americanideal.org Blog

An uncomfortable question . . .

What if Obama were just another white guy?   This is one of those questions that should have come to mind a long time ago, but didn’t in my case, maybe because it makes one feel a bit uncomfortable at first.

But it is a fair question and not at all racist.  Pretending that this is a race-neutral election is the fantasy that big media and the Democrats want us to believe. 

But we know it isn’t true.  The same big media and Democrats treat the “black vote” as a monolithic block that will go for Obama by a 95-5 margin.  If so, this is not a race-neutral election.

If it is to be assumed that blacks will vote for Obama because he is “one of their own” and that’s deemed OK by the media, the self-annointed arbiters of political taste in this country, doesn’t that make anybody uncomfortable?  Isn’t that very assumption (and the reality that apparently accompanies it) a kind of racism? 

How many whites, also, are voting for Obama because he is black?  Another discomfiting question, but I am sure plenty of people are.

Now you can vote for anyone or against anyone for whatever reason you want.  That’s nobody’s business.  You can vote against McCain because he’s old or is on the shortish side or can’t lift his arms above his head or against Obama because he has big ears. I don’t care.

My point is, if Obama were a white Democrat politician from Chigago, in his late 40’s, who had a couple terms as a state senator preceded by a few years of community agitation, preceeded by a prestigious Harvard law degree, who was now only in his first term as a US senator, would he have even gotten any consideration by voters in the Democratic primary process?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

We are all expected to ignore–in the spirit of good taste as deemed by the political and media elites–that Obama is the first affirmative action presidential candidate.  He has gotten this far mostly because of his racial heritage.

In short, it is fine and even noble to vote for him because he is black, but shameful to vote against him for that same reason. 

My opinion:  it is equally shameful to vote for or against a candidate because of is race.

For those inclined to vote against Obama because he is an inexperienced, over-reaching street organizer schooled in the Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill ideology and techniques of grass-roots agitation, not to mention the fact that his policies are repugnant to us, don’t allow them to make you believe you are a racist.  You don’t like Marxists, whether black, white, or in between.

Think of this: What would the polls look like if 90% of white people were going to vote for McCain because he is white? 

It would be a landslide and it would be disgusting.  And it wouldn’t represent a country I would care to live in.

McCain gave his opponent big lead before first pitch was thrown

As much as I am sickened by the prospects of the coming Obama presidency, the loyal Republican in me partly feels that McCain is getting what he deserves.  How can this be?

The McCain campaign made a fundamental error early on, and they haven’t recognized it, nor can they at this late date do anything about it, not that they would want to.

McCain decided to accept the Democrat premise that President Bush is a total disaster and try to run away from and even against George W. Bush.  This strategy hasn’t worked, nor can it be expected to. 

Here’s the crux of the problem.  When trouble strikes, Democrats circle the wagons and rally around each other.  Republicans eat their own young.   When Monica came out, Dems said Bill Clinton would never do such a terrible thing. The whole accusation was a right wing conspiracy, remember?  Then when it turned out to be true, and Bill Clinton admitted it, and admitted that he lied (under oath) about it, the Dems said, well it doesn’t matter; it’s only about sex; it’s his personal business; and his policies are wonderful for the country.

Democrats didn’t throw Bill Clinton under the bus, after his disastrously unsuccessful and hugely unpopular push for Hillary-Care; after the 1994 mid-terms when Republicans clobbered the Dems; even after Monica and impeachment.  Dems held their ground and always, always insisted that Bill Clinton was a great president.  Yes, he did Monica, but . . . Yes this, but that. Yes one thing, but another.

Republicans, the whole lof of them, the spineless ones in Congress, the so-called neo-con pundits who urged Bush on to war with Iraq, and yes McCain, have never even tried to prop up Bush’s popularity.  Even if they don’t like Bush (and clearly McCain has a personal vendetta from the 2000 election and who knows what else), they should have realized that as Bush goes, so goes the Republican party.

If McCain had bolted the GOP and ran as an independent this year, say against Obama and a Mitt Romney running as the Republican, he would probably win!  And he could have ripped Bush to shreds in the process.

