Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Do you want a third term for George Bush or a second term for Jimmy Carter?
Posted by: Billy Hollis on Monday, April 21, 2008

Ann Althouse rightly slams Obama for a very lame response to John McCain's criticism of Obama's friendship with Bill Ayers. McCain points out something that's entirely true, as best as we can tell:
[Obama] became friends with [William Ayers] and spent time with him while the guy was unrepentant over his activities as a member of a terrorist organization, the Weathermen.
The heart of the response is:
The American people can’t afford a third term of President Bush’s failed policies and divisive tactics.
I'm on record as being no fan of McCain. And given the general similarity of Bush and McCain on Iraq and immigration, it's fair to point out the similarities.

That does not answer McCain's point, though. And, as Ann points out, that's the general approach from Obama's campaign no matter what the opposition says.

McCain's points must be quite valid if Obama has no better response that the lame one above. He seems to consider himself above it all, and is trying to get elected on nothing more than the perception that he's somehow more moral and caring than the other candidates.

Hmm. Reminds me of someone else who ran a campaign just like that back in 1976. Today I'm fond of referring to him as the highest ranking useful idiot in American history.

"A third term for George Bush" probably sounds unappealing to many voters, but when compared to "a second term for Jimmy Carter", it might come off looking a bit better.



 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The government of the United states is the worst n the world... except for all the others.

I forget who said that, though I lean tward Winston Churchill.
Which is, perhaps why they’re not teaching about him anymore in what used to be England.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I forget who said that, though I lean towards Winston Churchill
Yes, but he spoke about democracy as the worse, except for all the others
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I, for one, cannot wait until Ol’ Jimmah returns from his "Terrorist Training Camp 2008" tour to brief Obama/Clinton on his meeting.

And when he speaks at the DNC Convention in Denver.

RNC ad: This man meets with terrorists. He was a failed President. This man WANTS to meet with terrorists. Do we need another Jimmy Carter in the White House?

Yep. That will be the end of Obama as we know it.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
You’re conflating two Churchill quotes.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

and,

The Americans always do the right thing, eventually.

As for Carter meeting with Hamas, he and they could be conspiring to affect U.S. elections by having Carter actually bring some sort of peace deal back, which would challenge the Israelis to accept it, or force the Bush administration to take a position on it, or force McCain to take a position on it.

Either way, what you get, politically, is "Bush/McCain reject peace deal," or "Bush/McCain implicitly admit Democrats know how to achieve peace," with Obama and/or Hillary endorsing Carter and Carter endorsing one of them.

Typical scumbag move by Carter in tandem with the Hamas scumbags. But it is indeed the Democratic way. The trick will be to turn it around on Obama and/or Hillary by asking them how many presidents are there at one time? "Imagine if ex-President Bush, against the wishes of a Democratic president, negotiated a deal with a hostile power and tried to use it for political advantage in an election year? How would you react to that Senator Obama, if you were the sitting president?"
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin;
Ah.
Well, blame lack of coffee.

Still... the point is made, the chocies ahve ALWAYS in reality, come down to the lesser of available evils.


Your remaining comments, by thw ay are spot on. Make no mistake, people, about the timing involved, here.
But how many ’peace’ deals are we going to go through before we finally understand these people don’t WANT peace?


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Jimmy Carter already brought back a peace deal, if I recall correctly.

This time, it’ll be different, right?
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
Jimmy Carter already brought back a peace deal, if I recall correctly.
Well not exactly ... Hamas is now saying he got it wrong. Essentially what Hamas is willing to do is the same deal they offered to abide by previously - Palestinian state, no recognition of Israel, pre-67 borders. Do you know how to say "no deal" in Hebrew?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, exactly, Mark.
Let’s not get trapped into a blind hope for peace. Patrick Henry of all people correctly identified the problem, within a different context, yet the same problem;
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

...
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?
...

Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation.
...

I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
...
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace— but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
..
And so it has; the Pope himself visted one of the sites of it’s beginning. And of course this isn’t merely a fight with us, but with Israel as well, whom they’re still lobbing shells at as we speak. Some peace effort.

hey started the war, and then complain when Isarel hangs onto lands gained so that it cannot be used against them, as has been so often done before.

I run this Henry quote at the serious risk of boing overly dramatic, I know... I fully expect to catch hell for it.. but really; At what point, do we GET the point that peace isn’t WANTED?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
It’s interesting that Ann Althouse came out for Obama a month or two ago. I don’t read her regularly enough to know where she stands now.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Do you know how to say "no deal" in Hebrew?
It’s a sort of sign language. You say it by shooting your Prime Minister.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The trick will be to turn it around on Obama and/or Hillary by asking them how many presidents are there at one time?
I think a better way to counter this ploy is to point out that Jimmuh was the genius who negotiated the "agreed framework" with North Korea and look how that turned out. Jimmuh hasn’t had a lot of success negotiating with terrorist organizations or state supporters of terrorism.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
You could make up the list of Carter foreign relations successes. There was, well, uh. Hmmmm. (Scratches head.) Well, other than fighting off an angry swimming rabbit with an oar, I don’t really remember any Carter foreign relations successes. There was that Billy deal with Libya or Algeria or someone. Or the time he gave our embassy to the Iranian mullahs, but I don’t think most of us would exactly call either one of those successes.

This guy is a big deal ex-President with international credentials exactly why, again?
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Jimmy Carter is the best President we ever had... except for all the others.
 
Written By: Watcher
URL: http://www.watcherofweasels.com
(Chuckle)
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Carter helped negotiate the Israeli-Egyptian peace with Begin and Sadat. The Israelis got recognition from Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai peninsula back. Everybody got American cash.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Jimmuh hasn’t had a lot of success negotiating with terrorist organizations or state supporters of terrorism.
Not entirely true — they usually end up successes for the terrorist organizations and state supporters of terrorism.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Carter helped negotiate the Israeli-Egyptian peace with Begin and Sadat. The Israelis got recognition from Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai peninsula back. Everybody got American cash.
Begin and Sadat initiated the process, and the real negotiations involved Nicolae Ceaucescu and some other Eastern European dictator. Carter was involved late in the process after all the key aspects were worked out, because they wanted the American taxpayer to fund it.

So it really just fell on Carter’s lap, he was just lucky to be president at the time.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Carter helped negotiate the Israeli-Egyptian peace with Begin and Sadat. The Israelis got recognition from Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai peninsula back. Everybody got American cash.
Shortly after which Sadat was swiss cheese, and all bets were off again.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Do you know how to say "no deal" in Hebrew?
Kain ’asek. (Cane ai-sek, if you want a more phonetic transliteration.)
Or in Yiddish, Geh in drehd.

I don’t think Jimmy’s doing this to impact the elections. I think Jimmy’s doing this because he think’s he’s Jimmy the SuperPresident, accountable to no one but himself and God. And not always to God.
 
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
accountable to no one but himself and God. And not always to God.
If God were SMART, he’d listen to Jim-muh...I’m sure the Election of 1980 tested the Great-Souled One’s faith, for if there was a God, how could He have allowed His Chosen One to have lost to an actor?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider