T Nation

The Temple of Obama!


I can’t believe he doesn’t have at least one person around him who’ll say “Barry … this temple set is a a bit too pompous and may come off the wrong way.”

"Republicans, who mock Barack Obama as a self-appointed divine savior, gleefully pounced Thursday on pictures of the set for his big convention speech, which appears to resemble a temple.

The Democratic presidential candidate will accept the party White House banner before a more than 70,000-strong crowd at an outdoor football stadium here late Thursday.

Pictures and an aerial film footage of the set being constructed for the speech show a curved backdrop with creamy, gray column-like structures, which could suggest Washington architecture, or a classical structure, like a Greek or Roman temple.

Republicans sent out an edition of their “Audacity Watch” email newsletter which they use to point out perceived examples of hubris by the Obama campaign, titled “The Temple of Obama.”

McCain also featured the structure on a blog on his website.

The McCain campaign has issued a flurry of campaign commercials mercilessly ribbing the Democratic candidate over his elevated rhetorical style, and mocked Obama over a White House-style lecturn he once used.

In one ad, titled “The One” Obama is depicted as a quasi-religious figure who “anointed” himself to lead the world.

“Can you see the light?” the hard-hitting negative ad asked, following up on a McCain theme that the Illinois Democrat is arrogant, transfixed by his own celebrity and not yet ready to lead.

“It shall be known, that in 2008, the world will be blessed,” said the narrator of the minute-long web video sent to McCain supporters in a fundraising appeal.

“They will call him, ‘The One,’” the advertisement said, using a sarcastic tone and stark religious imagery.

The ad features moments from Obama’s soaring speeches, taken out of context, to frame an image of a candidate McCain supporters say presumptuously acted as though he was already president during an international tour last month.

A previous furore raged over the previous McCain attack, ad, which compared Obama to troubled popular culture divas Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and mocked his global celebrity.

There was no immediate comment from the Obama campaign."

I hope he denies some great achievement (crowned empreror?), then has a betrayal, “et tu brute?”.

or just goes away forever.

This doesn’t need its own thread.

I think McCain is the only one that gets most of his own jokes

Watch what people do, not what they say.

It amazes me how Obama and his team are gonna screw this up. George Bush is maybe the worst president ever, certainly top five. His popularity is sub-Carter. McCain, despite the “maverick” reputation, has been one of his greatest enablers much of the time. And Obama has great media cachet, the black novelty, and can be a dynamic speaker. Yet his campaign’s hubris is going to lose him the election to a guy he could have turned into Bob Dole 2.0. Obama is going to have no one but himself to blame when he goes back to the Senate in November.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
It amazes me how Obama and his team are gonna screw this up. George Bush is maybe the worst president ever, certainly top five. His popularity is sub-Carter. McCain, despite the “maverick” reputation, has been one of his greatest enablers much of the time. And Obama has great media cachet, the black novelty, and can be a dynamic speaker. Yet his campaign’s hubris is going to lose him the election to a guy he could have turned into Bob Dole 2.0. Obama is going to have no one but himself to blame when he goes back to the Senate in November.[/quote]

In order to have a Bob Dole 2.0 - you would have to have a Bill Clinton 2.0.

Clinton was smart enough to move to the right. There is no way Barry can move far enough to the right by November.

I maintain that this year is a no-win election based on the shit we have to vote for. But with 3 USSC justices to appoint in the next few years, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

I’m still waiting on Kinky.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
It amazes me how Obama and his team are gonna screw this up. George Bush is maybe the worst president ever, certainly top five. His popularity is sub-Carter. McCain, despite the “maverick” reputation, has been one of his greatest enablers much of the time. And Obama has great media cachet, the black novelty, and can be a dynamic speaker. Yet his campaign’s hubris is going to lose him the election to a guy he could have turned into Bob Dole 2.0. Obama is going to have no one but himself to blame when he goes back to the Senate in November.

In order to have a Bob Dole 2.0 - you would have to have a Bill Clinton 2.0.

Clinton was smart enough to move to the right. There is no way Barry can move far enough to the right by November.

I maintain that this year is a no-win election based on the shit we have to vote for. But with 3 USSC justices to appoint in the next few years, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

I’m still waiting on Kinky. [/quote]

If I were confident that McCain wouldn’t fuck up selecting judges I might give you this and grudgingly give him my vote, but at best I see McCain giving us 3 Kennedy’s.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
It amazes me how Obama and his team are gonna screw this up. George Bush is maybe the worst president ever, certainly top five. His popularity is sub-Carter. McCain, despite the “maverick” reputation, has been one of his greatest enablers much of the time. And Obama has great media cachet, the black novelty, and can be a dynamic speaker. Yet his campaign’s hubris is going to lose him the election to a guy he could have turned into Bob Dole 2.0. Obama is going to have no one but himself to blame when he goes back to the Senate in November.

