Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Obama: Red-Handed

Use this link and the content behind it to justify all your previously ungrounded hatred for this so-called Messiah. Okay. Perhaps that's a little too intensely negative. Below is a link to the PowerLine blog which shows just how ignorant Obama is of the issues and how easily he seems to correct his mistakes. Sorry Obama, but you're not going to get away with this one.



Kevin Donohue said...

I've read both Obama's op-ed, which appeared in the NYT. And several commentaries on it. By far, powerline's analysis is the most-dead on and damning. The man is utterly clueless, and the mainstream media don't want to report on it. Can you imagine if Bush said Afghani's speak Arabic? It would be on every broadcast from NYC to LA.

Brandon said...

I think you kids are a little overzealous

Anonymous said...

can any of the editors come up with a pro-obama post? You claim to be catholic, but that doesn't necessarily mean conservative, does it? I know there's a catholics for Obama campaign, for instance.

just curious

Anonymous said...

As a Catholic, there are a few "non-negotiables" when it comes to voting. Obama's stance on abortion alone is enough to prevent an faithful Catholic from voting for him. Also, the Democratic party's stance on homosexual marriage, cloning, stem cell research, and euthanasia make any Democratic candidate difficult to vote for, as a Catholic.

Being Catholic does not mean being conservative, and I think you'll find a lot of "liberal" Catholics. For example, even though I believe in small government and free-market capitalism, another faithful Catholic might believe that socialism is the way to go. But we both must acknowledge that abortion is a great evil. You see?

Besides, the editors on staff are mostly conservative anyway. Why would we write a pro-obama post?

Brandon said...

"Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing."

From his website.

Sounds Catholic to me. There's a long tradition of the living wage being supported by Popes.

Dan Amiri said...


"Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case."

"Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies."

Those are some faith-based reasons why I oppose him.

But there are a thousand reasons why it makes more political sense to vote for the Republican candidate in this election, not least of which is Barack Obama's astounding naivety when it comes to foreign policy, evidenced by the article I linked as well as his policy of "diplomacy." I'm sorry, but if Iran wanted to talk and cooperate, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Anonymous said...

catholics puta lot in store on social justice, and often, it seems to me that the Democratic party is more concerned than Republicans on the social justice front. Democrats/liberals support equalizatation of wages and tax cuts for the poor, while finding other ways to redistribute wealth to the needy. How is this not as important as life issues? I know that abortion kills innocent children, but why vote for someone who saves babies but lets millions of poor and hungry stay poor and hungry? How is letting them suffer catholic?

Dan Amiri said...

The question you raise is a difficult one, one in which authors have written entire books attempting to answer. I think there is no definitely "Catholic" answer, as if to imply that the Church teaches whether to be Democrat or Republican.

I do remind you, however, that there are non-negotiables. And the outright destruction of innocent human life will never be outweighed by poverty or hunger.

One can be a pro-life Democrat, and there are several. I find myself tending towards "traditional conservativism" which affirms the need for social justice but argues that social justice does not come from government initiatives but from the freedom of the people to effect change in their own lives and the lives of others. One could argue, therefore, that Democrats seem to be more concerned about social justice, when in reality, they simply see government as a major player, or even THE player, in obtaining the ever-elusive "social justice." I fundamentally disagree. Does this make me, a Republican, anti-social justice? Of course not. I just don't value government's role in trying to say what social justice is and all the money we spend on programs that take away people's freedom.

Kevin Donohue said...

I would tend to agree with Dan. Neither candidate matches up with my views, most likely with anyone's views exactly. However, McCain falls in-line with the issues I consider most important. His (now) tax position, on immigration, on life issues, and on foreign policy outweighs the change, charisma, and other planks of Obama's platform which I like.

I think Senator Obama is a powerful speaker and a fine leader. My problem lies with where he proposes to lead us, as a nation. In addition, I question that majority of his advisors and his associations with radical members of the liberal movement. I agree with the majority of his education program, his immigration policy (which is significantly different from McCain) and (some) of his budget proposals such as Pay-as-you-go and cutting pork. However, his tendancy towards grand sayings, his dearth of experience, and, most essentially, his stance on life issues, foreign policy, drilling, and the tax cuts outweighs, for me at least, his positive aspects.

Ganymed said...

an interesting article about mccain's "experience" in foreign affairs: