Obama Can't Go to China
MORE
Wise Guys
Barack Obama is like any candidate for president in that he’s opted for the politically expedient at the expense of a higher principle – most notably when he thumbed his nose at the same public financing system that he’d long championed. Not surprisingly, his supporters shrugged that one off and echoed their candidate’s rationalizations. Better to implement real reform as president than to stand on principle and lose an election, he and they both reasoned.
That logic also explains why so many of his supporters on the left have remained silent, save for some grumbling among themselves that occasionally spills into the blogosphere, while Mr. Obama has systematically distanced himself from the concerns of Muslim and Arab-Americans.
The fact that two Muslim women wearing head scarves were prohibited from standing behind Mr. Obama at a Detroit rally made national news, but it was hardly the first – and it almost certainly won’t be the last – slight from Mr. Obama. Last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the first Muslim American ever elected to Congress, volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama’s behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He was told not to.
By contrast, Mr. Obama has bent over backward to satisfy Jewish leaders that he understands and is sympathetic to their concerns about Israel. He made a high-profile visit to a synagogue in Florida last month, where he fielded questions from congregants and repeatedly affirmed his support for Israel, and held a similar session with influential Jewish activists in Cleveland back in February.
He also addressed AIPAC’s annual convention the day after clinching the Democratic nomination (where he declared that Jerusalem “will remain the capital of Israel and it must be undivided”) and has leaned heavily on prominent Jewish supporters for cover, treating them far differently than he’s treated Mr. Ellison. Nor has he hesitated to toss aside backers whose views are upsetting to the pro-Israel advocates, most notably Zbiegniew Brzezinski.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has refused to set foot in a mosque, has given no major (or minor, for that matter) speeches about the concerns of Muslim or Arab-Americans, and has adamantly refrained from expressing to those groups any of the solidarity he professes to feel with the pro-Israel crowd.
Still, Obama supporters on the left who have latched onto him as the last great hope for a less reflexively hard-line Middle East policy are sticking with him. They’re convinced that a President Obama will be free to act in a way that candidate Obama can’t.
Certainly, there’s reason to believe that he wants to. Back in his Illinois days, Mr. Obama eagerly reached out to Muslims and Arabs. He and his wife frequently broke bread with Rashid Khalidi, a scholar and Palestinian rights activist, and he even dined with and attended a speech given by Edward Said. In private, some people who knew him back then have said Mr. Obama was frank about his sympathy for the Palestinian plight – and the impracticality of discussing it in a campaign. Plus, there’s his background, which includes ties to Kenya and Indonesia, two countries with sizable Muslim populations.
The problem is that, even if this calculation is correct and the real Barack Obama has yet to reveal himself (at least on Middle East issues), it’s tough to see how he’d have any more latitude as president.
From a political standpoint, Mr. Obama has handled Middle East questions deftly this campaign. Because of his cosmopolitan background and his middle name, he has faced knee-jerk suspicions that he is either a Muslim or somehow insufficiently tough on “the terrorists” – or both. To counter this, he can’t be “pro-Israel” enough – and he can’t distance himself far enough from Arabs and Muslims.
But his election won’t magically undo his vulnerability to these suspicions. If a President Obama were, say, to challenge Israel’s posture toward Iran, or to speak out firmly against Israel's settlement policy? A good chunk of the electorate, including those who don’t follow Middle East issues but do respond to the noise around them, would fall back on those not-so-buried suspicions. Offering reassurance would be impossibly difficult for Mr. Obama.
The old saying that only Nixon could go to China, roughly translated, means that only a hard-liner has the cover to pursue a dove’s agenda. In his heart, Mr. Obama may identify with the peaceniks on the Middle East more than any presidential candidate in memory. But as his campaign has shown, he might not be in a position to do a thing for them.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.4
- 44.1
- Obama +5.3
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 54.9
- 36.1
- +18.8
- McCain
- 50.7
- 39.6
- +11.1
.
WHICH IS THE BETTER SOLUTION TO OUR OIL & ENERGY CRISIS?
1.) DRILL FOR OIL, ON USA LANDS & WATERS, WHERE THERE IS A KNOWN & VAST AMOUNT OF OIL (estimated 20 billion barrels)?, and
2.) BUILD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO SUPPLY A VAST AMOUNT OF OUR ELECTRIC POWER NEEDS?
- OR, as OBAMA proposes -
3.) RESEARCH & DEVELOP NEW SOURCES OF ENERGY and DEVELOP THE MEANS TO UTILIZE THOSE NEW ENERGY SOURCES?
Obama argues that drilling for oil will not yield results for 10 years. How long does Obama think it will take to develop and implement the “new energy sources” so as to yield significant results? Probably longer since it is “unproven.” (Remember the idea of using ‘corn’ to produce a renewable energy source has caused a shortage of farmlands and increased prices for corn!)