But he chose to stay a Republican and run as a Republican.  Whether he likes it or not, McCain is squarely on board the rapidly sinking USS George W; and instead of frantically trying to bail water out of the thing, he’s smashing more holes in the hull.

It didn’t have to be this way.  President Bush’s approval rating is, what, in the 20’s?  My goodness, how hard would it be to have brought that up in to the 30’s, maybe near 40.  I am not talking about even half of the people approving.  Remember, the guy got 50% of the vote in 2004 and had approval ratings in the 80’s after 9-11.

Republicans, including McCain and Palin, should meet every insult thrown at Bush with a strong endorsement of the good things President Bush has accomplished.  How about the tax cuts that gave people control over their own money and did lead to economic growth, the creation of jobs, and record government revenue?  How about the miracle that has happened in Iraq?  McCain wants to take credit for the surge?  Fine, there is plenty of credit to share, and Bush had to make the decision and stick to it.  How about the appointment of outstanding constitutionalists like Roberts and Alito to the supreme court?  How about, most importantly of all, keeping us safe from another attack for the past seven years!

You don’t have to resort to false praise or pollyannish hyperbole to give credit to George Bush for those accomplishments.  They are significant and striking and deserve to be lauded.  All the Republicans needed to offer was a little balance, something like “I know that George Bush is not the most popular president right now, and who knows what’s behind all that.  I know he has made some unpopular decisions, and frankly I have disagreed with him strongly in some areas.  But President Bush is a man who doesn’t let polls change his principles, and for that I admire him.  And he has succeeded in keeping our country safe since 9-11; giving much needed tax relief to American families; and turning the situation in Iraq around remarkably.  For all of those achievements, he should be given his due.”

A relentless campaign of consistent statements like the above from Republicans across the board could have perhaps propped Bush’s approval up a few notches. And maybe those few percentage points of difference would have translated to a few percentage points of difference in McCain’s favor.  And in presidential elections, which have often been decided by the narrowest of margins, a couple percentage points can be the difference between victory and defeat.

Palin blew it when she piled on Bush in the VP debate.  She gave Biden the ammo that he turned around and shot McCain with.  She should have offered the kind of measured defense of Bush that I offered above. 

You see, McCain’s weakness is that Obama/Biden are right about one thing:  McCain is promising more of the same as Bush in certain areas.  And there is nothing wrong with that, because McCain agrees with Bush on those things that Bush did that were right and popular (tax cuts, the surge in Iraq, qualified justices, etc.). 

In accepting the premise of the Dems’ and the media’s position, McCain is not only running away from President Bush (to whom he is ultimately tied in the eyes of the voters) he might find himself running away from the presidency as well.

The $700 Billion Abortion

Actions have consequences.  It’s axiomatic, self-evident, and true.  Yet it is widely denied by most of popular culture, the media, and the political class.  And the denial of this truth is at the very heart of contemporary liberalism.

We think that we can wish away the negative consequences of our actions.   Maybe we can hit the delete button on our keyboard and they will disappear!  Like a text message that disolves into cyberspace.

That’s why abortion is such a frustrating issue.  Everyone knows it kills a living human being, but it’s too much to ask, to expect a woman to bear and raise a child that she doesn’t want just because she and her boyfriend “made a mistake” when having a little frolic in the nude.  After all, nobody should be “punished with a baby” (in Mr. Obama’s words) because they forgot to use birth control.

Look at most of today’s parents, the ones with teenage children.  Drive by a high school parking lot during a school day and see all the expensive cars and SUVs parked there.  Those aren’t the teachers’ cars. Those are the students’ rides.  Their precious asses can’t be expected to sit on a school bus, heaven forbid.  And walking to school?  Unthinkable.

Cell phones in high school are a given.  Every high school student has one, and them’s the times we live in. But first and second graders with cell phones?  Common nowadays.

