26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

I stand corrected. Thankyou,

My 5th grader is studying about the civil war. I had forgotten that Abe Lincoln was one of the nine presidents that did not go to college. Even though he was a drop-out, he managed to be self taught in Laws and the rest is History. Oddly enough, he even managed to quote scripture: A house devided against itself shall not stand (Matthew 12:24)

It seems like campaign coverage has devolved into “gotcha” journalism with everyone ready to pounce on that critical slip of the tongue. Reporters don’t so much cover issues as they do popularity. We might as well be watching a sports event or a beauty contest. Candidates can’t afford to talk directly and they can’t risk being candid either. I would enjoy hearing the candidates speak off the cuff about what they really think, but it ain’t gonna happen. Sen. Obama will be much more cautious in what he says from now on, and we will lose something in the process.

I personally take offense to the wording of “drugs of choice for downscale Americans”. Makes him out to be an ‘uptown American’ Was not this the gentleman who his pastor referred to as coming from a -poor single mother family-and because of his poor circumstances ‘just had to be raised by his grandparents’?

Obama may have knowledge, but lack wisdom in tact fullness

As to NAFTA, I give Bill Clinton credit, although it’s odd that Hillary now says that she opposed what was one of his achievements. I don’t have a problem with saying something good about a Democrat if he deserves it, or something bad about a Republican if that’s deserved. For a long time, the Democrats had the better position on trade. Unfortunately, in recent years they’ve moved off their traditional platform. As for Ross Perot, he was never much of a free market guy, and I’m not sure what his mention here adds. His fortune came from EDS getting huge government contracts.

Corporations don’t advocate free markets as a matter of course, and generally are for whatever they see as being in their self-interest. Sometimes that’s free markets and sometimes protectionism. They don’t have a coherent economic philosophy.

If it seems we’re talking mostly about Obama, it’s because his comments were the subject of the original post. There are plenty of posts which beat up on Republicans. I don’t have a problem with that. I think that my comments are fairly mild, though, compared to Frank’s “channeling the ghost of Karl Marx” remark. I hate to think what your reaction might have been had I likened Obama to Marx.

Free trade is a funny subject because you’ll find folks from both parties on both sides. Shall I remind you that NAFTA was enacted only through the forcefulness of William Jefferson Clinton, who is reportedly a Democrat? H. Ross Perot, never one to be mistaken for a socialist, opposed it, and you will find a number of corporate CEOs who like their domestic industries protected from low cost imports.

Like you I’m generally in favor of open markets and hence I have no sympathy for the dogmatic protectionist pronouncements from the C&O roadshow. But it’s still primary season and so they have to play to the party’s core. Hillary and Barrack may not believe in what they say about trade, but doggone it they know what makes the audience happy.

Now Larry, it wouldn’t be fair to beat up one side and ignore the other. It might leave the misimpression that Democrats are dishonest and Republicans are not. It also might lead people to think that you aren’t willing to stand up for anyone or anything. So do me a favor and tell me who is your absolute favorite conservative politician. Then let’s examine his (or her) speeches and compare them to their accomplishments. I promise to be careful and thorough. Who’s it going to be? Bush? Cheney? Reagan? Gingrich?

With regard to blaming foreigners, as in “anti-trade sentiment”, Obama is against NAFTA and the free-trade agreement with Columbia. So it would appear that he’s pandering to the very attitude he deplores.

On another thread, we were talking about how the political parties have changed positions over the years. It used to be that liberal Democrats were in favor of free trade and Republicans were in favor of protectionist measures like tariffs. Now the Democrats are against free trade, despite the fact that you’d be hard-pressed to find a serious economist who would endorse protectionism.

You conclude with your comment about “straight talk.” On the trade issue, Obama’s main economic advisor told a Canadian government official not to take the anti-NAFTA rhetoric seriously. And his main foreign policy advisor gave an interview in which she said that an immediate exit from Iraq was not going to happen. So Obama has managed the trick of talking like a typical politician while also at times offending a large group of voters.

But that’s beside the point. The more significant error is that you equate hopelessness with poverty. There may be a correlation, but there are plenty of poor people who are happy and well adjusted. Likewise, wealth does not guarantee happiness and fulfillment. From what I’ve read about those middle class Muslims in England, the ones who turn to fundamentalism do so to fill a hunger in their souls, not their stomachs. Obama was not talking merely about people who were having a rough time. He described communities that were promised help that never came. These good folks can’t see a pathway out of their situation. Something like that might drive you a little nuts. Maybe you’ll start blaming someone else for your problems–foreigners, and other people who don’t look or talk like you. Maybe you’ll seek escape in the metaphysical world instead of dealing with the here and now. Or maybe you’ll seek a security blanket from the local gun shop and buy some reassurance that you are still powerful enough to kill another living creature.

Still you may be right that Obama will lose support from his awkward and incautious statement. It wasn’t a smart thing to say. A real politician knows that straight talk doesn’t win elections.

Most poor people don’t become revolutionaries. Typically, the leading radicals come from a very privileged background, like Obama’s friend and former Weatherman Bill Ayers, who’s the son of a former CEO of Commonwealth Edison.

I think that your last line is interesting and explains why Obama is doomed, not so much by the comment he made, but the attitude he and many of his supporters have that what he said is true and not deserving of criticism. That means that he doesn’t have a feel for how his views resonate with voters, which will lead to more problems.

Even Frank’s analysis has some of that perspective, when he refers to guns as being part of a “list of horribles.” Some people enjoy hunting. Some own guns for self-protection. But a candidate with a view that guns are a bad thing to be disparaged will lose a lot of votes, even among Democrats.

Given all of the above, was Obama’s statement correct? When they lose faith in the leaders of our country and lose hope in their futures, do some Americans retreat into an unhealthy and unproductive type of religious experience?

I would say that all of those things–guns, suspicion of others, concern about immigration, restrictions on trade–have a place. But anything can be taken to an extreme that is ultimately harmful, and that includes religion. Take Obama’s comment and recast it to apply to the Middle East, where disaffected and hopeless people have turned to fundamentalist Islam with disasterous results. It fits really well, doesn’t it?

Again, is Obama being criticized for telling an impolite truth? I’m just asking…

That context is the long term loss of jobs in small town Pennsylvania, followed by inattention to their problems by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the government over decades.

He is discussing how people respond in their thinking, acting, and/or believing to that situation: some resort to bitterness; some to the NRA program; some to their religious faith; some to hatred of people that differ from them; some to blaming immigrants; some to criticizing trade policies.

None of these approaches suggest how to make progress in dealing realisticly with the situation to change it; most do not even try to change it. Instead they divert attention away from the possibility of improving the situation. He does not suggest that these responses are “evil,” only that they are ineffective to correct the situation.