Carpe diem -- or can we all relax now?
On my recent travels in America, I met two types of Republicans: those possessed by the most profound, gut-wrenching fear of the supreme danger that President-elect Obama represented for their country and the world, and those who believed that he was merely a cynical opportunist who had used radical politics as a means of achieving power but who, mindful of the need not to derail his presidency and indeed to campaign for a second term, not to mention having to face up to the dual threats of economic and military armageddon, would throw all his radical associates under the bus and govern from the centre.
This later prognosis may indeed turn out to be true; as I have said before, I desperately hope that circumstances will force Obama to repudiate his past. At present we do not know whether this will happen; and so far, I have seen nothing to suggest that it will. Unlike those who see in the emerging shape of his administration evidence that he will be a pragmatic centrist, I do not think it necessarily shows anything of the kind.
For sure, he has made some solid and reassuring appointments, such as his Treasury team. But did anyone really believe that a radical president would appoint obvious radicals to key roles in his administration? Maybe he really was a centrist all along. But if not, the one thing Obama is not going to do is torpedo his presidency at the very start by displaying a radical bent. The name of the game must be not to frighten the horses, and never more so than in the two most explosive areas of all: the economy and Israel. After all, the revolutionary Alinsky school of politics in which his politics to date have been solidly anchored is entirely about stealth, iron discipline and steady incremental cultural change under the radar, so that the terms of political trade are changed forever, as summarised here. The aim is to achieve increased control at home and decreased power abroad, in order radically to change America and neuter its power. But it must be done with maximum deniability.
But hang on, people say -- what about Hillary? Doesn’t the fact that Obama wants to make her Secretary of State prove that Obama is a centrist, just like her? And what about Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, the son of a former Irgun Jewish terrorist?
As I have said before, Emanuel’s parentage is irrelevant. As The Forward notes, he was not only a player in the catastrophic Oslo appeasement process but also supported the informal ‘Geneva initiative’ which even doveish Israelis condemned as a suicide note for Israel.
And as for Mrs Clinton, Hillary the Moderate is itself a fairly recent piece of triangulated reconstitution. Not that long ago, she was significantly to the left of her husband; and it must not be forgotten, crucially, that she herself is an Alinsky disciple.
What is much more likely is that Hillary, a professed defender of Israel, would be used (as would, to a lesser extent, Rahm Emanuel) to provide deniable cover for Obama as his administration forces Israel to cut its own throat -- the centrepiece of what passes for his foreign policy to date.
For surrounding Hillary would be appointments which would be solidly anti-Israel: people who believe that Israel must be forced to jeopardise its security to bring into being a Palestinian state which they think would lance the Islamist boil – because they believe that Israel is not the victim but the cause of Islamist rage and global terror. It has been widely reported that Obama has been consulting the former Republican National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who is a leading voice in this camp. Moreover, according to the Wall Street Journal, Scowcroft is linked to a number of like-minded Republicans Obama is thought to be considering bringing into his administration, such as Jim Jones as his National Security Adviser.
A few days ago, Scowcroft and Carter’s former NSA Zbigniew Brzezinski (an open enemy of Israel and another of Obama's advisers) penned a significant op-ed in the Washington Post. This appeared to be a first draft of the Obama plan to force Israel back into its 1948 ‘Auschwitz’ borders and bring a Palestinian state into being, in the quite remarkable belief that this
would dissipate much of the appeal of Hezbollah and Hamas, dependent as it is on the Palestinians' plight. It would change the region’s psychological climate, putting Iran back on the defensive and putting a stop to its swagger.
What planet are they on? A Palestinian state would be run by Hamas as a proxy for Iran. As such, it would be a disaster for the Palestinians -- as several of them have now realised – as well as for Israel, the region and the world.
Moreover, to allay Israel’s security concerns over handing over territory to a Palestinian government that is incapable of combating terrorism, Scowcroft, Brzezinski and Jones recommend stationing an international force, perhaps from NATO, in the disputed territories.
Ah yes: to repeat the conspicuous success NATO troops achieved in bringing peace in Srebenica, for example, or Rwanda, or Lebanon?
The Republicans, who really don’t begin to grasp just what has hit them, similarly fail to acknowledge that among their own ranks are many who, just like in the British Conservative party, share with the left the desire to neutralise American power and throw Israel under the bus. Some of those people came to power under George W Bush and set him on the disastrous path to appeasement -- which his demented detractors on the left somehow failed altogether to notice.
