Our local columnist has published another incisive column in the Aiken Standard .The first two paragraphs follow:
Quote
100 Days of Obama: Revealing - and Frightening
5/5/2009 12:31 AM
By JACK DEVINE
Columnist
Early this year, when I proposed to write this series of columns, I promised myself and the Standard that it would not be just a weekly Obama-bash. My intent was to look at issues from all sides, to find the substance behind the spin and to prompt thoughtful discourse. But I confess that as each week goes by I'm finding it harder and harder to find anything at all that I like about the direction our new administration is taking the country. There's a lot to be worried about.
I am writing this column on the 100th day of Mr. Obama's presidency, the traditional time for pundits' report cards on new presidents. Historically, it's too short a time for objective assessment - all presidents in recent memory, even Jimmy Carter, enjoyed high marks and strong public support at this point in their first terms. But in Obama's case, I think 100 days is a meaningful milestone. We knew so little about him going in, and now we know so much. more
This was very good commentary by Jack Devine.
ReplyDeleteA few Democrats I know were relatively onboard with Obama until the Chrysler debacle, but they are suffering buyer's remorse as of late last week.
Obama said that Chrysler bondholders were selfish and weren't willing to share in the sacrifice and that he stood with the employees (unions).
That is a lie.
The financial papers were filled with quotes weeks ago from bondholders who said they offered to cut their profit to 50 cents on the dollar.
If Obama has his way, more than Chrysler will be destroyed. Contracts will be deemed worthless and investors will find investments outside the US. Obama's plan will require liberal, activist judges who will break longstanding contract law in favor of this new "fairness" that Obama preaches.
Chrysler’s secured creditors aren't feeling so secure these days. Obama does not want consideration given to creditors according to contracts or established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored.
Why would anyone lend money to heavily unionized companies knowing that if things go wrong, the president and his men could trash their security interests by executive decree, hold them up to public vilification, and subject them to future retribution by regulators?
And today The Aiken Standard published Joan Sundt's excellent rebuttal to Mr. Devine's diatribe:
ReplyDelete5/8/2009
Obama is doing what he told us
It seems to me that Jack DeVine's column is redundant. Every week there are letters to the editor which echo his attitude and take a stand in opposition to President Obama, his administration, his policies and every idea he puts forth. Mr. DeVine writes well and avoids the name calling, but his stance is remarkably similar to those who write to you on this subject regularly.
In his most recent column, Mr. DeVine repeats the mantra from the campaign to the effect that "... we don't know much about him." We surely do. He told us during his run for the White House what his positions were, what he planned to do, and outlined his priorities. Since taking office, he has acted on many of the campaign promises and has plans to enact many others. You may not like what he does, but you surely cannot be surprised. Unlike many politicians, he is doing exactly what he said he would. By the way, if you're truly interested in learning more about him, you could read either or both of his books.
Perhaps the most troubling claim in Mr. DeVine's column is that "He is the poster child for tax and spend Democrat." Most of the people in this country have received a tax cut since he came to office. He plans to allow the tax cut given to the wealthiest among us to expire, and even that won't occur for two years. So exactly what tax are they talking about?
The lack of "real world experience" is laughable. Mr. Obama was raised by a single mother, made his way into our finest schools by hard work, a remarkable intellect and a willingness to adapt to changing situations.
The job of teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School must surely be considered as better preparation than owning and running a baseball team! The most recent president ran one, ran a state and had other business background. He used that valuable "real-world" experience to turn an inherited budget surplus into a huge debt, invade a sovereign nation which had not attacked our country, sanction torture and warrantless wire taps on U.S. citizens, ignore and then mismanage a devastating hurricane (think Nero fiddling while Rome burned) and preside over the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression. I'm happy to see what someone without such "real-world" experience can accomplish.
Referring to one poll, Mr. DeVine says Mr. Obama is the most polarizing president in the last four decades. He conveniently ignores other polls which show him with an approval rating of 67 percent and find the majority of the country feeling that we are headed in the right direction. Mr. DeVine also claims that the president is driving in a direction "counter to mainstream public sentiment." That may be true of public sentiment in Aiken and, indeed, all of South Carolina. However, Mr. Obama was elected with a significant majority and there seems to be a continuing support among most of the country.
I'm among those who Mr. DeVine thinks have been duped and led down the garden path by a glib, amoral liar. I beg to differ. There is ample reason to support and trust our president and I, for one, am happy to do so.
Joan Sundt
Aiken
Memo to Joan Sundt:
ReplyDeleteIt's so interesting to watch someone defend Obama's knowledge of Constitutional law given how frequently he has displayed his contempt for the Constitution.
It's no wonder Obama refuses to release his transcripts.
Ms. Sundt doesn't know, and the mainstream media sure isn't going to mention, but Obama has had his lawyers file briefs in federal courts to continue Bush's wiretapping program.
And now Ms. Sundt is thinking it's enough real world experience to run the United States if one is raised by a single mother??? ROFL.
