The candidate I supported in this election didn't win. So Barack Obama is going to be president.
This country is in the middle of some very serious problems- possibly the most perilous time since the late 1920's. I hope President Obama succeeds.
Barack Obama is my President. I am an American first and a Republican second. I love our country too much to spend the next four or eight years like the political left in America spent the last eight years, doing its level best to make the President fail.
This doesn't mean I will cheerlead for his policies that I disagree with. When I think he is wrong I will speak out here and on the radio and any other forum I have access to. But even if he successfully passes the things I oppose, I will hope they work. Loyal opposition should be loyal first and opposition second.
I didn't support President-elect Obama, but there are some very positive things about the fact that America elected him. For one, merchants of racial spoils like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have had the rationale for their sorry careers pulled right out from under them. Our nation is better off for it.
And also, as little as I care about how the US is perceived in other countries, the fact that they see a black man elected president is a good thing.
I am not going to spend the next four or eight years pulling against America. If a successful America over the next four years means Barack Obama is re-elected, that is fine by me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Rob,
With all due respect "I think you need to expand on your statement, I hope President Obama succeeds".
Considering Obama's background, past friendships, and stated wants and desires for the USA, I don't quite understand how his being successful is going to be in the ultimate best interests of the country.
Just one example is do you want him to be successful in driving talk radio off the air?
Sure I want Obama to be successful in protecting our country from our enemies but Unqualified success?
I'm really scratching my head over the totality of your post.....
Okay, Rob, now you may really be in trouble, because I agree with you 100%.
I interpret your statement "I hope Obama succeeds" to mean you hope he is a good president and leads America in its best interests.
We should all be wishing for that. After all, if the coach of your favorite football team doesn't start the quarterback you think is best, don't you still wish for the team to play well and to win? And doesn't that mean you root for the starting quarterback to play well even if he wasn't your choice?
Of course, if the quarterback starts throwing interceptions, then you may start booing the crap out of him . . .
Jack,
I think that is a good analogy. I want the team to do well.
RINO - but if he starts handing the ball off to the other team, I have a problem. So no, I wouldn't support President Obama's attempt to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine.
Well, you posted a video not too long ago of a quarterback practically handing the ball off to the other team for a freakin' touchdown. I don't see you criticizing THAT quarterback :)
Hey that was a pass!
OK, so JR agrees with Rob 100% noting that "you hope he is a good president and leads America in its best interests and Rob likes JR's analogy.
I want America to win too, but not with bandit players, who cheat, and would win at the expense of the game itself.
The @1919 White Sox playing to win at the expense of the Black Sox scandal was not beneficial to the integrity of the game of Baseball.
And so I'm still scratching my head attempting to interpret "success" & now "best interests" with the socialistic agenda proffered by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al.
If a "successful America" is the result of a reelectable Obama wouldn't it mean that he's been successful with his parties agenda?
Silly me, but I just don't understand your terms or meanings for success.
Steve's right in that this is usually where the discussions end....
There is a difference between hoping the country does well under his administration and accepting his policies.
I will be critical of any policy such as Cap & Trade or other big-government stuff, just like i was with Bush. Yet I hoped Bush succeeded.
It isn't a contradiction.
Sorry Rob but I respectfully disagree with you because you cannot hope that a person be successful when down deep inside you know that the person's agenda is harmful (according to your own principles)and would ultimately be harmful to our country.
It's like shaking hands with your opponent before a game, saying "Good Luck", when you are in reality going to go all out to defeat him. You don't wish or hope for personal injury but YOU want to Win.
By your reasoning you are "Kissing your Sister".....
Yuck,,,RW, that's gross.
I think Kremer is merely trying to share in some of the Obama euphoria as therapy for his pain. He is an insecure and hyper sensitive guy who feels the country is slipping away. In his nice approach to the Obama presidency he is essentially self medicating his morale with deliberate delusions of optimism.
In short he's nuts.
But that's OK, because it's on purpose and a temporary affliction.
So I'm taking the same medication.
"Barack Obama is my President. I am an American first and a Republican second. I love our country too much to spend the next four or eight years like the political left in America spent the last eight years, doing its level best to make the President fail."
Or added, in all fairness, like the political right tried to do to President Clinton. Political obstreperousness is not limited solely to the left. The point would be how to add civility to a process that has become, because of the actions of BOTH sides, most uncivil.
Which raises a question. Can you do that and still maintain a talk radio show? It's not the norm by any stretch. And, unfortunately, if you're going to introduce civility, it is going to put you at odds with your colleague Lars. Will you be willing to call your own side to task when their behavior wanders too far from the Golden Rule? Are you going to confront the hardcore conservatives in the Republican Party who want to marginalize moderates like Jack Roberts? I hope so.
not speaking for Kremer,,but
I swear, is it necessary to Olberman everything? You don't get, portray or address anything right.
Are you trying to be clever or something?
Was Kremer "introducing civility"?
Geeze what crap.
at odds with Lars?
This is you chasing your own fabrications.
There wasn't any "introducing", much of Kremer's and Lars' shows have plenty of civility and so there is no at odds.
The political right heavily criticized Clinton and Hillary for their louosy policies which led to the 94 Republican takeover of congress.
The left used premptive history declaring Bush responsible for the recession before he ever took office. From then on it was HATE Bush all the time. Wacko like hate with 911 inside job BS. Far worse than what Clinton got.
We're more civil than the left. Look at the left wing blogs and news reports and imagine had Obama lost.
"Can you do that and still maintain a talk radio show? It's not the norm by any stretch."
