I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads

    follow me on Twitter

    Sunday, October 26, 2008

    Levin on Obama: Required Reading

    Mark Levin discusses how Obama got where he is, and what his ultimate plans are.

    Some of his points, with which I strongly agree:

    "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

    "There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated."

    "My greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue."

    " The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual. "

    I completely agree with Levin's close:

    "Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands."

    And, we will all be much worse off because of it.



    reddog said...

    Do you really think that the behavior of Obama supporters is more cult like than that of those that idolize the Alaskan Queen?

    If you do, you're not as smart as I think you are.

    Jay said...

    I guess I'm not that smart.

    With Palin, one can make a reasonable argument that her "cult-like" followers have legitimate policy reasons for being excited by her, and, she has some actual accomplishments that provide actual reasons for being excited about her entry onto the national scene - in addition to the obvious fresh items - a strong, conservative woman, a record of fighting idiocy in her own party, and her un-Washingtonness. Obama shares two of these traits - his skin color differentiates him from most of the other candidates we see, and his freshness is an appeal.

    But, whereas Palin's views could be characterized as pretty much mainstream conservatism, Obama's are clearly the farthest left in the Democratic party. No such candidate has ever survived scrutiny in a national election. His will be the first, and it will be to the detriment of this country.

    Whereas we pretty much know about all there is to know about Palin (in 8 weeks, no less), after 20 months of campaigning, it is still unclear what Obama's been doing. His secrecy in refusing to release medical records, records from his days as a legislator, and his college records, only serves to cast doubt on what he really believes.

    Since his supporters don't seem to be bothered by the fact that we really know so little about him, we must conclude (in fact, it stares us in the face) that there is a huge element of cult of personality in his appeal. Certainly, as Levin proposes, his campaign does little top dissuade this.

    I can understand blacks being genuinely enthused about his candidacy. It is a great thing for the black community. However, for those who don't share his skin color, or aren't on the ideological left fringe, I see no rhyme or reason for their enthusiasm, except for that cult of personality and the Bushitler hatred that pervades the country.

    So, we'll end up with an unknown and apparently, unknowable, enigma in the White House.

    I pray that he becomes Clintonian in his governance, but he will have no check in the House, and likely none in the Senate, as Clinton did.

    So, I am interested to see what happens, but, I'm resigned to 2-6 years of econimic hardship, and am only hopeful that I will still have a good job to pay his confiscatory taxes.

    I guess if you're retired, as long as he doesn't tax 401(K)'s and social security benefits, you'll do ok.

    God help our children.

    Jay said...

    I also find it interesting that the editor of the Harvard Law Review, with 2 autobiographies under his belt, never had an article published during his tenure there.

    I guess it's not unfathomable, but it is odd.