Are you kidding me? Contempt for the Constitution??? Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Gonzales wiped their dirty war-criminal feet on the shreds of our Constitution. If you are rolling on the floor laughing, it must be because you know how ludicrous you sound when you accuse Obama of displaying "contempt for the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteAunty dub -
ReplyDeleteYou are aware, are you not, that Obama's administration has kept in place the following that you and your little lib friends think was "unconstitutional":
Apparently you have not kept up with the Obama administration's position pertaining to wiretapping and rendition. (You do know what rendition means, don't you, and that it was a program started under Bill Clinton?)
Obama's nominee for Director of the CIA and former Clinton staffer, Leon Panetta, testified under oath several weeks ago that in 1995 former President Clinton signed a presidential directive giving the CIA permission to engage in a rendition program. President Obama has said he will continue to make use of the rendition program which, and I know this comes as a surprise to liberals, has not been ruled illegal.
Libs love to lament that Bush was not impeached because he authorized a warrantless wiretapping program. Maybe the news didn't reach Aiken that an appeals court decision upheld a ruling issued by the FICA court that Congress acted within its authority when it passed a law known as the Protect America Act which gave President Bush broad power to eavesdrop on foreign communications.
Additionally, the Obama administration made it clear the new president was on board with the Bush administration with regard to eavesdropping on Americans. In a January 20, 2009 filing to US District Judge Walker, Obama's attorneys adopted the same position as his predecessor and asked for a stay in a case where two American lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity were electronically eavesdropped on without warrants by the Bush administration in 2004.
In addition, Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, said under oath the new administration supports Bush's July 2008 legal position that telecommunications companies should be immunized from lawsuits due to their participation in the eavesdropping programs.
On May 27, 1999 the New York Times exposed the Clinton administration's eavesdropping program, Operation Echelon. Echelon was to be used to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists. Unfortunately, Clinton used Echelon to spy on Americans for purely political reasons and it was widely reported the program taped the private conversations of Senator Strom Thurmond and other Congressional Republicans. Under Operation Echelon, NSA monitored the private domestic conversations of millions of Americans. In February 2000, "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft introduced a report on Clinton's spy program by noting: "If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the NSA."
Apparently you really are news deprived because Obama's own NSA Director has released details that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats were briefed on waterboarding and they did not raise any objections. Nancy likes to pretend that she didn't know about it but the letter released by Obama's own guy this very week proves that little lie.
Now, I know that facts don't matter to libs, but I thought I'd give readers of the forum a few facts to chew on instead of your immature, fact-deprived post. Toodles.
Here is another view on Jack Devine's column. It appeared in the Aiken Srandard on May 11.
ReplyDelete5/11/2009 12:31 AM
Columnist's bias is showing
Jack DeVine, your bias is showing. While I enjoy your columns because they are well written and thoughtful, I think your analysis of Obama's brief tenure is colored by your political bent. Could it be that you had your mind made up and you were looking for an opportunity to express it? You fooled me, but Obama didn't. Has he done anything that is unexpected? Anything he didn't say he would do if elected? Why do you feign surprise at his actions to date?
Let us examine your analysis and conclusions. You claim to like his energy, bias for action and his enthusiasm and then conclude that there is no other good news. You declare he is hard, hard left and the poster child for tax and spend Democrats. You choose to label him and use time-worn negative terms and do not even allow as to how we may want to watch carefully to see if indeed he tracks in a left-leaning direction. You stated without equivocation that he believes that government is the solution for everything and that he has a deep-seated distrust of private enterprise. Funny, I never heard him say anything that allows me to draw that conclusion.
He has said he believes that energy independence, educational improvement and health care access for all are problems that government must address and invest in. Do you disagree that these issues require a national priority? When I see how he finally proposes to involve the government and the nature of the approach and cost, I might then disagree with him. You apparently have some inside knowledge as to how all of this will develop and have prejudged the outcome.
You gratuitously describe the mainstream media as cheerleaders, inferring that this is somehow Obama's fault. We should blame him for how the media covers him?
You call him a liar because you erroneously state that he maintains that his "social" programs will be paid for "exclusively" by taxing the wealthy. This is not true, and, thus, by your standard, you could be called a liar. I would just say you are uninformed at best or manipulating the facts at worst.
You say he wants to be liked. I'm shocked - a politician who wants to be liked. What will we see next, a priest that wants to be righteous?
Next you bring up the old, "he doesn't have any real-life experience" trick that was used by everyone he beat in the primaries and the election. You can be more original than that.
You also conclude that he is impressive and popular and is effectively leading the nation. But you further conclude he is leading it in the wrong direction. Really, Jack? What direction is that? Continuing the TARP, started in the last administration, with more restrictions, forcing the auto companies to face reality and putting strings on any taxpayer monies that they get, often communicating with the country in an articulate way, explaining his actions, being transparent in his budget request, reprioritizing our military strategy is leading in some direction, but I am not sure it is wrong yet. You apparently have no doubt.
I think the jury is justly still out on this guy. I like what I see so far, even though I have voted for all Republicans for president until last year. I still continue to support Senator Graham, although I cannot support Senator DeMint because he is a poster boy for the extreme. So you see Jack I am independent. How about you? I hope your promise to the Standard will be kept.
Ralph DiSibio
Aiken