There are other unsettling indications that Obama may already be running a shadow foreign policy. Robert Malley, one of Clinton’s Oslo negotiators, is one of America's most outspoken apologists for Palestinian terrorism against Israel and claims that Syrian, Lebanese and Iranian attacks against Israel are all Israel's fault. The Obama campaign distanced itself from Malley last May after the Times reported that he was meeting regularly with Hamas leaders. But a few days after Obama’s election, Malley travelled to Syria, ostensibly under the aegis of the appeasement-minded International Crisis Group. Yet one of his aides told FrontPage Magazine that acting on Obama’s instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syria’s President Assad that ‘the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests.’ And as Caroline Glick reported, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama's advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama's chances of being elected.
If Israel is to be browbeaten into committing suicide, however, it is essential that the fingerprints of the Israel-haters are not found at the scene of the crime and that it is carried out instead by someone with impeccable credentials as an Israel supporter. That person may well be Hillary Clinton who, if appointed Secretary of State, will be expected to finish the job her husband failed to do and force a Palestine state into being.
To fully grasp this, it has to be understood that there are two kinds of people who threaten to deliver Israel to its enemies for annihilation. The first are the Israel-haters who want to see it destroyed. The second are those on the left who, while believing they have Israel’s interests at heart, believe also that its security can be guaranteed by a Palestine state. They thus see Israel’s resistance to that state as the obstacle to peace in the region, whereas in fact it would pose a mortal threat to Israel (and now also to the region and the world, since such a state would be a proxy for Iran). That’s why Clinton Mark One pressurised Israel to dismember itself under Oslo and in the process turned the Palestinians from a terrorist gang into an army with international backing. Clinton Mark Two would be Oslo all over again -- but this time trailing clouds of Iranian plutonium.
While neutralising America abroad, Alinkskyite politics mean changing the terms of trade at home to extend the power of the state and undermine western values. So it’s no surprise that Melody Barnes, head of policy at the Centre for American Progress, is apparently to be director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. As Ed Lasky comments on American Thinker:
The Center for American Progress is a Soros-funded group, of course. Here comes drug legalization, abortion on demand, and euthanasia.
And then there’s Eric Holder who has been named as Attorney-General. Holder was the Clinton administration’s last deputy Attorney General. NRO recalls that notoriously he granted a pardon to the racketeer Marc Rich
thanks to the intercession of his ex-wife, a generous donor to Clinton’s library and legal-defense fund. Holder’s role was aptly described as ‘unconscionable’ by a congressional committee.
Worse still:
In 1999, over the objections of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and prosecuting attorneys, Holder supported Clinton’s commutation of the sentences of 16 FALN conspirators. These pardons — of terrorists who even Holder has conceded had not expressed any remorse — were issued in the months after al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings, when the Clinton administration was pretending to be the scourge of terrorism. The commutations were nakedly political, obviously designed by Clinton to assist his wife’s impending Senate campaign by appealing to New York’s substantial Puerto Rican vote...
He is convinced justice in America needs to be ‘established’ rather than enforced; he’s excited about hate crimes and enthusiastic about the constitutionally dubious Violence Against Women Act; he’s a supporter of affirmative action and a practitioner of the statistical voodoo that makes it possible to burden police departments with accusations of racial profiling and the states with charges of racially skewed death-penalty enforcement; he’s more likely to be animated by a touchy-feely Reno-esque agenda than traditional enforcement against crimes; he’s in favor of ending the detentions of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay and favors income redistribution to address the supposed root causes of crime.
Yes, maybe Obama is really a centrist. But a real centrist would simply never choose such people to be in his administration.
The most telling comment of all was made by Rahm Emanuel. As the Sunday Telegraph reported, he said of America’s financial meltdown:
‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.’ He continued: ‘Things that we postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.’
Yes, there’s a silver revolutionary lining in every capitalist cloud.
Carpe diem, eh?
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (50)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Margaret McCarthy
November 26th, 2008 1:15amJust when my hives and eczema were improving (Doctor says stress induced; he shares my distress by the way) I read your account of the Obama appointees and my terror returned full force.