In order to have a Bob Dole 2.0 - you would have to have a Bill Clinton 2.0.

Clinton was smart enough to move to the right. There is no way Barry can move far enough to the right by November.

I maintain that this year is a no-win election based on the shit we have to vote for. But with 3 USSC justices to appoint in the next few years, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

I’m still waiting on Kinky.

If I were confident that McCain wouldn’t fuck up selecting judges I might give you this and grudgingly give him my vote, but at best I see McCain giving us 3 Kennedy’s.

mike[/quote]

Likewise. I’m sick of voting GOP solely on the basis of the dreaded Democrat control of the court, but it has mattered little anyway. And as you say, the odds of McCain putting another Roberts on the court are very slim. He wins the election, he will not be beholden to conservatives, he will owe them nothing. He may well be a one term president. He will do what he wants with the Court.

I don’t see any concrete plans from either side. Universal health care? That’s an idea. How about a plan? Who foots the bill? With the tax cuts, this might, as it has in the past, raised tax revenues,…
Momma party wants to nurture and say things that can make us all better and feel all nicey nice inside. Daddy party has to step up and lead.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
If I were confident that McCain wouldn’t fuck up selecting judges I might give you this and grudgingly give him my vote, but at best I see McCain giving us 3 Kennedy’s.

mike[/quote]

I’ll take three Kennedy’s over three Ginsberg’s.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
If I were confident that McCain wouldn’t fuck up selecting judges I might give you this and grudgingly give him my vote, but at best I see McCain giving us 3 Kennedy’s.

mike

I’ll take three Kennedy’s over three Ginsberg’s. [/quote]

It certainly isn’t ideal but I agree wholeheartedly. When I look at the people Obama has surrounded himself with I shudder to think of him selecting someone to the SC.

It is true. He is…THE ONE!

You know something I don’t really understand about these convention shenanigans? It’s that every speech given during this fiasco is the exact same one as the speech given before it.

“John McCain and George Bush are one in the same!”

“John McCain is George Bush’s third term!”

“John McCain and George Bush ruined EVERYTHING!”

“Obama. Is. A. GOD!”

I mean, it’s preaching to the choir, right? No one at their convention is going to stand up and shout: “No! John McCain is a GREAT choice for president!” Basically these long winded speeches by these people are simply wasted breath.

At least that’s what I think.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I mean, it’s preaching to the choir, right? [/quote]

That’s true. For both sides.

Actually, I think they’re meant for “independents” or whatever you want to call the small 10-15% of people who don’t simply vote for the same party at each elections. They’re the ones who will actually select the next president.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
It amazes me how Obama and his team are gonna screw this up. George Bush is maybe the worst president ever, certainly top five. His popularity is sub-Carter. McCain, despite the “maverick” reputation, has been one of his greatest enablers much of the time. And Obama has great media cachet, the black novelty, and can be a dynamic speaker. Yet his campaign’s hubris is going to lose him the election to a guy he could have turned into Bob Dole 2.0. Obama is going to have no one but himself to blame when he goes back to the Senate in November.

In order to have a Bob Dole 2.0 - you would have to have a Bill Clinton 2.0.

Clinton was smart enough to move to the right. There is no way Barry can move far enough to the right by November.

I maintain that this year is a no-win election based on the shit we have to vote for. But with 3 USSC justices to appoint in the next few years, McCain is the lesser of two evils.

I’m still waiting on Kinky. [/quote]

I am votin’ for Paris…I wanna check out her oval orifice.

Right… and I assume the men who designed most of our governmental buildings that emulate Greek temples were arrogant twats as well?

This has nothing to do with a possible Presidency. This is not an argument. This is totally unworthy of its own thread.

[quote]pookie wrote:
skaz05 wrote:
I mean, it’s preaching to the choir, right?

That’s true. For both sides.

Basically these long winded speeches by these people are simply wasted breath.

Actually, I think they’re meant for “independents” or whatever you want to call the small 10-15% of people who don’t simply vote for the same party at each elections. They’re the ones who will actually select the next president.

[/quote]

At this point they are undecideds and they are the dumbest voters out there. It is very scary.