So what?  Kids today are by and large spoiled and pampered.  That’s not news.  No, but it goes hand in hand with the attempt to excise consequences from our lives.  Parents can choose to withhold punishment when their children do wrong, or they can limit their punishments to a toothless talking-to.  If my teenager drives drunk and kills somebody, though, that consequence–an innocent dead person–cannot be wished away, no matter how “understanding” I may try to be.

STD’s (AIDS etc.) are so troubling to us becuase they are by and large easily prevented.  But it just doesn’t seem fair that having sex can lead to terrible illness, and we need to erase the illness (the consequence) without expecting any change in people’s behavior that could prevent the illness in the first place.  We need vaccines, antibiotics, and condoms, but not more responsible behavior.

This brings us to the Wall Street bailout.  If companies make bad loans to unqualified recipients because of political correctness (increased minority home ownership goals, e.g.), the urging of bureaucrats, or short-sighted folly (absolute faith that real estate values will keep going up), they are taking on a risk that the loans will go bad, and they are hoping for a reward that the loans will be repaid on time.

If the loans succeed and retain their value, they can be sold for gain or retained for the income they will generate.  That’s fine.

If the loans can’t be repaid and the values of the homes supporting those mortgages also tank, they may become worth much less, and the lending institution takes a loss.

If we believe in the free market, the lending institution gets to enjoy the benefit of their investments and loans when they work out.  Why, then, should they not bear the burden when they don’t work out.  Why do we want to privatize the reward and socialize the risk? 

We want to wipe away, wish away, delete by magic the negative consequences of the risks taken by individuals and firms in the marketplace of mortgage lending.  After all, they didn’t mean for things to go bad.  They thought real estate values would continue to rise. They meant well by trying to expand home ownership. Why should they be punished for all these good intentions by taking a financial loss?  Let’s just abort the consequence of their actions, to the tune of $700 billion of somebody else’s money.

Navigating without Your GPS

Navigating politics without principle will get you lost.  That’s where John McCain finds himself today.  He has fallen into the same trap as George HW Bush in 1992.  He is sounding like a “me too but less” Democrat.

I have to admit I was impressed with McCain’s acceptance speech at the GOP convention, more than I had expected to be.  His story is compelling and reveals many admirable character traits that would help him as president.  Anyone who endured that living hell and stayed true to his cause is a hero to be sure.

So, when he picked up the mantel of change and reform, I thought that wasn’t a bad strategy, not letting Obama claim that territory unchallenged.  Great, let McCain do that for the convention with a big national audience, put out a few commercials talking about change, and then he will get back to the issues that will help him win.

Apparently not, at least not yet. And time is a-wasting.  McCain’s problem is the emphasis on “getting something done” no matter what it is.  Getting the right things done, according to firm and fundamental principles, should be the goal. 

I find McCain’s character, which is obviously loyal, steadfast, disciplined, courageous, and self-sacrificing, to be at odds with the kind of pragmatic politics that he seems to employ.  There is nothing fundamentally good about compromise, and it shouldn’t be an end in itself.  Compromise is something you tolerate when you must, in order to advance your principles toward a goal, albeit not as far as you would like.  Half a loaf is better than none, but not as good as the whole loaf.  And no one starts out by striving for half the loaf.

McCain got stuck on reform and change and has sounded like Obama:  empty and vague promises without substantive content.  In so doing, he has surrendered one of the biggest advantages he had on Obama.  He should be hammering Mr. O. on his platitudes and demanding concrete specifics, while offering plenty of his own.  In other words, this election should be and in order for McCain to win–must be–about issues.

If the election is only about who is going to bring the most “change,” there is no way McCain can win.  If you want a “change” and all you care about is the emotional feeling of something “new” coming in and sweeping away the old, who is going to vote for a 72 year old white guy that has been in the Senate for 30 plus years, when this other cool cat has an interesting and unique name, is half black, and has only been around for a couple of years. 

McCain has to go back to basics, and it ain’t complicated:  “Obama is a flaming liberal, and here are the differences between us (taxes, guns, right to life, free markets, socialized medicine, freedom to control your own life, judges, strong military, etc.)  Here are my bedrock principles, and I am going to fight to implement them as well as I can when I am your president.”

