Obama just one crisis short of a full Nixon

| | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (0)

Sen. Joe Biden has predicted that the callow youth at the top of his ticket would be tested by a "generated" international crisis, which, just as John F. Kennedy, whose obvious weakness gave Khrushchev the all-clear to wall off Berlin and plant missiles in Cuba, did, Obama will royally screw up.

(As Rush Limbaugh was saying today, isn't the whole world supposed to love us again if we elect Obama? Why should anyone expect him to be challenged by the bad guys, since there aren't any bad guys in the world, just people who are understandably enraged that America has yet to overthrow Chimpy McBushitler?)

Biden mentioned four or five scenarios, which inspired Gov. Sarah Palin to imagine what those five crises might be:

(Video after the jump.)

(Via Hot Air.)

Regarding crisis #5, CBS News' Scott Conroy reported on Monday that Sarah Palin is by far the most accessible of the four ticket-toppers:

In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.

By contrast, Biden hasn't held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn't taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain--who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability--hasn't done one since Sept. 23.

Obama/Biden bin hidin'?

Here's Palin in a one-on-one interview with CNN's Drew Griffin, talking about Biden's comments. When Griffin asked if Biden would get a pass, Palin points out that the media would have "clobbered" her over such a remark.

(Via Hot Air.)

Griffin agrees, and so does Dan Rather:

"Number one, if Sarah Palin had said this, the newspapers would have jumped all over it and so would the major television outlets."

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama just one crisis short of a full Nixon.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4535


Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Interesting spin, Mr. Bates. I agree that Sen. Biden didn't explain what he was saying very well. However, I think what he was trying to get across was the fact that we are living in a dangerous time, and the President will need the support of he people for the next inevitable crisis. The radical Muslims and others have a history of launching "surprises" around the time of an American election, or shortly thereafter. I don't think there's any doubt that, regardless of who were to become President, our enemies would try to take advantage of the transition period. That's why there have already been several important national security briefings given to the candidates by the administration, to shorten that inevitable vulnerability. To take Sen. Biden's comments and try to spin them as some "evidence" that Sen. Obama is unfit for the job is, in my opinion, intellectually disingenuous and cheapens what could be an informative discourse regarding the threats facing our country and how we should handle them.

So if he didn't explain himself well, maybe you can explain what Biden meant by this: "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

I don't think there were any surprises when Ronald Reagan took office. Except for Iran releasing their American hostages.

You mention "our enemies." Who are our enemies, in your opinion, and won't they all love us when Barack Obama is president?

Jennifer said:

Well actually Biden has said that Obama was not ready for the presidency when he was running agains Obama for the presidency. So yeah, I think Biden meant exactly what he said.

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

What did Sen. Biden mean? Something that, hopefully, all Americans understand: that these are dangerous times and we're going to need to pull together as a nation to face the threats. I have no doubt that people who wish us harm are paying attention to this election and have heard the criticisms that Sen. Obama is not prepared to face serious challenges. Regardless of my personal opinion of his capabilities, if I was a terrorist, I would attack right after he came into office to 1.) take advantage of the uncertainties inherent in the transition and, 2.) test him to see what the future may hold as far as response to more attacks. That's not a reason to vote for or against the man. Osama bin-Laden is NOT allowed any input into my decisions regarding my country. (I also believe a Pres. McCain would face a similar challenge for similar reasons.)

Ronald Reagan was president BEFORE the advent of al-Qaida and its associated groups. What I was talking about were incidents such as 9/11, which happened a matter of months after Pres. Bush took office during his first term (and according to some intelligence analysis was intentionally planned for early in a new President's term), the March, 2004 train bombings in Madrid that affected the Spanish elections, coupled with the bin Laden videotape released just before the 2004 U.S. Presidential election,etc.