IF WE LIFT THE CONGRESSIONAL BAN ON DRILLING FOR OIL ON USA LANDS & WATERS ---- IT WILL HAVE AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT TO LOWER IMPORTED OIL PRICES BECAUSE IT WILL SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES THAT “WE MEAN BUSINESS” TO RELIEVE OURSELVES OF DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
A long-term energy plan must be developed, which includes cost-effective and renewable energy sources ---- but we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that our economy and way of life can suffer the current oil & gasoline prices, for long, without irreparable harm TO OUR ECONOMY AND STANDARD OF LIVING..
THE WAY FOR JOHN McCAIN TO DEFEAT OBAMA IS TO ……………………..
“MAKE OIL AND ENERGY THE TOP ISSUE IN THIS CAMPAIGN”.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"The old saying that only Nixon could go to China, roughly translated, means that only a hard-liner has the cover to pursue a dove’s agenda."
True dat. But I just can't see McCain as a Nixon-like alternative here, maybe I'm wrong. McCain seems instead like a beefed up, crazy man neocon, a true believer--definitely not what we need.
Of course, the irony is a nuclear Iran would be a real threat to US interests, unlike Iraq. But since we're always fighting the last war (well, in case of Iraq, we were trying to relive the glory days of WWII, after this generation's "Pearl Harbor," or whatever), only the discredited hard right recognizes the threat. Everyone else, for very good reason, wants to get the hell out of there and deal with problems at home.
Even more ironic: if President Obama, elected on his anti Iraq war stance, because of the political necessity of protecting his flank from right-wing attacks, is forced to support Israel when they bomb Iran's nuclear sites, well, the left will go nuts, as will the Ron Paul right, but it will probably be the right decision.
Who said irony was dead?
re: Oil is the way for McCain to defeat Obama
Bull. U.S. oil companies have 7300 leases offshore and on federal lands that they DON'T use now (the offshore leases hold four times the oil reserves of the most optimistic predictions for ANWR in Alaska). The oil companies themeselves admiot that it would take 10 years before any drilling started now would yield one drop, and 10 more years before peak production.
The oil companies also admit that oil from Alaska and offshore drilling would NOT come to the US and would ship overseas instead, even if we built more refineries here.
So how does that help the U.S. energy-wise?
The U.S. does not control the world oil markets. Middle East countries, Russia, Venezuela, etc., do. As oil prices skyrocket, and by continuing our reliance on oil instead of developing serious energy alternatives, we empower and embolden our enemies in those countries while marginalizing the moderate elements.
Stop listening to (and believing) corporate bagmen like Hannity and Limbaugh. They do you no favors.
Why doesn't Mr. Kornacki simply title his articles on Mr. Obama, "I Don't Like Barack Obama, And Here's Reason Number " I see less wine (whine) in liquor stores than in Mr. Kornacki's articles.
There seems to be a misperception that new, domestic oil production in 2018 would somehow be reserved for domestic consumption. You couldn't be more wrong! It would be sold to the highest bidder...and ten years from now, that would still be the emerging markets of China and India. At peak production, the benefits would be little more than $0.08 a gallon for American consumers.
But, listening to a report by CBS radio this morning, United Technologies has technology using solar energy and molten salt that could generate electricity with zero emmissions. And it is available immediately. This is the type of investment in renewable technology that Obama wants to suppliment and reduce the need for heating oil, coal, etc. A single proposed facility can produce the same amount of energy as the current natural gas generators.
Avoid ignorance. Be receptive to new ideas. This is a new industry, with employment opportunities...exportable technology...and weans our nation off of the Middle East's most valued asset.
The problem is politicians are making gas themselves, and tooting it out every orifice they have, instead of letting American businesses pursue the existing and new energy sources.
Let me put in words anyone could understand.
If Sen. Obama had opted for the easy out of "Limited Gov't Financind" he would be a vulnerable easy target for 527 Swiftboat groups that can raise money without constraints.
Let me put it another way, Obama would have been a fool to accept and I would not be his supporter anymore. I would vote for Dr. NO, instead.
Obama can indeed go to China...
You fail to mention that those lands so rich in oil are under federal protection because their ecological value is far greater than whatever energy could be harvested. An ecological balance is critical to maintaining a high standard of living, and the amount of carbon released into the air from plundering Alaska will not only contribute to global warming, it will lessen the earth's ability to absorb carbon, compounding the problem. It is asinine to invest in nuclear energy, whose actual cost is higher than alternate, sustainable forms of energy. And what should we do with the waste? France hasn't figured it out, and now its leeching into their drinking water - does that sound like a viable solution?