Legal Scholar Whoopi Goldberg

Add Whoopi Goldberg to the pantheon of intellectual giants that speak for the liberal-celebrity-Democrat culture.  You may recall that theologian Nancy Pelosi, Doctor of Divinity, has recently discovered something unknown to Cathoic Popes and theologians for two thousand years, as if it was buried in her backyard when she was excavating for a new pool, namely that the Catholic Church, in fact, is not sure when a human life acquires a right to live. 

Now we have Ms. Whoopi Goldberg, Juris Doctor.  By the way, is she on Obama’s short list for his first Supreme Court vacancy?  After all, she’s eminently qualified.  She’s a real woman (unlike Sarah Palin), because she’s a radical feminist; and she’s really black (unlike Clarence Thomas), because she’s a radical leftist. Therefore, she’s got two interest group identities nailed.  Now we find that she is a stunningly original legal mind!  If only she were a lesbian too. . . Ah, but with Hollywood, you never know.  She could one day fall under the spell of that seductress (I mean seducer (?) sorry for the sexist suffix) Ellen Degeneres.  Then we would have a feminist black woman involved in an interracial lesbian affair.  That’s a grand slam on any lefty’s scorecard.  She would sail through the Senate with unanimous Democrat support, and the Republicans would politely nod and add fawining praise (“Hey, she was hilariouis in Sister Act, and wasn’t she one of those hyenas in the Lion King? Very funny stuff”).

Whoopi’s crack a the law came on recent appearance of John McCain on The View  (I liked politics better when its practicioners thought it was beneath their dignity to do these pop-TV interviews as just one of the guys with Jay, Dave, or now these four harpies on the View–or Oprah God help us).

ELISABETH HASSELBECK: There has also been a question burning amongst voters and actually our viewers, and that is the question of Roe v. Wade. And as president, if you were, no softballs coming from me, even though you have my vote. Would you as president work to overturn that? And then would Sarah Palin be working to overturn Roe v. Wade?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): I think what we would be doing is appointing or nominating justices to the United States Supreme Court and other courts who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States. We would not impose a litmus test on any issue because that’s not fair to the American people. But they would have to have a clear record of strict interpretation.

BARBARA WALTERS: That’s kind of the other way of saying people who would want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

McCAIN: That, that, well, that is saying that, I believe Roe v. Wade was a very bad decision, Barbara. [audience groans] I think it was a bad decision. I thought other, I thought other decisions of the United States Supreme Court were bad decisions. But I want people on the Court who, quote, “do interpret” and not just on the issue of Roe v. Wade, but on other issues.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Do I have to be worried about becoming a slave again?

McCAIN: My interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is that the United States Supreme Court enforces the Constitution of the United States and does not legislate nor invent areas that are responsibilities, according to the Constitution, of the legislative branch.

HASSELBECK: So it was in how the law came up, it was in how Roe v. Wade came apart was the issue. You, you want it to be through the Constitution from the people not from the bench.

McCAIN: And I believe that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, then the states would make these decisions.

GOLDBERG: Sir.

McCAIN: Yes?

GOLDBERG: Can you just, and I don’t want to misinterpret what you’re saying. Did you say you wanted strict Constitutionalists? Because that, that-

McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision-

GOLDBERG: Does that-

McCAIN: -for them to do.

GOLDBERG: Should I be worried about being a slave, about being returned to slavery because certain things happened in the Constitution that you had to change.

McCAIN: I, I understand your point.

GOLDBERG: Okay, okay.

McCAIN: I understand that point and I, I, [applause] thank you. That’s an excellent point.

GOLDBERG: Thank you sir.

McCAIN: And I thank you.

WALTERS: Before we go, before we go, just to give a different picture because you talk- [laughter]

GOLDBERG: I got scared.

JOY BEHAR: She’s picturing herself on the plantation.

GOLDBERG: I got scared. I gotta start running.

WALTERS: You and Sherri, we’ll take care of you. Us white folk will take care of you.

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Oh my God.

“Oh my God” is right.  Hey Whoopi, any supreme court justice who would apply the Constitution as written could not allow you or any person (black or white) to become enslaved (although in your case it might be tempting . . .). 

