Chicago Politics - A Primer Part Two
I may be going over old ground here for daily readers but this is such an important aspect of Obama’s political personae that it bears repeating. Barack Obama’s political beliefs are secondary to his using anyone and everyone – from corrupt Machine politicians to wild eyed radical Maoists – to further his political career. All of the radical associations in his past (and present) represent nothing more than stepping stones to aid him in his political advancement. As early as 1987 he told Jeremiah Wright that he had his eye on the Governor’s mansion in Illinois (no doubt his sights were set higher). The arc of his career has always been headed toward high political office. Of this, there is no doubt.
Besides using these radicals to get ahead and making common cause with groups like ACORN and The New Party, it is a legitimate question to ask if Obama shared their ideology. The answer is almost certainly no.
Emphasis mine. Rick was on Hot Air TV with Ed Morrissey today and he went into depth. Unlike Sarah Palin (whose supposed membership in the Alaskan Independence Party was breathlessly reported until the registration rolls were made public) Senator Barack Obama WAS a member of "The New Party" - it was a condition of receiving their endorsement. It was just another stepping stone.
Like Chicago Republicans working with Ayers, Obama worked with the "New Party" in order to get ahead. Or as Rick so eloquently put it...
Obama’s friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley’s Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup.
And that my dear Utah friends, is Chicago politics in a nutshell. Go read all of Rick's post and follow out the links to his other writings on the subject. When you are done, you will know just about all you can know about Chicago politics without actually having lived there.
Labels: Chicago Politics, Senator Barack Obama
posted by The Lady Logician at
5:11 PM
3 Comments:
Obama’s friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley’s Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup.
Most people know that Obama is an opportunist, even his supporters must be aware of that. But for a lot of people, he is simply using the same tactics that got "white people" elected for eons. Think of it as a holdover from the OJ Simpson trial -- Obama is merely gaming the system as Johnnie Cochrane so charismatically did.
However, and this is where I disagree with your chum, the noted Rick Moran, that if you pay close attention to his memoirs, it's all there. It's all there.
If he's not a trenchant ideologue, he didn't need to be. He was weaned at his anti-American mother's knee, and suffered incredibly due his biracialism even in a racial paradise like Hawaii. Given his love/hate relationship with a father who was absent physically, but held sway over his imagination as an intellectual from Africa, there isn't much there in Obama's psyche which would've prevented even a REBELLION from the Leftists and malcontents he later befriended.
Rick said that his overriding characteristic is ambition.
Well, yes. That would pretty much describe any person who ever sought the highest office in this land. Historically, you will find most of them had such designs from their earliest youth (I can perceive that in Palin, as well as having that confirmed independently, e.g.).
The problem is that Barack Obama consciously chose these Leftist ideologue reprobates as his mentors.
The others didn't.
Search far and wide in American history, and you won't find the level of leftist activism in a person seriously considered for the US Presidential nomination. Even Hillary doesn't come close, Saul Alinksy, Jessica Mitford and all.
Ask why, and you will have your answer.
Cheers,
Victoria
By
vbspurs, at 9:11 PM
Victoria, my dear, you are a racist.
LL, you attract such reputable followers!
And about the only thing factual about this post is the first sentence. You did, indeed, put up a post.
I find it disgusting the reaching arguments so easy to find on oh so many righty-blogs decrying the "radicalism" Obama's ambitions, and the (obvious!) frightening conspiracy that (obviously!) connotes.
I believe these same "ambition" attacks were leveraged against Senator Clinton, both as First Lady and as candidate, by those experiencing the sexist and completely irrational fear of women achieving, and the frightening takeover that would (obviously!) entail, usurping the power of the white male in a bloodless coup of femininity and dangerous (obviously!) powerful women.
Your endorsement of Moran's attack here leaves the question open, but still there to ask. Who's advance of power do you fear, and why do you fear Obama's achievement?
Some soul searching would be a benefit to your rational thought.
By
Jason The, at 2:37 AM
Speaking of pallin' around with terrorists, let's take a look at one of McCain's transition team leaders: Mr. William Timmons.
Oh, but Mr. Williams comes comes with a past:
"William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.
During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through.
Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism."
Now which is worse, having Hussein as a middle name or doing the bidding of the real Hussein? Serving on a charitable board with William Ayers and 10 Republicans or serving at the pleasure of Saddam himself at a time when our own government determined that Saddam was "rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism"?
Lady, your talking points get easier and easier to debunk the closer the election comes.
By
Anonymous, at 4:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home