Deciphering Liberal Code from the Kook-Aid Trough
Posted in Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Democrats, liberal, News Media, obama, Colin Powell on October 22nd, 2008 by Stanford Matthews 
Liberals have no original thoughts. They drink from the Kook-Aid trough and merely reword the standard mantra of the far left in hopes no one will notice. Richard Cohen is no exception. The phrase ‘ without compromising basic intellectual or cultural values’ is liberal code. They elevate their own agenda as superior to anyone else by defining it as intellectual. And cultural values is their lame attempt to sneak in the race card. It is the same argument they use to dismiss voter fraud. It is not disenfranchising the poor or those of lesser intellectual or cultural standing than a typical Democrat elitist to object to registrations of dead people, children, mickey mouse or the same person being registered multiple times.
It is not a basic intellectual or cultural value to deny funding to the troops or call a General by insulting names or engage in fringe antiwar protests that provide aid and comfort to the enemy. Those sins are compounded when it is done simply for political gain. And that Colin Powell would conspire with the party embracing those actions raises more questions than it answers about what he is willing to sacrifice to endorse a candidate spearheading surrender in war and appeasement as his foreign policy. A true risk that was outlined by his own running mate this week.
Do basic cultural values of Democrats allow for the outrageous treatment of Sarah Palin at the hands of the liberals? Does it also defend insulting John McCain for not using current digital technology due to injuries received from his captors while a POW? And Richard Cohen’s not so subtle entry of the race card to charge supporters of McCain/Palin as racist is not lost on this blog. To declare a ‘column’ as starting with Condi Rice and ending with Colin Powell to defend Barack Obama and criticize their opposition as largely white and intellectually and culturally inferior is over the top race baiting and hate mongering equal to the likes of Revs Wright and Pfleger.
And the stupidity of liberal commentary does not end there. Roger Simon at Politico either drinks the Kook-Aid or thinks you did by his complete acceptance of an event he endorses on its face without the requisite scrutiny. His reaction to Powell on Meet the Press fits his liberal mind set so well there is no question exploring the motives behind the Powell endorsement or the Brokaw set up. Gee Wally, Colin Powell is so perfect that his criticism of the GOP et al, and endorsement of Barack Obama is a miracle that must have been so divine it was arranged by the Messiah himself. C’mon!! Is there no wonder in Roger Simon’s mind or is it full of liberal nonsense creating an inability to ask relevant questions like a journalist should do?
Of course Brokaw did not interrupt. Why would he when he is getting what he wants. That’s not wisdom. That is following the script. This was not a spontaneous event. Joe Biden is a spontaneous event, not Brokaw, Powell or Meet the Press.
Yes, Roger, conservatives are to the right and liberals are to the left. So what is your and Colin Powell’s problem, the GOP is not liberal enough for you. What a surprise that is, NOT. As for narrow, McCain may characterize it as focus. Those items, which are many, that the liberals prefer to abandon, like the rule of law, or ignore, like voter fraud and the war on terror which are things McCain continues to address in an effort to protect the country. But liberals define all that as racist or some other slur to attract more of the kook fringe to their party.
The importance associated with many stories in this political season may pale in comparison to events that would occur if Obama is elected. Joe Biden expressed the risk of electing Barack Obama and the failures that will follow the crisis he forecasts in a statement this week. Something this blog and so many others have been expressing for so long. And the endorsement of Barack Obama by Colin Powell does not diminish that dismal forecast. We will see if the American people are smart enough to vote for country first with John McCain and Sarah Palin, voter fraud notwithstanding, or fail to abandon the liberal hand out for the promise of personal gain. A promise that will not be kept as certain as the Biden forecast of crisis if Obama is elected.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
There are obvious questions about Colin Powell’s essentially 11th hour endorsement of Barack Obama. Not the least of which would be why Powell’s son remains loyal to Senator John McCain. In the piece below from The Hill there is a suggestion that the junior Powell may stand to win a job in a McCain Administration. One could make the case he could have a job in either candidate’s administration. A more compelling question could be is Colin Powell’s endorsement a little payback for falling on his sword at the United Nations with his now famous address laying out the case for WMD leading up to the war in Iraq? Or is it simply that Colin Powell is now in a position to do what he wants?
remove Hillary Rodham Clinton from the list of prospective Vice-Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party. Easy to believe if Barack Obama’s appeasement and concessions to the Clinton mob that mimic what his foreign policy would be like explain his attempt to be shielded from their wrath. Not easy to believe if he has any notion of selecting as candidate a woman he did everything against to defeat which was nothing since her pathetic campaign could not keep their eye on the prize for all the internal turf wars. That’s too bad as many were anticipating more pix of Hillary’s very close assistant Huma Abedin. The only noteworthy aspect of the Clinton campaign.
Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.
Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.
Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.
And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.
The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.
The first reference in this post is from June 17th and outlines the fact that Americans are certainly not pleased with Congress. Based on polling data over many months, the President, the House and the Senate have record or near record low approval ratings from the public. Of course polls don’t tell the whole story and not all decisions should be made as a result of polling numbers. The importance of the polls here is a trend that applies to a long period of time. The statistical information can be significant as an indicator that all is not well. In addition to the midterm elections and the deluge of comments and demands communicated to the White House and Congress this year and last, one should be able to expect more appropriate response from elected officials. Not that they should be expected to find a perfect solution to satisfy all people but they should at least display the professionalism and intelligence in working together to solve issues.
Although the next reference is considerably older than the rest it is still valid. The point made closer to the beginning of this post indicated those favoring surrender in Iraq refused to accept the fact that everyone involved in the decision to go to war share the responsibility with the President and he alone should not bare the burden. If you glanced ahead you understand the point. The flawed intel everyone likes to mention was neglected by Congress in their assessment of a vote on authorizing the US to go to war. So why then does the surrender crowd continue to disregard this fact? Could it be they view it as harmful to their interest in bashing the President? Could the bashing be mostly political? Does the surrender crowd have an understanding of how damaging their surrender speech is? There are many questions and not much in the way of answers from those favoring surrender.
The articles referenced below are just a reminder of how central to all things MSM is the war in Iraq. The Dems have continued to make it a central theme of their campaigns. It is mentioned in nearly every speech, press release and news conference.
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
I really do feel bad. Not for Paul Wolfowitz, but for everyone else. Of all the people who get beat about the head and shoulders over the decision for the US to go into Iraq in 2003, this is the guy they let get away. And he was the prime mover in the whole scheme.
The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.
These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.