In case you haven't seen this link to the video by John Zeigler that reflects the Zogby poll of Obama voters and their lack of knowledge, here is the link:
http://howobamagotelected.com/
EverydayFaith
November 26th, 2008 5:02amWhere's the "change" that Mr. Obama promised? All that I see are failed re-tread, far-left radicals. The battle cry for many Obama supporters before the election was, "Let's give him (and the Dems) a chance to see what they can do." I live in California and I was unable to find one of his supporters that could provide a valid reason they were for voting for the man. Too many bought into the hype and failed to look closely at his associations, voting record (such as it was), and his radical statements. As Melanie points out, now that he is the president-elect, we can see by his initial appointments just where we (America) are headed. Unfortunately, there isn't much we can do to stop his policies until the mid-term elections.
Fergus Pickering
November 26th, 2008 5:04amCYNICAL opportunist? All politicians are opportunists. That's what the game is all about. Name me one American Prsident or one British Prime Minister who wasn't an opportunist? Opportunists seize the moment. Like the great Maggie giving in to the miners until the time was ripe and then ... ZAP! And you don't suppose Churchill got to number 10 by sitting on his arse and waiting for it to haooen, do you? As for Obana's past, everybody's past is shady if you look into it enough, yours and mine too, I've no doubt.
Paul from the pass MS
November 26th, 2008 5:18amdead on target! Good job Melanie
David
November 26th, 2008 7:35amSo, we have the astounding news that Republicans aren't happy that a Democrat won the presidency, and that the proof of Obama's secret marxist agenda is that he's not currently pursuing a secret maxist agenda.
*Passes Melanie the tin foil hat*
Conservative Cabbie
November 26th, 2008 8:02amNot intended as a dig at Obama, just an interesting aside.
Obama has been standing in front of a lectern which states "The Office of The President-Elect". There is actually no such thing and technically, Obama is not even the President-Elect yet. That won't happen until december when the Electoral College sits and confirms him in that role.
Conservative Cabbie
November 26th, 2008 9:10amSo it seems as though it would be unconstitutional for Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State.
The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."
Basically this means that no Senator should be able to take an office of state if that office has had a pay rise during the time that senator was elected to serve. The Secretary of State office has had a pay rise.
So the question is, is this a constitutional technicality that can be ignored? Or is ignoring the rule book of government a good idea? I don't have an answer, it will be interesting to see whether this story gets any traction and how it plays out.
David
November 26th, 2008 9:21amHow is that interesting?
The winner of the election tends to be, and always has been for several decades, referred to as the President elect from the time the opponent concedes, unless the winner is an incumbent.
There has also always been a transitional office,sometimes just referred to "X's Transition Office" of "Transition team for X".
I don't recall one as well organised as Obama's, which is rather good to see considering the circumstances and I hope it provides the model for future Presidents to follow. The Democrats have learnt well from the Clinton disaster.
David
November 26th, 2008 9:26amSince there have been plenty of similar appointments in the past, by both parties, I suspect your interpretation is flawed.
Anthony
November 26th, 2008 10:06amHe truly is the rock star president, fit only for screaming, swooning airhead fans who not only haven't got a clue what he's about but don't care.
MTV are even hosting an inauguration ball for him. So Israel and the free world can be thrown under the bus to the sound of a jukebox!
Pardon me if I don't tune in.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3522553/MTV-to-host-Barack-Obamas-Inaugural-ball-in-Washington.html
Ronnie
November 26th, 2008 10:41amOh Cabbbie, clutching at straws here. You really are missing the election aren't you?
bob
November 26th, 2008 11:06amwow, that was one hell of a rant.
Conservative Cabbie
November 26th, 2008 11:11amDavid
My you're a bit grumpy aren't you - I share some facts that I find interesting and which I think others might and you get all crappy about it. If you didn't find it interesting fine, but why bother to comment on it? Others might.
So it's happened loads of times before has it re Secretary of State? Well actually no. Going back to 1980, only one SoS has gone from congress to that role and that was Edmund Sixtus Muskie in 1980 (perhaps there wasn't a pay rise at that time which is why this wasn't an issue). You may want to check your facts before leaping to your self-righteous response. As for it being my interpretation, again no it isn't. I got it from both Marc Ambinder and Eugene Volokh, one a respected commentator for the Atlantic and the other a legal professor.
Your "both parties" comment is instructive, I made it quite clear that I wasn't making a partisan point and yet you jumped to the conclusion that I was. Try loosening up!!!
