Comes news that Obama has picked ex-Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as his Agriculture Secretary. How depressingly conventional. Vilsack is Mr. Big Agribusiness, and his selection is a sign that Obama has no interest in changing the US food system. King Corn still reigns, and we'll keep subsidizing industrial agriculture until kingdom come.
Obama has picked for his Secretary of State a hawkish internationalist (Hillary), and retained Bush's Secretary of Defense. His economic team is made up of Clintonite free traders and Establishmentarians. I'm not saying this is all bad, but you see these appointments, and you wonder what kind of "change" Obama was asking the American people to vote for. Maybe I'm missing something, but his line-up looks to me like thoroughly conventional picks from soup to nuts -- with the lone exception of his having done something unusual by retaining Bush's man at the Pentagon.
Slap a "New! Improved!" label on this box of the same old Democratic soap, and you're done. I suppose we'll now see Democrats behaving like us Republicans did whenever Bush did something disappointing: vigorously insist that the alternative (Gore, Kerry) would have been far, far worse, so nobody has any business complaining.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
rod,
seriously, his cabinet is a massive change from 8 years of bush. you have to admit they are a huge, huge shift from cheney, rummy, condi, hank paulson
the election was to follow bush - change was about changing from what he has done to our country
c'mon rod, for once, take your foot off the cynic pedal as it relates to obama
No. Both Obamas parents are African / Eurasian. We know nothing of his birthplace, his origin or his circumstance. He won't tell us.
He got elected by criminal means as a criminal with a criminal background and origin would and did. A terrorist name operating in America, in Washington and in The White House.
Panama is America.
The time to take a stand is now. This is the day to take a stand for us all.
Panama's sovereign, and was also sovereign when Mr McCain was born there as well. (Believe it or not, folks even took up an argument against HIS natural-born citizenship. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/ )
It seems that for a period (1914 to 1974) Panama canal was practically U.S. territory, administratively. But some question as to whether being born on it during this time frame would make one a citizen. Moot point, if one or both or your parents are citizens, you get U.S. citizenship. Sounds pretty natural to me. Interestingly, this has not been settled legally and finally. Obama's SAID he was born on Hawaii, which even WERE his parents African (which is true) and "Eurasian" (whatever that is supposed to mean) would grant him citizenship. The rest of your comment is not really worth addressing.
And this is how almost every discussion about Obama will devolve-- with whacky, unsupportable assertions about Obama's supposed non-citizenship and silly accusations of criminality. Pathetic.
Insane Kitten
And this is how almost every discussion about Obama will devolve-- with whacky, unsupportable assertions about Obama's supposed non-citizenship and silly accusations of criminality. Pathetic.
There's an argument he could have nipped this in the bud by immediately producing copies of his birth certificate, instead of allowing it to run around the right-blogosphere long enough to get in all the loonies' conspiracy theories, and only then discrediting it. (1)
And, yes, it is completely discredited. Newspapers have seen the actual original birth certificate, and there's also the birth announcement in the newspaper, and the fact that Obama's mother never lived in Kenya anyway.
It's possible he could have stopped it, although the real way to deal with such slander is to ignore, but I'm really glad he didn't anyway. It's the new 'Vince Foster was murdered by Clinton'.
So it lets all sane people have a warning sign as to who the wackos are. The people you want to ignore even if they are, in theory, on the same side of a debate as you.
On the left, of course, we've got the damn 9/11 Truthers to deal with. But they're easy to spot too.
Obama's birthplace is the most completely idiotic theory ever. At least the Truthers are confused by actual unintuitive behavior of collapsing buildings and the other blatantly illegal actions of the Bush administration. It is 'Bad Science' stupidity. It is 'Free Energy' stupidity. (In fact, there's a surprising overlap between the two groups.)
However, the Obama-American-Deniers (Do we have an official name for them yet?) are just obviously making things up and have no positive evidence of their theory at all, just a constant insistent that the accepted facts do not have enough evidence. It is 'I Have No Evidence And You Have Plenty But I Don't Accept It And Think That Somehow Proves I'm Right' Stupidity.
I know I'm probably biased, but the left's insane theories, although clearly wrong and stupid, actually appear to be based on ignorance of rather complicated things, plus, obviously, paranoia. Whereas the right's insane theories appear to be based on...um...nothing, except some sort of absolute faith in the idea that everyone is lying.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.