Sep 11 2008

Presidential Forum lowlights

Category: Uncategorizedharmonicminer @ 8:10 pm

Tonight, in the Presidential Forum on Service, held at Columbia Univ in NYC, we heard John McCain’s service in Vietnam and in the Hanoi Hilton compared to Obama’s service as a “community organizer”, by one of the moderators.

Was I the only one who was disgusted with this particular comparison?

I could not help but notice the sullen audience response to McCain pointing out that many universities, including Columbia, do not allow ROTC recruiters to come to campus. A few, sadly few, applauded loudly… and the rest sat in stony silence and obvious disapproval.

The continuing hostility of the elite academic institutions to our military is a national disgrace.

10 Responses to “Presidential Forum lowlights”

  1. enharmonic says:

    Yesterday two senators on capitol hill described Jesus as a ‘community organizer’ and said Pontius Pilate was a ‘governor’. Liberals are truly amazing. Did you see the first part of Charles Gibson’s interview/interrogation with Sarah Palin on ABC News tonite? I thought she held her own quite nicely with him, which only seemed to make him madder.

  2. sardonicwhiner says:

    The pundits and journalists all secretly think they would make better politicians and presidents. They think because they have “gravitas” (hah) and know the names of the beltway insiders, that they’re entitled to say pompous things like, “Isn’t it hubris for you not to doubt you’re ready to be president?”

    I think I know where the hubris is. And it ain’t with Sarah.

  3. JC says:

    I just watched the Charlie Gibson clip with Gov. Palin and I agree, she nicely held her own. Here’s my question: Why don’t they ever ask politicians/Presidential candidates who don’t refer to God where they get their moral foundation? Why isn’t Charlie asking Barrack and Joe why they never seem to speak about their faith or refer to God? In other words, why is it only fair game and (apparently) “good TV” to ask evangelicals what their connection to God is and do they talk to God, does God speak to them and do they think they are doing the Lord’s work? Like that makes them some kind of fringe lunatic! We should be lot more concerned with the politicians who don’t have or claim a connection to God. They are the decision-makers who we should be grilling.

  4. enharmonic says:

    JC, You mean like Obama referring to “…my Muslim faith.” in an interview last Monday with George Stephanopolus? Of course George kindly corrected him and said, “You mean your Christian faith”. We know Obama has a connection to a god of some sort.

  5. Jason says:

    Just wondering, I thought Pontius Pilate was, in fact, a governor…wasn’t he? I don’t know, I could be wrong.

    Actually just one more question: Why is it, do you think, that some of the elite institutions don’t allow ROTC on their campus? Are they pacifist or something (which seems unlikely to me), or is it for some other reason?

  6. harmonicminer says:

    The campuses are still dominated by 1960s anti-war radicals and their intellectual descendents. Whether or not they fit the exact definition of “pacifist”, that is what they are in practice. It is, very simply, another manifestation of the blame America first crowd. Here’s a more complete presentation. The money quote:

    ROTC, as everyone knows, was a casualty of the Vietnam War. Ivy League schools wanted nothing to do with the U.S. military, which was judged for the sins of the politicians who conducted the war, among them some of the best and brightest from the Ivy League.

  7. Jason says:

    Ah, yes that does make sense. I agree, it seems odd that elite institutions within a given country would openly oppose their own military. After all, without the military it really is true that those institutions wouldn’t be what they are. It seems to be a question of primary loyalty…if they are truly committed to their country first, they should back the country’s military. For the sake of argument, what about institutions that are pledged to something else first? This might even be the case with these schools, where they would say their allegiances lie with higher learning and free-thinking (though I agree that their primary allegiance should probably be to America above all else). What do you think?

  8. harmonicminer says:

    The Left has run America’s universities for quite some time. The more “elite”, the more Left, generally speaking. They are not committed to “their country first”; many are deliberately international in orientation, seeing themselves as cosmopolitan and enlightened in comparison to the jingoistic “country first” types.

    They could be intellectually honest about their “free thinking”, but it would require them to refuse to accept government funding of any kind, including financial aid for students, contracts for services or research that support the government or defense effort, etc. However, they are only too happy to accept all the aid they can get from the government, but give nothing in return… except, of course, more Left indoctrinated graduates to populate government agencies.

    Only one college in the US refuses all government aid, of which I’m aware, at least. That is Hillsdale College in Michigan ( Interestingly, they are not anti-military: far from it. Hillsdale is generally more conservative than most colleges. They simply don’t want the government telling them what to do, and since government money ALWAYS comes with strings attached, they just don’t take it.

    I wouldn’t mind at all if the Ivy league colleges accepted no federal funds, including in the form of financial aid, and also rejected support of military service…. although I would also expect them not to call the police when there is a robbery on campus…. just to be intellectually consistent, you understand.

    The fact that these schools DO accept federal funds, tax-payer money, but refuse to support the military in even such a basic way as ROTC, tells me all I need to know about their “free thinking”. It’s “free” to them, but it costs me (and you) money. For the most part, the founders of these institutions would be ashamed of the decisions of their descendants.

  9. enharmonic says:

    “I wouldn’t mind at all if the Ivy league colleges accepted no federal funds, including in the form of financial aid, and also rejected support of military service…”

    I wouldn’t mind at all if CHRISTIAN COLLEGES accepted no federal funds….. Maybe then they could keep their theology straight.

  10. harmonicminer says:

    I have to admit, I find the idea very attractive on many levels. It would change a LOT of things.

Leave a Reply