Conservative Cabbie
November 26th, 2008 11:17amWhat I see when I look at his appointments, is a President-Elect facing two 'wars' and a potentially disastrous economic crisis who sees the need for experience in his cabinet and appointments, that means for a Democrat, going back to the Clinton administration.
I am guardedly impressed so far by his transition. The appointments by and large are being well received even by those on the right (with some caveats), the people he is appointing are, by and large, well respected Washingtonites which he'll need with the problems he'll be facing come inauguration day.
There are some issues amongst his appointments for those on the right though. Melanie has mentioned the AG, Holder. Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security is also of some concern with her attitudes to immigration and the pro abortionist from Emily's List Ellen Moran who is the new Communications Director. However, any Presidential-Elect appointment can be somewhat controversial, that's the nature of politics. I hope the Republicans don't try to Robert Bork any of these appointments, demonstrate that they are a more classy organisation than the Democrats.
Realising that my tone has been far too positive about Obama, I will suggest one conspiracy theory for you all. There is a crucial senatorial election in Georgia in a week. If the Democrats win, they'll have 59 senate seats, one away from being able to block any senatorial filibuster. They will even get to 60 if Franken beats Coleman in the Minnesota recount. Perhaps these appointments are centrist so as not to scare off the voters in Georgia who may be worried about a leftist agenda should the Democrats get a super majority. A filibuster proof majority in the Senate would be a much greater benefit to the leftists than a few centrists in a fairly disempowered cabinet.
Finally some breaking news. It looks like Obama has asked current SoS for Defense, Robert Gates, to stay on for at least a year. Smart move.
I did actually try to post this one before my constitutional comment. Isn't it rearkable how quick the cultists are to take offence. There is no clutching at straws on my part, I actually don't think this should be made an issue of, a why round it should be found. Dave and Ronnie, get back in your box please!
John Birch
November 26th, 2008 11:19amMaybe someone should be investigating George Bush's background. After all, the Manchurian Candidate featured a communist agent pretending to be a right winger. Bush has been in charge while the financial system has nearly collapsed, the U.S. has become sucked into a conflict in the Middle East that has cost it billions of dollars and thousands of lives while getting rid of Iran's main enemy, and America's image has taken a battering even among its allies. It's hard to imagine a secret communist doing more damage than the current president has already done. What do your credible sources like NewsMax and Fox News have to say, Melanie?
Ronnie
November 26th, 2008 12:33pmOK Cabbie, I'm back in my box.
I'll leave you with all the other head-scratchers trying to figure out why a new president would select an experienced and intelligent team of centrists to deal with the numerous crises left by his predecessor.
I'll leave Melanie to explain why the unconditional defence of Israel is the only foreign policy issue that should concern anyone; and is the only measure by which knowledge, intention and action will be judged.
Bob Sloggin
November 26th, 2008 12:42pmYeah, while Bush sucks, he has shared his being "in charge" with a Democrat majority congress with even lower rating than himself. What do your credible sources like NPR and the NY Times have to say about that.
Conservative Cabbie
November 26th, 2008 1:12pmRonnie
I'm happy with his transition picks so far, I have issues with very few. We'll see how he governs but credit where credit is due so far.
Gatz
November 26th, 2008 2:07pmOh for goodness sake! So he can't be a radical because he's not appointing radicals to key positions? I assume he would then have been a centrist if he had appointed radicals.
This is through-the-looking-glass stuff. For once try looking at the evidence without interpretting it through your own extreme bias.
Augustus
November 26th, 2008 2:14pmHillary will be a loose cannon as Secretary of State, following her own agenda rather than that of the President and burnishing her own image at every turn. Obama will not be able to control her, nor will he even be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as Chief of Staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer - if he is lucky, and Hillary's if he is not. Either Obama has chosen to put himself in an untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington, or he plans to be little more than a figurehead, but given his campaign neither seems likely. But his promise of change has already proven so bankrupt that perhaps the rest of his candidacy is too.
Frank Pulley
November 26th, 2008 2:53pmSometimes it can be helpful to research what both the far left and far right elements in Western politics are saying to one another in their enclaves to discover their motivation
and to chart their intentions. Know thine enemy!
During the run-up to the US Presidential election, we have spent a great deal of time debating what the left are up to. Gramsci’s Long March has featured often in the commentary.
