The OttO Show

When a candidate's biggest campaign assets are slogans, one would think that the candidate could only go up from there.  Then comes along Barack The Obama.  Who knew that 'Change We Can Believe In' translated into a plea to supporters to believe in the real-time changes themselves, whether those changes are on Iraq policy, the larger war against terrorists, campaign finance, gun rights or marriage.  Hillary Clinton, in one of her best lines of the campaign, went after The Obama's "change" slogan with the interpretation, "Change you can Xerox".

The McCain campaign has also effectively mocked the empty slogan of "hope" associated with The Obama with a line in a new ad:  "Don't hope for a better life. Vote for one."

The real abomination of this election season lies in the surrogate PR wing of Barack The Obama's campaign:  the mainstream media.  Yes, despite the occasional op-ed that shows up critical of The Obama on some level,  hard news reporting virtually ignores The Obama's mistatements, flip-flops and downright embarrassments.  

The NY Times featured an article this week that could have been written by the DNC themselves.  It was describing John McCain's economic stance as confused and self-contradictory.  Why?  Because the author clearly rejects the idea that tax cuts benefit the economy, injecting the opinion that there is something inherently wrong with McCain's desire to see tax cuts as well as spending cuts.  The author went so far as to subtly label tax cuts as "costly", even though tax cuts have been shown time and time again to actually increase tax revenues and it's unbounded spending that is in fact costly.

Regardless of what you or I may think about tax cuts, it's these kinds of articles that feed the idea that the mainstream press is in the bag for Democrats.  The author slyly set up a norm that happened to present the leftist view toward taxes.   When the NY Times endorsed McCain last winter, I seemed to be one of the lone dissenters against the notion that this meant that McCain had favor with the Times.  I argued at the time that once the general election got under way, the NY Times would have little to print that would suggest that McCain was ever their candidate of choice, that he would be thrown under the NY Times delivery truck as soon as the Democrats anointed their nominee.  

Both The Obama and McCain made appearances on The View.  I doubt most people noticed, but The Obama (who appeared first) was treated more like a Hollywood celebrity than a potential president.  Not only was he not challenged on his positions, one of the gals decided it was more informative to tell The Obama how sexy she thought he was.  Compare that to one week later when McCain entered the den.  Suddenly the girls of The View had to get to the bottom of the issues and treated him like Darth Vader rather than the Elvis treatment applied to The Obama.

Of course, this can be easily explained.  While there is actual substance to candidate McCain, The Obama is a juggling act, trying to minimize his inexperience while emphasizing meaningless rhetoric of "change" and "hope"; trying to balance leftist romanticism with mainstream pragmatism.  With The Obama's obfuscating on his Iraq policy (perhaps mirroring Richard Nixon's 1968 campaign rhetoric on Vietnam), one thing is becoming more and more "clear" - and it will be interesting to see how his passionate anti-war base receives this:  President The Obama is not going to end the war in Iraq in the manner that he once campaigned on.  His campaign is already indicating that there will remain at least 80,000 American troops in Iraq for at least the first part of his term - and perhaps indefinitely.  

Which leads to another abomination in this campaign:  the deliberate distortion of otherwise trivial things attributed to John McCain.  I'm sure The Obama's suggestion that tens of thousands of soldiers will remain in Iraq will not get the same treatment as McCain's realistic prediction that we will have a presence in Iraq for years to come, shamelessly translated by the weakest-minded of his opposition into meaning that he intends to have a hundred years of war in Iraq.  

It doesn't stop there.  The efforts to portray McCain as some vicious, crotchety old man have been in high gear.  We could start with the rumors (denied by both Mr. and Mrs. McCain) that he lashed out at Cindy McCain and publicly called her a "c–t".  Some fifteen years ago.

Another example, unsourced, was provided by a fellow writer, stating, "John McCain has a history of being inappropriate with reporters, aside from last week's "Kerry Question" incident. When a New Hampshire high-school student asked McCain if he thought he was too old to run for president, Mac fired back "Thanks for the question, you little jerk.""

What is quoted above hardly represents what really happened, as demonstrated by the video clip.  Here we see McCain having fun with the question, drawing laughs at his own expense, establishing that his age is not a hinder to his ability to preside and then jokingly thanking the "little jerk" for his question, drawing more laughs and laughing himself.  Though we can't see it, it seems safe to say that the "little jerk" was in on the laughs as well.