The Constitution has these legally binding principles embodied not just in the original clauses and articles, but in those pesky amendments that have been added over two centuries time since.  These amendments are part of the Constitution and have absolute legal force, and they were added through the process spelled out in same, not by the reckless whim of five or more black-robed dictators.  Guess what, Whoopi!  The 13th amendment to the US Constitution specifically forbids the practice of slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States; and the 14th and 15th amendments further articulate this nation’s commitment to equality of the races under the law.  They all came during a national time of healing knows as reconstruction, after a terrible national blood-letting known as the Civil War.  Ever hear of any of that?

How I wish McCain, instead of the obligatory and insincere show of “understanding” toward Ms. Goldberg’s alleged fear, had told her what an idiot she is and had given her a lecture on the Constitution that every American 8th grader should know.  It shows us just how unhealthy race relations are in this country, in the way the Obama campaign also shows it.  In a “post-race” world, one could say honestly to Whoopi something like the following:  “You, Whoopi, may be an amusing comic actress, but when it comes to politics you are in idiot.  And you are an idiot, neither because of nor despite the fact that you are black and a woman, but because you are stupid.”   That’s a healthy dialogue I long to hear.

No, Whoopi, you needn’t fear being shackled and forced to pick cotton.  Heck, that doggone Constitution even prevents you from being silenced for being wrong and being a moron (did I mention, however, that the prospect makes my mouth water . . . ) 

Another Good Reason to Vote for McCain

The rest of the world wants Obama

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080911-159952/World-wants-Obama-but-McCain-leads-in-US-polls

Nancy Pelosi, scholar of Catholc theology and doctrine

Speaker Nancy Pelosi was on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday morning. Tom Brokaw asked her about Rick Warren’s Saddleback Civil Forum where Senator Obama was asked:

PASTOR RICK WARREN: At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is, is above my pay grade.

Pelosi:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins.

Nancy Pelosi is frighteningly air-headed if she thinks the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is at all ambiguous.   Would Tim Russert have hit back a little harder on this? I would like to thnk so.

She has to twist herself into a pretzel to defend Obama’s position in favor of virtual infanticide, and to defend the Veep on the ticket, Biden, whom the media have told us ad nauseam in recent days is a “Catholic.”  Another pro-abortion, liberal Catholic. 

What Risk?

The slavish media (and a good deal of so-called conservative commentators) fell right into the Obama campaign trap by accepting the premise, before Barack’s grand international advnenture, that this trip was a “high stakes” political move, that the candidate was risking his campaign on it, etc. etc.

What risk?  That is such nonsense.  They set up a trip that couldn’t possibly fail and billed at as a high-stakes test for their candidate.  And aw shucks, he hit it out of the park, and that means he is ready for prime time, will make a great commander in chief, yadda yadda yadda.

He goes on this middle east and European tourist trip, and that means he is all of a sudden prepared for the presidency?  Everything on the trip was tightly controlled and srcipted.  There were no reporters allowed to cover any truly candid moments.  What mistake could he have possibly made? Perhaps he might have said merci bous coup in Germany instead of France?

He shakes a few hands of “world leaders” and has his picture taken towering over them in his youthful exuberance. 

Despite the low risk of the trip, he did manage to hurt himself, perhaps, with that saccharine laced speech in Germany, in which he took veiled shots (but shots nonetheless) at America. 

In appearing to run for UN Secretary General instead of President of the United States, he might have done his candidacy harm, if (this is a really huge IF) McCain and the GOP have the stomach to hit him as hard as he deserves.

Don’t get your hopes up.  And as to a potential President Obama, I know I feel re-assured already, knowing that he can get on and off an airplane, shake hands and smile, and keep to a schedule involving multiple time zones and still make it to all of his appointments.

Who is he kidding?

Obama’s prayer got “leaked”  http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1826734,00.html.

Who is he kidding?  He wanted that to get out, so that we can all see what a humble man of God he really is, what a genuine servant.  Call me cynicial, but I don’t buy it.