Recently I discovered this lecture on You Tube from Jonathan Bowden, ‘artist’, who has apparently dabbled in BNP politics and now adheres to a movement that calls itself the New Right.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnBQUJJ-7iE&feature=related
If you can suffer his somewhat irritating vocal delivery, it is worth listening to what he has to say about the development of Marxism and neo-Marxism over the past few decades and his interpretation of what it means for Western civilisation.
While deploring the spectrum of politics that he is dabbling in, he does seem to have done some interesting research.
During my long life of invigilation, research and investigation in several different roles, I have found that sometimes very useful information comes from the ‘dodgiest’ sources, even though it is essential to cross check with further reseach. While I do not underwrite his interpretation, or political solutions, some of the data he cites is very thought provoking. The You Tube videos are in several segments of about 10 minutes each. Grate your teeth and suffer the twang, it is worth persevering even if only to provoke further discussion about where the world is heading, in particular what the ‘extremes’ are planning. Some it may resonate with current developments, both here and abroad.
It would be interesting to hear what others know of Bowden. Google and Wiki bring forth a fairly sparse harvest.
Matthew Blott
November 26th, 2008 4:08pm@ Fergus Pickering
Melanie Phillips does indeed have a past she'd like to forget - she used to be a leftie herself.
@ David
LOL - that was very funny :-)
Ahad Ha'amoratsim
November 26th, 2008 5:07pm"Obama has been standing in front of a lectern which states "The Office of The President-Elect". There is actually no such thing and technically, Obama is not even the President-Elect yet. That won't happen until december when the Electoral College sits and confirms him in that role."
How about the American Idol Elect? Messiah-Elect? Fearless Leader Elect? These are not consitutional offices either, of course, but they have the virtue of accurately describing how his accolytes view him. Or should I write view Him?
TrevorsDen
November 26th, 2008 6:28pm"Bush has been in charge while the financial system has nearly collapsed," -- thats right and he should take his share of the blame (not a concept understood by G.Brown)
BUT
The toxic loans were sold and encouraged under Clinton and correct me if I am wrong but a Democrat Congress vetoed Bush's counter proposal.
Pedro Erik
November 26th, 2008 6:30pmI used to think, Melaine, that
it was not possible in US to achieve power pretending be a radical. Where the Earth am I?
Herbert Thornton
November 26th, 2008 6:50pmI think that a major aim of the new Administration should be rapprochement with Russia to form an alliance to resist the ambitions and expansion of Islam - but that Hillary Clinton could be a major obstacle to it.
At the same time, I comfort myself with the thought that if Obama does seek such a rapprochement and Hillary obstructs him he can fire her....
John Birch
November 26th, 2008 7:53pmBob Sloggin: For a large chunk of Bush's time in office, the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. Besides, Bush is the "decider" and ultimately the buck stops with him.
THX1138
November 26th, 2008 8:44pmBob Sloggin - Congress historically always has a lower rating than the incumbent president.
All on the Gallup site if you can be bothered to look.
You have to ask yourself why if they are so unpopular do over 80% of incumbents of either party get re-elected and if the Dems were so unpopular why did they increase their majority in both houses.
EC
November 26th, 2008 9:55pmFrank P,
That was an interesting talk on 'Marxism' by Jonathan Bowden particularly with reference to repositioning of 'the left,' retreat of the conservatives and the surrender of the establishment. Liked the quip about Trotsky going out in the light and the dark. I have never heard of Bowden before and I know very little about the BNP. A google link reported that in his resignation letter Bowden wrote, "I do not wish to associate-even tangentially-with such low-grade lycanthropes and psychotic criminals." This prompts one to wonder why he joined in the first place and what his other opinions are.
Never fall out with a man that keeps pigs!
Dave M
November 26th, 2008 10:33pmFor Israel, all of this is black and white. Israel had already been persuaded by Condi Rice and Bush to appease Arab extremists by retreating from land. Such a move got them nowhere which, to be honest, didn't take an Einstein to figure out from day one. More rocket fire into Israel and more terrorism followed the "withdrawing" from supposedly "occupied" land. The latest call from some Democrats (maybe Obama, maybe not) is for Israel to make more concessions and, of course, make Jerusalem a partly Muslim capital. The latter proposal, to my mind, is as absurd as suggesting Rome or Madrid should also become partly Islamic capitals (Spain perhaps on the basis of the Moors invasion). Let us hope that by now the Israelis have learned their lesson not to even think for a moment concessions (or "surrender" as Palestinian militants view it) will lead to peace. Israel's position needs to be that if Europe and the U.S. cannot appreciate how tiny their country is and how much collective land is now under Islamic control, then the game is over. There should never be compromises induced via terrorism either in Israel or elsewhere.
hadrian
November 26th, 2008 10:35pmSo far as Israel and the Middle East in general is concerned, I wonder, Melanie, where you think our superannuated PM Blair fits into the picture? Blair and Clinton sound a dreadful pairing to me!!
THX1138
November 26th, 2008 11:07pmTrevorsDen I'm not sure you're right but it's all so bloody complicated.
This article in Dec's Vanity Fair has a very good stab at explaining the financial melt down.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/12/banks200812
This quote jumped out.
"This hunt for scapegoats is futile. To understand the downfall of Planet Finance, you need to take several steps back and locate this crisis in the long run of financial history"
and this
"As long as there have been banks, bond markets, and stock markets, there have been financial crises. Banks went bust in the days of the Medici. There were bond-market panics in the Venice of Shylock’s day. And the world’s first stock-market crash happened in 1720, when the Mississippi Company—the Enron of its day—blew up. According to economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, the financial history of the past 800 years is a litany of debt defaults, banking crises, currency crises, and inflationary spikes."
You can look to blame it all on Carter, Clinton as Mel and the Right have tried to do or Bush as the left have done. Forget it, it's just what markets do if we don't like it we had better find another system to distribute goods & capital. Any ideas?
Verity
November 27th, 2008 12:03amConservative Cabbie - Obama also has Office of The President Elect on the door of his headquarters. Again, there is no such formal office in the United States. The pretension! The guy is such an arriviste and all-round aggressive creep. Remember the lectern in Berlin with the fake presidential seal on it? It's unbelievable that anyone with such a thuggish attitude could have bullied and elbowed his way into the White House.
In America, there'll be tears before teatime, mark my words.
Verity
November 27th, 2008 12:34amMatthew Blott - How do you infer from Melanie referring on several occasions that she used to be on the left that she'd like to forget it?
Somehow, I intuit that there are several occasions in your past that you would like to forget. So do you refer to them in public in order to forget them? If Melanie "preferred to forget" that she once sympathised with the left, why would she bring it up as an instructional aside every now and then?
Ahad Ha'amoratsim - funny!
And thank you, Pete Hoskin, for a rationally placed Comment box! You are a star and a hero.
No one else has thanked Pete yet.
Brian Moshe
November 27th, 2008 2:48amEarlier today I stood outside the Capitol, passed the White House and browsed the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. It's great to back in the US.
Tomorrow I'm hoping to enjoy Thanksgiving and eat some turkey.
As a Brit I don't have the vote here and although I hoped McCain would win my wife who does vote wanted Hillary to be the successful candidate.
Reading some of the comments about Obama on the various Melanie threads I am mighty puzzled. No one supports Israel more enthusiastically than I do and no one worries more about what Obama might have in store for Israel. What's more no-one is more devoted in support of Melanie than I am (95% of the time anyway). However, there appears to be simply no debate here as far as I can discover as to whether or not Obama is an Alinskyist/ Marxist threat to the free world...
Met some Republicans tonight, no-one seems remotely worried. All I can say is ordinary Americans just don't seem concerned. This doesn't mean I'm not concerned but I can say it doesn't seem to be the issue over here it is on Melanie's threads and this worries me rather a lot.
Verity
November 27th, 2008 4:07amPoor little number plate TX whatever ... so keen to be a pretend American ... So offended that Immigration kept him waiting. So naively dismissive, claiming that foreign tourism would suffer ... as though the US gets much foreign, as opposed to domestic, tourism. Such a silly, angry man. US Immigration simply failed to understand how important he is and how much he has to teach Americans.
What a jerk.
MHGinTN
November 27th, 2008 4:17amBarack Obama is America's affirmative action president. He has not proven he is eligible by Constitutional requirements--he was born in Kenya and will not reveal his actual birth certification for that reason--and he was the least qualified candidate, including the VP candidates.
The media in America worked very hard to keep the facts, such as they are, about Obama from We The People. If We conservatives are to blame someone for the affirmative action president it should be the propaganda machine euphemistically called 'the free press'.
America's press was intended to be a fourth estate of governance, revealing facts to the electing masses. With this election, the fourth estate gladly transmogrified into a fifth column enemy of We The People.
Many of We Yanks are thankful for Melanie's perspective from across the pond. Sadly, most Americans do not get the medicine she often brings.