George Will’s advice for tonight’s speech and his usually incisive criticism…

[i]August 28, 2008

The Devils in His Details
By George Will

DENVER – When Barack Obama feeds rhetorical fishes and loaves to the multitudes in the football stadium Thursday night, he should deliver a message of sufficient particularity that it seems particularly suited to Americans. One more inspirational oration, one general enough to please Berliners or even his fellow “citizens of the world,” will confirm Pascal’s point that “continuous eloquence wearies.” That is so because it is not really eloquent. If it is continuous, it is necessarily formulaic and abstract, vague enough for any time and place, hence truly apposite for none.

If Socrates had engaged in an interminable presidential campaign in a media-drenched age, perhaps he, too, would have come to seem banal. But the fact that Obama lost nine of the final 14 primaries might have something to do with the fact that when he descends from the ether to practicalities, he reprises liberalism’s most shopworn nostrums.

Russia, a third-world nation with first-world missiles, is rampant; Iran is developing a missile inventory capable of delivering nuclear weapons the development of which will not be halted by Obama’s promised “aggressive personal diplomacy.” Yet Obama has vowed to “cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.” Steamboats, railroads, airplanes and vaccines were “unproven” until farsighted people made investments. Furthermore, as Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute notes, Democrats will eventually embrace missile defense in Europe because they “will have nowhere else to go short of pre-emptive strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Obama, who might be the last person to learn that schools’ cognitive outputs are not simply functions of financial inputs, promises more money for teachers, who, as usual, are about 10 percent of the Democrats’ convention delegates and alternates. He waxes indignant about approximately 150,000 jobs sent overseas each year – less than 1 percent of the number of jobs normally lost and gained in the creative destruction of America’s dynamic economy. U.S. exports are fending off a recession while he complains about free trade. He deplores NAFTA, although since it was implemented in 1994 the U.S., Mexican and Canadian economies have grown 50 percent, 46 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

Recycling George McGovern’s 1972 “Demogrant” notion, Obama promises a $1,000 check for every family, financed by a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies. Obama is unintimidated by the rule against legislating about subjects one cannot define.

Obama thinks government is not getting a “reasonable share” of oil companies’ profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenues (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits – hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips – but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs.

Obama’s rhetorical extravagances are inversely proportional to his details, as when he promises “nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy” in order to “end the age of oil.” The diminished enthusiasm of some voters hitherto receptive to his appeals might have something to do with the seepage of reality from his rhetoric. Voters understand that neither the “transformation” nor the “end” will or should occur. His dreamy certitude that “alternative” fuels will quickly become real alternatives is an energy policy akin to an old vaudeville joke: “If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.”

When he speaks Thursday night in a venue consecrated to the faux combat of football, the NATO alliance, which was 12 years old when he was born, may be collapsing because of its unwillingness to help enough in Afghanistan and its inability to respond seriously to Russia’s combat in Georgia. It is unfair to neither NATO nor Obama to note that the alliance is practicing what he preaches: It is preaching to Vladimir Putin, who is unimpressed. NATO, said Lord Ismay, speaking of Europe in 1949, was created to “keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out.” That Germany’s appeasement reflex is part of NATO’s weakness is perhaps progress, of sorts.

Journalism often must be preoccupied with matters barely remembered a week later. But decades hence, historians will write about today’s response to Russia by the West, perhaps in obituaries for the idea of “the West.” If Obama does not speak to this crisis Thursday night, that will speak volumes. [/i]

So “Steamboats, railroads, airplanes and vaccines were “unproven” until farsighted people made investments” is a good argument when applied to missile systems, but not to alternative energy?

Why is it “farsighted” to invest in unproven missile systems, but “dreamy certitude” when it’s alternative energy?

Pointing out the economic growth of the three NAFTA signees shows what? To what do we compare those numbers? Is there an alternate reality where NAFTA was never ratified and we can compare how their economies did?

As for NATO and Afghanistan, it might have worked out better had not the US decided to go start another war before that one was properly done with.

Ignoring U.N. resolutions and basically giving the world the finger while going at it unilaterally just about guaranteed that all NATO nations would see their population opposed to military support of US missions.

I can’t wait to see how “agressive diplomacy” will work out for Lord Obama in the face of nuclear conflict.

And I really can’t stand it when liberals make comments about how BIG OIL is costing Americans soooo much money.

Well, how about BIG UNIVERSITIES. College tuition has gone up exponentially in comparison to fucking gasoline. And who controls these oligopolies we call colleges? OBAMA’s UBER LIBERAL BUDDIES!!!

But in reality, I went on Obama’s website. His plan is to make COMMMUNITY COLLEGE, not the Harvards or Princetons or Yales more affordable. 40,000 a year is still gonna be the norm for a top 25 school, Obama ain’t gonna change that