. Bush and Ahmadinejad continue to drive toward a collision. Bush places his hands on the windshield to show the world he has no intention of turning. Ahmadinejad throws his steering wheel out the window.
The U.S. Congress may try to restrain Bush's drive toward confrontation, but its ability to prevent him from ordering air strikes is clearly limited. Iran's mullahs may eventually sideline Ahmadinejad, unless they calculate that a U.S. or Israeli air attack would rally Iranians to their government just as a sinking economy threatens the country's entire ruling class.
The best defense is a good offense? Not when offense is all you play.
And not when the international stakes are so high. Both men will give their diplomats time to work, but only to strengthen their positions for the moment when push may finally come to shove.
quote:
***" I have had so much smoke blown up my skirt that I feel like a piece of ham." - pepa***
|
|
|
|
Metz
Active Poster
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 09:57:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by 1Patriot
I think all these attacks on Palin, especially when they attack her family or question her ability to juggle it all, only endear her all the more to the millions of women who work their butts off, take care of their homes, and still have time to raise their kids, etc. It's easy to identify with her since she is "one of us". And when the media and other adversaries insinuate that she can't/shouldn't do this, they are not only attacking her, they are attacking every woman who has made the choice to balance a career and family. They are only shooting themselves in the foot. And it also shows that they are so desperate. I love it!
There is no question that she can handle the juggling of children and career. She's already demonstrated that with her current record. No, I have no problem with her because of her choice of career/family. No. I have a problem with her political stances. I have a problem with her doctrines. Not her family, troubles or not. But attacking her for her political record, that is the same all candidates receive. And darn it if I don't see time and again whenever anyone brings up questions about her political record they start complaining that "the media" is attacking Palin merely because she's a working mother. baloney. Yes, she is under extra scruitiny right now. She's new to the major media spotlight. And it seems like they're ganging up on her, well they've only got so much time before the election to catch her up to the media vilification that all candidates receive over time.
Oh and I'm a working mother myself, with a special needs child and the media "attacks" do not endear her to me, or make me want to take her side. Anyway, the questioning of someone's abilities to assist in the leading of the nation (or in the event of disaster actually leading the nation) is what we're supposed to be doing of any candidate.
Suppose I stood up, Right now, And spoke my mind.
Suppose that I was Heard and that they all believed in Me.
What happens next? -- Teresa L. Rothman
|
|
|
|
Big Cat
Frequent Poster
363 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 3:46:48 PM
|
| So Metz, you believe in MURDER? Because that is what ABOTTION is. I do not no how any person in this country can support abortion, the killing of an unborn child.As far as I am concerened this is the same thing the nazi's did during ww 2.IF you don't like it get rid of it.The next step people like you will take is the killing of the senior citizens because it is the sam as killing an infant who can't help themselves.Its the sam thing.Obama and biden, pelosi can't even live the christan life that they were brought up in. |
|
|
|
Metz
Active Poster
USA
168 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 5:51:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Cat
So Metz, you believe in MURDER? Because that is what ABOTTION is. I do not no how any person in this country can support abortion, the killing of an unborn child.As far as I am concerened this is the same thing the nazi's did during ww 2.IF you don't like it get rid of it.The next step people like you will take is the killing of the senior citizens because it is the sam as killing an infant who can't help themselves.Its the sam thing.Obama and biden, pelosi can't even live the christan life that they were brought up in.
I think you're getting a bit ahead of yourself here. Just because I do not agree with Sarah Palin does not automatically mean I am open to attack in that way. Excuse me for getting a bit upset about this but I think you go a bit too far in saying, quote:
The next step people like you will take is the killing of the senior citizens because it is the sam as killing an infant who can't help themselves.
What did I do to earn this kind of "people like you" statement? I simply said I do not agree with her doctrines and political stances. I never said WHAT doctrines and political stances exactly, now did I? Just to clarify though, my problem with her doctrines is the same heavy handedness that you use in your reply. There is a fine line between expressing your faith/beliefs to others and pressing your faith/beliefs on others.
My problem with her political stances is mostly her comments about doing "God's work" in Iraq and Afghanistan. That statement is dismissive of logic and human understanding, and it is dismissive of the fact that not all American citizens do not feel the same way. That kind of talk belongs in church, not in our government. It's that whole expressing your belief and PRESSING your belief. Which by the way, I am expressing mine. I do not expect or even really want to change your point of view. I respect that you feel strongly about what you do. I did not comment earlier in order to question your belief, or to force you to adhere to what I believe.
Nor did I comment to insult you. I respectfully stated my opinion.
I also respect the soldiers who risk their lives every second of every day over there. I respect that they are doing their best with limited resources and very little to protect them. I respect that many of them feel they are doing the right thing, that many feel justified in being there by the good works they do. I respect that they are following the orders given to them by their government. But I do not for one minute believe they are doing "God's work" over there. And I am grateful for the sacrifices and risks they make on behalf of the USA. I will never hold it against a soldier.
But for those who are saying it's "God's work", that's just exactly what the people who hurt us and their own people over and over have been saying. They believe JUST as strongly that they are doing the will of God, (and don't quibble with me about the different name, Allah is God to them) they believe just as strongly that there is justification in killing us as our government claims there is justification in killing them. Just as the extreme believers in Right to Life feel it is ok to bomb clinics that perform abortions and kill doctors and sometimes innocent people who are at the clinic for prenatal care. They justify it but it is the same thing.
There have been killers throughout time who claim they were told to kill by God. Well. They got diagnosed with insanity, under the influence of drugs, etc... While I will not dispute a truly spiritual person feeling a connection with God, I do have to point out that very thin line again. And who decides which is the right side of that thin line?
Suppose I stood up, Right now, And spoke my mind.
Suppose that I was Heard and that they all believed in Me.
What happens next? -- Teresa L. Rothman
|
|
|
|
Big Cat
Frequent Poster
363 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2008 : 6:26:58 PM
|
| THe Gods Work story has been debunked already, keep off the left wing web sites. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Obama idea on how to save money