It says volumes about the case against McCain when these kinds of things are not only seized upon, but fabricated and distorted as well.  If we want to talk about inappropriateness, we could revisit the little covered line by The Obama, when his response (at a get-out-the-vote breakfast) to a reporter's very important question about a member of his own party designing his own foreign policy (by meeting with a terrorist organization) was summed up by the immortal words, "Can I just have my waffles?"

McCain may have an uphill battle, but the summit is approaching.  While The Obama is waffling on the McCain challenge of having ten town-hall style debates, ultimately the two candidates will have their positions go toe-to-toe.  As we are beginning to see, the more The Obama is forced to move away from slogans and bumper stickers and pressured to actually declare his positions, the more trouble it causes for him.  This is the result of having convictions dripping in pretty rhetoric and little else.  

Just as with the Bush/Kerry confrontation of 2004, we are facing a Republican candidate with principles and convictions vs. a Democratic candidate moving all over the place in order to please as many people as possible.  It's the difference between having a campaign that tries to win over voters vs. a campaign that wants to be won over by voters.  A candidate either sells ideas to convince voters or buys votes by pandering to them.

Which better describes The Obama? 

Tags: 2008, 2008-election, barack-obama, elections, john-mccain, mccain, obama, the-obama

1 Comment »

“Can I just finish my waffle?” - Barack Obama’s thought-provoking analysis of Jimmy “I Never Met An Enemy of the US I Didn’t Love” Carter’s meeting with Hamas representatives.

Who is this clown (Obama to be specific) and where did he come from? For years we’ve had to endure the Left seizing on every misstatement made by President Bush as evidence of how stupid he is. At this rate, Obama should pass him up before the 2009 Inauguration.

One would think that after eight horrific years of dealing with a dumb, chimp-ish looking President who struggles to make sense, Hillary Clinton would be riding into the nomination. Let’s face it: the more Obama talks, the more puzzling he becomes.

The above quote is for real. It was Obama’s response to a reporter at a campaign event, a get-out-and-mingle-with-the-voters breakfast. The reporter asked Obama for his thoughts on Carter’s (latest) embarrassing display of auto-fellatio. It’s easy to understand why Obama didn’t want to touch the question but it’s rather amazing that even the Obama-fawning media passed up an opportunity to make this pathetic response a media sensation.

This breakfast was a stop on Obama’s whirlwind “57 state” campaign tour, a campaign that also exposed his belief in a statute of limitations on condemning an unrepentant terrorist from “40 years ago”, unimportant because Obama was only “eight” when William Ayers set off bombs in Washington DC. Put aside that Obama was 40 years old when Ayers said that the Weather Underground didn’t terrorize enough back when Obama was eight. Since Obama was only 33 when the Murrah building was bombed, perhaps that would qualify Terry Nichols as a campaign asset. Or perhaps it’s just failed terrorists who he is attracted to.

Jeremiah Wright set Obama on a roller-coaster of stupidity. In a matter of about six weeks, Obama went from denying that Wright’s statements were necessarily controversial, to denying that he actually heard Wright express these views, to stating that he didn’t agree with them, to denouncing the statements but unable to turn his back on Wright to…turning his back on Wright, based on the conclusion, not that Wright hurt America or race relations or black Americans, but rather based on Wright hurting the Obama campaign.

Obama couldn’t reconcile his desire to double the capital gains tax with the practically admitted reality of what it will do to investment and revenues nor has he reconciled his agenda of leaving Iraq while considering an invasion of Pakistan in efforts to get Osama bin Laden.

Couple all of this with the incessant whining by Obama every time he is in a situation that he can’t slick his way out of, the old ‘why is everybody always picking on me?’ response. Just what we want in a president, especially a commander-in-chief at a time of war. Sorry Barry, condemning and denouncing William Ayers should amount to the easiest thing a presidential candidate might have to do. If we can’t even expect that out of him, what could we possibly expect from him when he is president?

This is supposed to be a new breed of politician? Maybe when we knew little about him. Looking at his judgment on these supposedly little things makes me wonder how his judgment will be better on the big things, when he has the power of the office to back him up. We had better hope when that troubling call comes in at 3:00 in the morning, President Obama hasn’t just been served up with a fresh plate of waffles.

Tags: 2008, 2008-election, barack-obama, elections, hamas, jeremiah-wright, jimmy-carter, obama, weather-underground, william-ayers

No Comments »

The real presidential race for Democrats at this point is between Hillary Clinton and Pastor Wright.