You don't know what yo are talking about. You don't know what talk radio is about and that suggests Kremer hasn't been civil on his show?
You're chasing your own BS.
As for the Golden Rule and Jack Roberts?
Who's the "hardcore" conservatives?
And Jack can handle any the marganalizing you perceive.
The words "civil" and "civility" were mine. I used them because that was the sense I got from Rob's piece. If that is wrong, I'll be happy to accept Rob's correction.
Evidently you don't listen to Talk Radio.
You have a very poor grasp of recent history if you think the nearly apoplectic reaction to all things Clinton (both then and now) was based purely upon policy differences. Much of it was personal bile and hatred.
I didn't say that Jack would be marginalized. Just that some of the hardcore members of the conservative wing of the Republican Party will try. And they will be very vocal and rigid. That is a guess of the future, and I may be wrong. We'll see.
As to who they are? At the local level? I'm sure you and the other Republicans could tell me that better than myself. I know that in lurking through blogosphere there are quite a few of them out there. Maybe the Oregon Republican Party is different. I have my doubts just judging some of the reactions to Jack's opinion piece for the Oregonian and some of the comments I've read here and elsewhere.
Actually, Rob is very civil in his program. I appreciate that. But, unfortunately, I see it as the exception rather than the norm. I think it makes for a better show: substance becomes more important than little catchy sound bites.
To think that only Democrats act badly is self-deception at its worse. If you want to change the tone and direction of the discourse, you have to start with yours and your own. That applies to the Democrats as well.
Steve,
You & I need to do an immediate intervention on Kremer. Please stay off the "medication" or you'll face intervention as well my friend....
RL,
You are not serious. Are you?
I mean you reall...REALLY can't honestly compare the treatment Bush has gotten from the left to Clinton's treatment? Honestly?
If so you are just being absurd.
The level of hatred from the left toward Bush has been, quite frankly, obscene. And that is coming from someone who does not like president Bush.
And who really is trying to "marginalize" Jack Roberts? Really?
If it is happening then it is happening with an already marginal group of individuals.
Rob criticized his last op-ed yet said over and over that he liked and agreed with Jack on most things.
I critcized Jack over his op-ed and have over and over and over in the past been complimentary of Jack. Hell I remember doing a major post on him when he ran for the Supreme Court.
So just who is going to "marginalize" Jack Roberts? Who?
You see that is one of the things that frustrates me to no end. Some folks will make wild comments and because of an already existing set of false stereotypes they assume that those comments are true.
It is moonbat rule 1.0.
Well, you don't get to fall back on your false stereotype.
I encourage you to challenge yourself and come up with a list of people (not on the margins) who are actually going to try to "marginalize" Jack Roberts.
I think that would be an enlightening excersize.
yip yip
I will repeat myself. I didn't say that Jack Roberts would be marginalized. And perhaps some of this is my fault. I'm using Jack as a symbol - of the moderate and liberal wing of the Republican Party - of what might happen if some within the Oregon Republican Party have their way. For instance, Rinowatch:
"All of you Genius's who think you've got the right stuff to correct the direction of the Conservative Republican party should stand back, be quiet for awhile, and pay attention to a *REAL CONSERVATIVE, for a change.......
I didn't create this discussion, it's already going on in this blog, in yours, and at a national level. I can't imagine that there won't be such a discussion within the Oregon Republican Party. However, as I wrote in my last post, I may be wrong. I'm notoriously bad at predicting the future.
I don't have a list of names, but I already addressed that. I would appreciate it if you would read what I write more carefully. I'm also sorry if you believe that if everyone just closed their eyes, and wished real hard, that this issue would go away. It's not going to.
I guess we just disagree over how vitriolic the reaction to Clinton was. I see it differently than you. Oh well.
RL,
You can "see" the Clinton reaction differently but you would have to close your eyes to the facts to assume it was the same with Bush.
You just have no empirical evidence to back up what you "see."
In order for you to "see" that, then you would have to have your eyes closed and be "wishing really hard."
Now as for the "issue." I can close my eyes and "imagine" a huge fight but then I would be...well... IMAGINING it as thus far there is no fight developing.
I talk to people everyday who are involved in Oregon politics. I don't mean people who just comment on things on blogs, but people who: raise money, spend money, recruit candidates, sit in elected office, consult candidates, vote in central committees etc...
Real people who are really involved and thus far I have not run across one credible person who is just itching for a fight within the party.
Actually, most people that I have talked with are actually quite comfortable with the ideological make up and are quite accepting with where we are right now.
This cycle's performance by Republicans really had no major ideological fights or differences.
The results were more a case of being influenced by the atmosphere and the administration of tactics than anything else.
The only folks who are itching for a fight are those who are bored or who really do not have the best interests of the party at heart and who really want to see it fail.
But what do I know? I'm just the smartest person on the face of the earth.
yip yip
You certainly are much more attune to the inner working of the Republican Party, and I certainly am in no position to argue with you. You may be right, and what I see (since I'm on the outside) is nothing more than noisy dissatisfaction of some frustrated conservatives.
As for empirical evidence, you're right, I don't have any. Do you? And if you do, I'd love to see it.
What we are talking about is historical analysis which usually doesn't lend itself to empirical evidence in the general sense that the term is used in science. It's more art than science. Unless you're a social historians using quantitative analysis. But we're talking about political history and trying to compare a rather nebulous set of concepts: which party was more vitriolic or showed more hatred toward the President in power. Just how would you measure that in an empirical sense?
But, since you are the smartest person on the face of the earth, you already know this. In which case, were ya just blowing smoke when you asked me about empirical evidence?
Post a Comment