Who are our enemies in my opinion? I think the main one to be concerned with right now is al-Qaida and its associated groups. While the general caricature of them given by the right is that they "hate our freedoms" and are "crazy", they're actually much more of a serious threat than that. The crazies that act as foot soldiers and carry out the actual acts are, for the most part, not the driving force. The actual groups have a much more complex set of geopolitical and religious motivations, and we must understand that to defeat them. The state-level actors are more like "competitors" of varying degrees of organization and rational decision-making. We're not going to go to war with Russia, but they are going to play hardball from now on, and we need to be prepared. Iran is harder to figure, because the populace is actually fairly moderate, as are most of its politicians. Unfortunately the government is controlled by an unelected religious elite driven my motivations that are harder to fathom. Ahmedenijad (sp?) is just the loudmouth speaking for them.

Your sarcastic comment regarding our enemies "loving" us because Sen. Obama will be elected is not worthy of substantive response. I don't believe you're one of the imbeciles who really think Sen. Obama is a "muslim" or a "terrorist", but instead that you were vastly oversimplifying a belief that Pres. Obama's administration will allow a re-set of American foreign policy with all international actors, because that administration will be perceived as not beholden to the incompetent and ideologically rigid policies of the current one.

Brian Blackwell Author Profile Page said:

What Biden inferred but did not say by the statement of ""And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." Is expect our reaction to this incident to be martial law. Expect the government to finish the job that was started with the passing of the "Patriot Act."

He's saying "we need you to stay with us even though we're going to remove all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights."

That's what Joe Biden was saying.

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Mr. Blackwell, what is the basis of your assertion that Sen. Biden was talking about the imposition of martial law and the removal of "all of the rights", other than irrational paranoia?

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Jennifer: Well, it seems that Sen. Biden has now changed his mind, hasn't it? I admire a politician who can admit when he's wrong.

sbtulsa Author Profile Page said:

I think we have to temper our projections with one consideration. If real martial law were to be enacted, large segments of the population would be outraged and we could have significnat civil unrest. Would martial law be instituted to quell that unrest or prevent a further or greater terrorist threat? While this is an extreme example, it would create an environment terrorists would love to see.

I'm just sayin'................

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Sbtulsa has a good point. Non-tinfoil-hat news sources have indicated that law enforcement and other agencies are trying to quietly prepare for any eventuality around election time. First, there's the uptick in terrorism related chatter, for the reasons I mentioned above. Second, as some may have noticed, the economy seems to be in a bit of turmoil, leading to stress on the population. Third, it should be apparent that this election is stirring up significant passions on both sides. If one party were to believe that their candidate unfairly lost, that might just be the match that sets things off. It's a smart decision to be prepared for whatever may happen domestically. In the best case scenario, our underpaid law-enforcement personnel could probably use the overtime just before Christmas!

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

Something that, hopefully, all Americans understand: that these are dangerous times and we're going to need to pull together as a nation to face the threats.

Isn't this the same Mike B. that was boasting to us Sarah Palin fans just a few weeks back about how Obama would bury the McCain/Palin ticket come November?

Why would Obama need Conservative's help if Obama is the "new messiah" as his rubes attest? I think folks like Mike B. ought to assume the role of statesman and show us all how it's supposed to be done - without our help. I think it is about high time the Democrats get to stand and deliver - all under the daily barrage of constant criticism from their domestic opponents.

Surely if this guy is as good as your ilk has frequently commented Mike, "THE ONE" as Obama's buddy Louie Farrakhan called him in a mosque, the megalomaniac of "hope and change" adorned with the greek columns at the football stadium while speaking, and quasi-Presidential seals, and autobiographies before fame and fortune, why Obama should be able to keep everything square solely with the Democrats help. After all, it was Republicans that created all the chaos, both domestic and foreign.

Besides Mike, I wouldn't worry about any foreign danger. You guys have been stating for seven years now that George Bush was the evil one, and the last six months that John McCain just more of the same. Now that they will soon be out of the way, why I am absolutely sure world peace and a stock market boom just right around the corner with Obama in charge. Time for our military to build the plow shares. Right?

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Mr. Taylor: Unfortunately the sarcasm and bile of you post obscured your ability to put forth any coherent, rational position. Yes, this is the same Mike B who stated that the Obama/Biden ticket would win. I love politics. It's my favorite sport, and I cheer for my team! However, being passionate for your candidate is not logically related to any disability to work with others for the good of your country.

You make a lot of bizarre statements, which I guess is to be expected of a follower of Louis Farrakhan. I don't know what Farrakhan may have said about Sen. Obama, and I don't care. Farrakhan is a thoroughly reprehensible anti-Semite who only appeals to a small fringe. The rest of your screed is simply laughable. If calling for "hope and change" is "megalomaniac" [sic] as you say, then you agree that McCain is guilty of the same, as he calls for "change" in how Washington is run. The "greek columns" behind Sen. Obama during his speech, that you have such a problem with, are iconic representations used by many politicians, as they associate with the architecture of the Capital, strength, etc. As for the quasi-Presidential seal .... ok, I thought that was stupid. Finally, the autobiographies "before fame and fortune" sold rather well. It's for the customer to decide what books to buy, not for you to decide what people SHOULD want. That's the essence of the free market. Why do you hate capitalism Mr. Taylor? I suppose you want some sort of socialist government commission to determine when a person can write a book and try to sell it?

Finally, the ad hominem comment that "you guys" (including me) have been calling Pres. Bush the "evil one" indicates a complete lack of ability to engage in critical and analytical thinking. (And shows you didn't read my first post today.) By your logic, the few inbred racists filmed at McCain and Palin rallies making stupid comments are indicative of the entire breadth of their support. Liberals have idiot followers, just like conservatives. Smart people don't think they're the sum total of either philosophy.

Finally, I agree with your statement that: "I think folks like Mike B. ought to assume the role of statesman and show us all how it's supposed to be done - without our help", at least as far as it applies to you. If your post is an indication of you capabilities, I would be very happy to allow you to sit on the sidelines as the grownups (on both sides of the aisle) get to the serious work of running the country.

Have a good day!

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

What I love about patronizing Obama rubes like Mike B. is that they sound like they cut and paste from the same source. They will melee mouth about evil socialism under the guise of Dimocratic Marxism, I mean capitalism. DU, KKKos, makes no difference. Barking seals...

And Mike, I never knew Obama the big fan of capitalism. That's news to a lot of us since Obama campaigns for more welfare, I mean tax credits, and "sharing the wealth."

But Mike, you missed one important point. Here, let me try it again because reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your bag.

See Mike, I think you the classic, neo-pagan, arm chair quarterback and a perfect candidate to call all the shots: economy, military, terrorism, makes no difference. Since you have been lecturing most of us now for a time about how Obama knows best how to do it, I think Obama, you and the rest of the leftist ilk ought to be given a shot; without help, and then without excuse.

And Mike, I wouldn't worry about foreign terrorism for a time. The Al-Queda types recognize useful idiots when they see them. When they've got the chess pieces in place under the banner of liberalism, then they will strike. And that will take a little time to situate.

Then we will see if you can fight as well as you bark.

P.S. So you really think Obama is going to reconcile the nation, do you? {snicker}. Yeah, I would say so far he's been about as successful as say the Klan.

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Mr. Taylor: Thank you for further proving my point. P.S. You should do something about all that anger! Have you considered decaffeinated beverages?

sbtulsa Author Profile Page said:

This political year makes for strange arguments on both sides. If O'bama is inexperieinced, what is Palin? If Palin can be acceptable because she would have all kinds of advisors and technical support if she ascended to the Presidency, why wouldn't O'bama be able to benefit from the same safety net? Which party can best deal with terrorism, the miltarily savvy McCain who has a temper or the great conciliator O'bama who has no military experience? Won't both have advisors counciling them on the areas wher ethey are lacking?

We are voting on two people (four?), none of whom can control what other countries do to us or think about us. They can only react on the world stage. The real question is who will clean up the domestic messes, and they are legion. Is it more government expense in the guise of solutions, or is it cutting the cost of government every where we can and trying to lessen the burden our spending has left for future generations. The man or woman who accomplishes that will be foremost on the stage of history. We have long past the point where any government can reach out and soothe the lives of downtroddedn citizens. Our waste has neutered our good intentions. Vote people, but vote smart.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

Mr. Taylor: Thank you for further proving my point. P.S. You should do something about all that anger! Have you considered decaffeinated beverages?

And what point would that be Mike B.? That libs always resort to the "anger" clause when confronted? It that gospel from the neo-pagans because I also read that a lot from libs?

I guess you confuse my anger when in reality, I'm laughing at you...

Mike B Author Profile Page said:

Again, I agree with Sbtulsa. As voters (and citizens) we should inform ourselves of the issues. I probably agree with a lot of readers of this blog that the mainstream media does an exceptionally poor job of educating the public about issues. While we may disagree on the reasons or prejudices behind it, the media tends to focus on sensational, simple to understand items in an attempt to increase ratings. This is at the expense of more thought-out and in-depth discourse. We should explore a variety of information sources, INCLUDING those that disagree with our preconceptions or deeply-held beliefs, and make intelligent, critical decisions for ourselves.

Kevin said:

Wow! I just stumbled onto this blog and read all the comments and I'm amazed at how there is this subspecies of Republicans (I'm only guessing Brent Taylor is a Republican based on his comments) that are so filled with bitterness and vitriol about Obama that they can't even express a cogent, articulate, and well grounded reason why Obama would not make an excellent president. Mr. Taylor, I have to agree with Mike B. Every time you make another comment you are proving Mike B's point made in his 12:34 comment.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:

You know Mike B. One thing I have noticed consistent about you libs. Like Dennis Miller said, "When I see Obama, I don't really notice the color of the skin - I do notice the thinness of it."

This is what I picture in the theater of my mind when I think of libs deeply-held convictions:


I'm just wondering how long it will be before a newer, better messiah arrives and you throw this one off the cliff. It took Bill Clinton seven years to go from our first Black President to a flaming racist according to the Barry backers.

Paul Tay said:

I'm voting the black dude, but keeping fingers crossed.

I re-read Brent's comments, and I don't see any bitterness, vitriol, or anger. Accusing him of such is typical concern-troll behavior, and I won't put up with it on this website. Brent is right: There's a tendency for liberals to resort to accusations of anger when someone makes a point they can't refute. You're welcome to use your own bandwidth for that purpose, but not mine.

Earlier today, I mentioned by name two commenters, both of them attorneys, who engaged in the aforementioned concern-troll behavior. One of them e-mailed me (from his law firm e-mail) to protest about my linking his name to his law firm's website (even though he posted from his law firm's network), the other protested that he had clicked a "comment anonymously" link and it was unfair to identify him by name (even though he had posted under his real name and e-mail address). In an effort to bend over backwards to be fair to these gentlemen, I have reposted the comment with their names deleted. I have also changed the default Movable Type posting script to clarify that what MT terms "anonymous" commenting -- it simply means that your comment is not tied to a registered identity or account under Typekey, OpenID, or this blog, and that you're allowed to comment without registering or signing in. (Such comments will be held for approval.)

I am reconsidering my commenting policy. While I welcome substantive comments, I won't put up with trolls, and I believe that people should own their words. If you're concerned that someone might connect you with the words you post here, don't post here.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:


I would like to put our resident Democratic "intellect" and his buddy to the test of honesty by allowing them an opportunity to refute this article (note, from another Democrat) about the fairness of the coverage of Obama and McCain concerning the current financial fiasco:


Brian Blackwell Author Profile Page said:

Mike B:

I jumped to the obvious next step. When anyone in government tells me..."just hang with me. what we do at first may not seem to be the right thing...but we know better than you." I read that as a removal of rights. And, yes I believe that the current administration has done more to remove individual rights in this country than any president since FDR made it illegal to own gold. And the economic "crisis" was just another fabricated crisis to remove rights from the individual.

Call me a tin-foil hat guy all you want. I have no problem with it. Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that I'm not right.

The army now has an active duty brigade whose mission is "homeland" security. Yeah, nothing like saying that the Posse Comitatus act no longer applies because these are difficult times. I mean why should I expect any one in the fedral government to respect the statutes that were enplaced by previous Congresses, when no one in the Federal Government repects the One document that is responsible for the existance of the government. The Constitution.

And, why shouldn't I believe that Barak Obama's first move in a crisis will be the removal of individual rights. His first reaction to challenges to his ascension in politics has been to suppress the free speech of his opposition.