What I think is the most interesting question at this point (and one that I wish were being asked more) is for Barack Obama supporters who were practically goaded by Obama into defending Jeremiah Wright for the past six weeks: who are you philosophically aligned with? Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama?

Someone tapped Obama on the shoulder recently and pointed out that Wright was sinking his campaign. And Obama has taken a step toward turning his back on his white grandma and the black community. In other words, he is turning his back on his mentor.

This is where Barack Obama should fire the entire hierarchy of his campaign staff who apparently couldn’t/didn’t inform him some time ago that Reverend Wright was going to be a problem and who couldn’t/didn’t convince him since that he had to make a swift and decisive break. Obama has evolved from not knowing about Wright’s crazy side to not agreeing with it to finally, flat out refuting and rejecting it.

I’ve read and had numerous exchanges with Obama supporters in recent weeks over this ‘pastor disaster’. There were basically two camps: those who didn’t care for Wright’s rhetoric but felt that Obama wouldn’t or shouldn’t be hurt by it or react strongly to it and those who agreed with or defended Wright’s tirades. I’m particularly interested in the second group: now that Obama has (a little late) specifically and clearly clobbered some of Wright’s expressed points of view, who are you going to stand with?

One of the more lame defenses of Wright were the arguments that “snippets” were being taken out of context. Unfortunately, the more these “snippets” expanded, the more clear the context was becoming.

Following that argument was the position that the media focused on a couple of sermons and ignored the bulk of Jeremiah Wright’s body of work. Conservative talk-show host Michael Medved claims to have spent hours pouring over the sermons of Wright including transcripts and the available DVD’s of Wright’s sermons sold by the UTCC. Medved acknowledged that Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” speech was beautiful but revealed that virtually every other sermon he could access featured extreme and radical passages. So according to people who have no knowledge of Wright’s deliveries, the media-relied sermons are contrary to what most of Wright’s sermons are. To a person who’s actually researched it, those sermons didn’t stray far from the norm.

So is Wright really right? Which would make Obama…wrong? Where do you stand? Is it principle over person? If Wright is rallying for the oppressed and the victimized, if he is exposing or challenging an evil and corrupt government and Obama has come out as a contrarian to Wright’s radical statements - doesn’t that make Obama part of the problem, as Wright and his defenders define it?

Obama’s campaign has been the ‘race-card campaign’. Obama has been struggling to maintain credibility among white voters since this controversy emerged. Now he stands to lose credibility among black voters, the “community” who he said he could never turn his back on in the same manner that he could never turn his back on Jeremiah Wright. Let’s be honest here: this week’s change of heart for Obama (in which he essentially told Wright, ‘don’t call me; I’ll call you’) was an attempt to salvage his white support.

In a way, this is a calling for the “black community”. Wright supporters have made it clear that he is speaking the truth, that he is reflecting what blacks think and that this is the status quo of the black church. Will we than see a significant drop in black support for Obama? Or will they shrug off his denunciation of Wright and continue to rally behind Obama? In other words, how many black voters has Obama offended this week?

Reverend Wright could have laid low. He could have toned it down until November. He could have turned his notoriety into a campaign tool. He instead chose to reopen the flood gates. With his remarks about Obama’s relunctant original denunciation of his past comments being nothing more than something he had to say as a politician, he forced Obama to publicly divorce him and his insane claims and ideas.

The final position on behalf of Obama and Wright that I think is important to reflect on is the notion that we shouldn’t even be wasting our time talking about this. Unfortunately for those people, this is a very real and important political scandal. It goes to the heart of what every presidential campaign is about: judging the candidate. This is about character and judgment. Obama has failed those tests. He didn’t denounce Wright at some point over the years when Wright was trashing his country and inciting racial division. He didn’t even denounce Wright when the story hit nationwide. He has only come around to denouncing Wright once the good pastor became a clear threat to his campaign.

Hurting the country is okay. Hurting Obama is not.

And hurt Barack HUSSEIN Obama (Wright’s emphasis, not mine) is what Wright has done and will continue to do, peddling his book to the masses. Wright can’t lose. He will become one of the most famous people in the country and will make gobs of money off of this. And all he has to do is periodically provide a photo make or claim to conversations with or statements by Obama that will keep his own pre-book buzz in the air while flexing power over one of the most important people in the country.

The Obama candidacy, through every fault of his own, has become a slave to Jeremiah Wright. Wright and only Wright can decide to rally people for or against Obama. Only Wright can decide to retire quietly to his new 1.6 million dollar home. Only Wright can decide to continue embarrassing and harming Obama’s campaign. Whether Obama wins or loses the nomination, rest assure that Wright will have something to do with it.

Poor Obama. Can’t he just eat his waffle?

Tags: 2008, 2008-election, barack-obama, elections, jeremiah-wright, obama, reverend-wright, wright

2 Comments »

A brief hunt on the Internet led me to discover that there are 41 federal departments/agencies…just under the letter "A".   There are 15 federal agencies that fall under the management of the president.  One of them is the sham known as the U.S. Department of Education.  

1. $720 billion (2005):  Total estimated annual cost of US public schools
2. $249 billion:  Total cost of US public schools in 1990
3. 190%:  Increase in cost of US public schools in 15 years
   
4. $9295 (2005) pdf:  Average cost per pupil per school year
   
5. $15,155 (2005) pdf page 43:  Annual cost per pupil of New Jersey public schools (national high)
   
6. 31 pdf page 43:  National mathematics ranking for New Jersey
   
7. 29 pdf page 43:  National reading ranking for New Jersey
   
8. 69% (2007) :  Students nationwide performing below proficiency in math
   
9. 71% (2007) :  Students nationwide performing below proficiency in reading
10.  -1% (2007) pdf page 97:  Nationwide improvement in reading proficiency since 1996
11.  9%:  Federal government's financial contribution to public education (37% increase since 1990)

My concept on federal spending is pretty easy to comprehend.  As a citizen of Minnesota, I think it is a reasonable position to expect that my tax dollars going to Louisiana or South Carolina or Colorado should benefit me somehow.  Interstate commerce is something that benefits me.  Federal interest in a nationwide recognition in driver's licenses and marriage is of benefit to me.  Educating children in another state is not something that will benefit me.

I'm not a zero-tolerance kind of person when it comes to public schools.  Many states are bound to their own Constitutions to provide accessible education for their populace.  It is of the interest of a state or locale to have a system for providing education to it's children for the sake of it's economy, crime levels and next-generation stability.

But there are three big problems with public education.

The first, as I led in with, is federal involvement.  It's simply not necessary.   I discovered something that surprised me while looking up these numbers.  As you can see in statistic #1, we spend an impressive amount of money on education.  What surprised me is how little we actually spend on the federal level.  Of the total of public ed spending across the board, federal taxes pay for about 9% of it.  9% of a lot is still a nice sum of money but you might say, "OttO - 9%?  What's the big deal?"

The big deal is that it means it's one of several pointless federal spending programs that increases the size and scope and bureaucracy of the federal government.  It's senseless to send my tax dollars to Washington so they can be disseminated back to schools across the country when that money could go directly to schools in my community.  Keep in mind that the feds aren't just assisting with a transaction:  they are using this money to buy power in your community.  That money has big strings attached to it.  It is given out with conditions.  Those conditions are subject to change at the will of the feds which then means that a state must choose between accepting those conditions or removing established funding from a supposedly desperately cash-strapped institution.  Is there any reason why the states can't determine their own standards?

Which of course leads directly into the boondoggle that is No Child Left Behind.  We can argue about which aspects of it work and which don't work but do we really need the federal government charging us more and more so bureaucrats in Washington can tell us how our schools are going to operate?  In many ways, each state should have it's own NCLB.  But not at the federal level.

The second problem with education is of course the cost.   The thing to keep in mind when looking at statistic #4 is that most of this $9300 per pupil is going to shared expenses.  It doesn't cost $9300 for a kid to have a desk, a locker and a textbook.  A classroom of 20 students has an average cost of $186,000 per year.  Take out the average teacher's salary of $48,000 and that leaves $139,000 leftover to fund that classroom.  Most of that money never touches the classroom and a majority isn't even for the school itself; take out the school level administrative costs, utilities, building and maintenance costs, libraries and computers and the rest goes to the school district to pay for what is most often bloated and poorly managed bureaucracies.  

