A Chink in Obama’s Armor? — Difficulty in Taking a Clear Stand in the Face of Moral Outrage
When the allegations of Governor Blagojevich arose, Obama’s first day response was merely a “saddened and sobered” by the investigation / arrest. Where was the moral outrage that this guy, who Obama has an obvious relationship with, tried to sell his Senate seat? Not there until he was handled into acting ”outraged” in the following days. Not inspiring . . .
Jeremiah Wright — well we know this one, it took Obama quite a long time to separate himself from his Reverand. Forget that he should have abandoned him much, much sooner. Even when the YouTube videos came out, it took a long time for Obama to disassociate himself from Wright, and only did so when Wright threatened his candidacy.
Russian Invasion of Georgia — According to Obama on day #1 of the invasion, it was an “outbreak of violence” that required both sides to “show restraint.” What moral outrage regarding the invasion of one nation into another! Instead, all we got is the usual moral equivalency hedge used by politicians since time immemorial to avoid the tough choices that come with actually chosing right from wrong. (Here is the full quote: ”I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.” (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/08/statement_from_barack_obama_on.php)
A day later, we get the strong statement, but this is after criticism of his original: “I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire.” “Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia.”
Another Obama delay in taking a strong stand.
I am afraid that these attitudes are going to next be transferred to Obama’s foreign policy, where such leftist attitudes as: Israel and the Arabs are both equally at fault, it is understandable that Muslims hate Americans, that terrorism while bad is an expression of legitimate anger, etc. Let’s hope not.
*** UPDATE: Liberals are wondering about Obama’s moral stance as well. Though I make no comment regarding Obama’s choice of Warren to swear him in as President, the liberal Richard Cohen in “Warren On? Party Off.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html) says of Obama: “But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
on 
on
December 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
B’hatslacha with the new blog. I wonder what the liberal, Obamashiach voting Jews will say when your predictions in the last paragraph are proven to be true. The far left(even leftist Jews) often blame Israel and USA first. They see the Arabs as “victims”. Yeah, right.
Reply
December 17th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I agree entirely. And those two examples stand out to me as well.
Reply
December 17th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Congratulations on your new blog.
Knowing your knowledge of the financial markets that is surely lacking on sites such as redstate.com, I hope that you will be able to find your voice where it is surely needed — especially in the financial markets where you have expertise.
As to your blog entry, let me provide some perspective here on why Obama was elected. Obama and Palin both spoke in my town– and many people heard both of them– and both viewpoints. From the Obama camp they heard that thought and
process were going to be part of the process.
The Palin speech was much more scarier. Speaking about the “other Virginia” (Conveniently dismissing Loundon, Fairfax and other places in NOVA) she spoke in code. When having the chance to separate herself from the fringe elements that were using Wright as a proxy- she just did not do it. She fired up the crowd with her hateful rhetoric. Many people that I know were turned off — including many long time Republications that voted in congress for a conservative in the House.
I personally would not worry about our relationship with Isreal– much of this activity occurs at the assistant secretary level — and at the branch chief level. Provide some evidence of appointments from the Plum Book here that should a change in position.
On another point (and I might be too strong here), I strongly suggest that you put some original thought into blog instead of reciting points from Rush. My humble suggestion is to stick to what you know about– you have a lot to say about how the markets work and how the politicians react to the markets. I’d rather see you post about the impact on the financial markets on the auto bailout — or about the accountability built into TARP.
Reply
MJK
Reply:
December 18th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Dear Middleview, first thank you for your comment! Regarding why Obama was elected, it’s a long story which has been poured over at length. Of course, Palin and Obama weren’t exactly running for the same office, but most would agree that he was much more articulate, whatever one’s personal views are.
As for the Rush comment, I do not listen to his radio show, and have never heard a full episode. While I (as do most informed people) glean my ideas from reading etc., this post is original. I am merely quoting Obama and citing facts before expressing my opinion — I believe that he waffled on making clear and strong statements on Blagovich, Wright, and Russia / Georgia. Lastly, I will be discussing financial topics in the near future as well.
Reply
December 19th, 2008 at 2:14 am
the guy isnt even president yet, cut him a bit of slack! hes young and inexperienced, so he has has acted in hindsight a bit, acting as a careful politician. is that really so bad? he has no responsibility right now but to appoint his cabinet and prepare to take office, not be perfect in every respect before he has even done anything. the sad truth is that since he ran such a successful campaign the righties have to attack him for not being perfect, but that is just a sad position to be in. let’s give him some time to settle in and make real decisions when he has to, not judge him prematurely and overzealously.
Reply
MJK
Reply:
December 19th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Fair enough in that he is not yet President. But he will soon be, and so far I am having difficulty figuring out what he really believes in. It is possible that he will end up a cautious pragmatist, which would be fine with me. These initally tepid responses to crises, together with his Cabinet choices, could reasonably imply that. I just wonder if all that talk about change and not continuing politics as usual in Washington was just campaign blather, or whether he really means it. We shall see!
Reply
MJK
Reply:
December 23rd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Liberals are wondering about Obama’s moral stance as well. Though I make no comment regarding Obama’s choice of Warren to swear him in as President, the liberal Richard Cohen in “Warren On? Party Off.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/22/AR2008122201848.html) says of Obama: “But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”
Reply
December 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“quel que soit que cela signifie vraiment”, j’ai du mal à comprendre, hj’avoue
en tout cas merci pour ce bilet intéressant !n c’est toujours sympathique de passer sur ce blog 
Reply