And if you sense my anger, then you are very astute. I am angry. I am angry that people of my generation of the the generation before me, have allowed this once great republic to be brought to the brink of self-destruction by abandoning the pricinples of the founding of this country. I am angry that we have allowed a socialist movement to infiltrate every aspect of our federal government. I am angry at a populace that is more interested in what government can give them, than what they can do for themselves to better the world around them. I am angry that our policital system has become so corrupt that not one single solitary person that was involved in the financial meltdown has been arrested. I'm angry that our populace has so bought into the cult of personality that we can let one political candidate change the meaning of words without challenge. Sending a check to someone that doesn't pay taxes is not a tax cut or a tax credit. That's welfare.

I'm angry that the current congress/president/federal reserve chairman belive that we can borrow our way out of the trouble we are in. When borrowing money is what brought us to the state we are in. I'm angry that to mollify the anger over the bailout, all of the above beleive that if they send out another "stimulus" check to jump start the economy. And, the populace believes it. The first stimulus check didn't work because most people just put it in the bank. The bailout isn't going to work, because the banks that they gave the bailout money to aren't loaning that money to anyone. They are sitting on it, waiting for the next failure so they can acquire new assets on the cheap.

So yeah. I'm angry. I'm angry that my country is being stolen from me and my children by people that believe that they are either owed something by the government or that the government is the solution and not the problem.

sbtulsa Author Profile Page said:

Is this a record for thread length?

I want to point out something about McCain vs. O'bama that vaguely fits in this duscussion.

First I am middle aged (57). I can tell you from personal experience that you change in some areas over the span of a lifetime. Wisdom is one of them.

As I have aged, I have become more settled and less outwardly emotional. Mostly because I have "seen most of it before". If you think McCain is not "firey" enough about his campaign, you could be seeing the wisdom of age. Maybe this is how McCain will respond to a crisis. Contrast that with O'Bama, who is percieved as having fire in the belly. It may be that its a fire, but he also may not control it as well as McCain. I doubt either would nuke anyone but I do think the older of the two would be more of an asset in a crisis.

Just so I'm up front, I am a McCain supporter. I fault both candidates on the banking "crisis". It is one born of greed by everyday americans who bought houses they neither earned nor could afford. They were pandered to by lenders who could see that and still made the loans. Amidst all of this, the government, the one in deficits and debt well over their ability to handle, decided to go way further in to debt to solve the problem. Both candidates went along with this solution. No guts in a crisis.

I will still vote for McCain but with skepticism. O'bama frightens me, McCain does not.

Brent Taylor Author Profile Page said:


Nice post on #22. I'll bet even those ambulance chasin', underachieving Obama types can't argue with some of that. I take that back - they'll find some 'Plausible deniability', some legalese to weasel an excuse.

I've got admit, I had reservations about the "bail out", part of it due to ignorance about how really bad the credit markets are. I'm still not sure anybody knows, Paulson included. The part I don't like is that we folks that followed the rules, lived within our means, saved to our 401Ks, are the ones being killed. Those that propagate the problem apparently get to walk.

What really smokes me, is that a lot of these large fun money managers and "experts" that were warning us the DOW was going straight to 8,000 if we ordinary citizens didn't comply. Is that a fact? So now that my family net worth has dropped 30% in about four weeks, exactly what did the bailout buy us? Being that I'll bet most of the people on this board in the same predicament, I would now like to ask our feckless Congress exactly who is driving these large swings, especially around 2:00 PM. How convenient, because those aren't the size trades Joe Six Pack finds himself investing in. Bottom line is I now feel like I've been hoodwinked.

I'm pretty disillusioned with politics. Obama is naive, a secular humanist no matter what he calls himself, and dangerously naive. McCain I'm no big fan of either because though I think him the patriot, he's not terribly bright.

I'm mildly surprised to still find decent guys like our resident blog moderator still willing to be involved in the process. Most of the intelligent, sane folk won't even expose themselves to the deceit, the game playing, the lies and propaganda anymore. And that is a large part of the problem, I might add. A lot of qualified people are standing on the sidelines, hoping for the best but not willing to take a risk...

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on October 21, 2008 11:11 PM.

Tulsa County Commission District 2 debate was the previous entry in this blog.

Murphy rebuts Roth mudslinging is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]