BobN
November 27th, 2008 4:42amWell, I can't really comment on the "intellectual content" of this piece, but one thing should be absolutely clear to everyone: there can't possibly be any more room under that bus, what with all the various individuals and groups who have been thrown under it of late.
Conservative Cabbie
November 27th, 2008 7:47amTHX
"You have to ask yourself why if they are so unpopular do over 80% of incumbents of either party get re-elected "
Money and name recognition.
"if the Dems were so unpopular why did they increase their majority in both houses."
Obama's coattails.
EC
November 27th, 2008 8:39amYes Verity, a rationally placed comments box, but it will not have escaped your notice that the Speccie Techies have a wrought their revenge. PH has a thankless task. Perhaps we should get some T-shirts printed up with "We are all Pete Hoskin Now" and some for the IT crowd with "Yes we can? Can we **** !"
Raised Eyebrows
November 27th, 2008 8:56amMelanie, do you not mention him keeping Gates (a republican) on at the Pentagon because it simply doesn't fit into your fantastical narrative?
Well that's persuasive...
THX1138
November 27th, 2008 10:02amCabbie- I agree with you on both points. I just find it interesting that polls always say that congress as a whole is terribly unpopular yet most individual representatives achieve high personal ratings & a very high success in getting re-elected. We're a fickle lot!
Byron in Wahroonga
November 27th, 2008 1:57pm***where's the "change" that Mr. Obama promised?***
Oh, there's plenty of 'change' coming.
So much change, that all we'll have left is 'hope.'
Byron in Wahroonga
November 27th, 2008 2:00pm**Passes Melanie the tin foil hat**
Impressive.
I thought it was firmly clamped to your head, David.
Byron in Wahroonga
November 27th, 2008 2:02pm***Obama has been standing in front of a lectern which states "The Office of The President-Elect". There is actually no such thing***
Not a lot of humility in the man, CC.
Reliably Informed
November 27th, 2008 3:51pm"That’s why Clinton Mark One pressurised Israel to dismember itself under Oslo and in the process turned the Palestinians from a terrorist gang into an army with international backing. "
The Palestinians are a 'terrorist gang'? Wow, for a while there I thought they were human begins. Thanks for clearing that up Mel.
Frank P
November 27th, 2008 7:56pmVerity
I did indeed try to congratulate the team on relocating the comments box on the night it occurred; I also pointed out, EC, that it obviously proved too much for the techies as the the 'justication' of the margins is now seems up the creek with most of the posts. My comment did not make it past the 'moderator' (or the techie as the case may be).
EC
Yes, Bowden is something of an enigma and the last of his videos was bordering on the anti-semitic, but he does seem to get it when it comes to the modification of Marxism and how it has affected liberalism, pacifism, etc. Certainly some of the commentary hereupon illustrates some of his claims. I don't think he'll ever be able to overcome the problems he has with enunciation, so he's unlikely to inspire a new Rightist jackboot movement to replace the BNP.
Bugoy
November 28th, 2008 2:27amWoo. Look at all the right-wing crackpots posting.
"Obama was born in Kenya! Sarah Palin was way more qualified than him!"
victoria williams
November 28th, 2008 6:58pmMelanie much of what you say illustrates one point very clearly - that is that Israel has managed the Bush administration so comprehensively that they (the Israelis)have managed to continue their role as occupiers unencumbered by any pressure. Sadly for them this means that they have missed the opportunity to compromise when those dictating the outcome were broadly supportive of Israel and unsympathetic to the Palestinians. The ground rules are changing - just as you have described. However it is not about appeasement, instead it is about the realisation that Israel will not move an inch without pressure. The Israelis have only themselves to thank for that.
Johnny Smoke
December 2nd, 2008 9:18pmTrevorsDen - Where'd you get your facts?
"The toxic loans were sold and encouraged under Clinton and correct me if I am wrong but a Democrat Congress vetoed Bush's counter proposal."
The toxic loans you refer to are a phenomenon developing out of the tech crash of 2000-2002. However, worse then the loans are the credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations sold during this time frame. Add to this the lack risk management tools and understanding of how CDS and CDOs work and you have a recipe for disaster. This all happened under Bush's watch and it's going to get worse because commercial property and credit card CDS/CDOs are next.
That being said, the one thing you can pin on Clinton is the repeal of The Glass Steagall Act.