Every year the schools cry for more money.  One would think that a single year could go by without some sort of financial crisis in public schools.  Even though the least amount of tax dollars actually goes to the classroom, the first thing the powers-that-be threaten to do in a budget crunch is promise to make the children suffer.  No school district ever sets up a referendum to increase funds with the concern that if this request isn't fulfilled, some administrative department is going to have to suffer or some district employee is going to face a salary-cut.  Instead, the threat is to lay-off teachers, increase class sizes, stop providing necessary classroom materials etc.  In other words, threaten to harm their very purpose first because that is what will get the tax payer's attention.  This is the epitome of governing through fear and the consensus is that more money does not mean more education:

"…the United States is a world leader in education investment. However, nations that spend far less achieve higher levels of student performance." (U.S. Department of Education)

And we can further see from statistic #5, #6 and #7 that money does not mean results.  New Jersey, having the most expensive public education in the country, should be at or near the top in performance as well.  But in reading and math, they are average at best (and average in this regards is not something to be proud of - statistic #8 and #9). District of Columbia boasts the third highest cost-per-pupil in the country and ranks in last place in reading and math.  In the context of ever-increasing spending, statistic #10 speaks for itself.

The third big problem, which goes hand-in-hand with the cost problem, is your friendly, neighborhood teachers union.  The mafia has nothing on these unions in regards to power, influence and extortion.  Unions have destroyed the public education system.  One of the most prevailing offenses is the unwaivering job security that unions provide teachers.  Two schools of thought here:  (1) teachers are public servants dispatched to educate and mold our children and should be held to the highest standards; and (2) failure to achieve this task should be dealt with harshly and swiftly.  

Any demand for more tax dollars under threat of harming the classroom/students should include a public display of past performance.  When we approved the 10% increase last year, what did we get out of it?  Higher graduation rates?  More students proficient in math and reading?  Students who understand how their government works and have a general grasp of American history?  Then where did that 10% increase go?  Why should we give you more?  Oh right, because if we don't then our kids are going to pay.  Which is interesting - less than half of public school employees are actually teachers; for every teacher employed in a typical school district, there is at least one non-teacher employed.  Unions willfully protect their bureaucracy at all costs.

Here's an idea to address the demand for more money where performance is static if not recessive:  here's the money - now replace the worst 20% of teachers whose income we are paying.  But teacher's unions would never allow this.  It only makes sense that in the business of educating kids, those who fail to do so should not be allowed to continue failing.  Unions are in essence anti-performance.  In fact, it seems counter-productive for a union to want to see a school district succeed.  It's easier to get more money when things are dire.  Since unions work feverishly to eliminate or minimize school competition in all of it's forms, it's easier to not have to perform.

*** 

If there is one government program that we should expect to work and work within reasonable means, it's the public education system.  It's time to stop rewarding failure and for people to recognize that the very system we are expected to rely on for one of the most important societal contributions is in it's current form, an enemy to the kind of common sense and decency we as parents and tax payers should expect.

Tags: big-government, department-of-education, education, federalism, public-education, public-schools, spending, taxes, teacher-unions, teachers, unions

No Comments »

Racialism in 2008 is becoming to the Obama campaign what the military was in 2004 to the Kerry campaign.  

In the first post-war presidential election following 9/11, Democrats put forth John Kerry as their nominee based on the notion that his military background made him the most legitimate Democrat to lose the war on terror.  Kerry had spent four months in a war zone some 35 years earlier and the American Left - who we count on to win wars only where there is little to no combat involved - insisted that that alone meant that Kerry should be elected on the premise of providing strong military leadership.

From the moment Kerry left Southeast Asia in 1969, he has had to balance his contempt for the military with the reality that he would never achieve his ambitions if American voters knew that about him.  So he walks the fine line between opposing all things military while pushing a contradicting perception.  

This has led to numerous 'misstatements' about the military, the soldiers, the war.  The American Left is awash in positions that they are constantly convoluting in efforts to remain politically viable.  They will extract three words out of context to prove that a Conservative, life-long passionate supporter of the military is really anti-military yet have volumes of ways to show that every anti-military statement made by a Leftist is misunderstood, misinterpreted, misspoken, a botched joke or is - how can you not see it? - completely pro-military.

Fast forward four years later.  The military stumbles on the part of Democrats was just show prep for the coming campaign based on the Holy Grail of leftist causes - race.  

Now I have to admit that it's rather cute to watch Democrats eating their own.   Nothing could be more troubling for a Party that exists solely for aggressive and shameless power grabs than to have two powerful warring factions in their own party, neck and neck and tooth and jugular.  We have high-profile Democrats making statements that seem will be hard to take back when the nominee is finally decided.  The term 'poetic justice' comes to mind when I see a Democrat become victim to the very PC, left-wing monster they have created.

This campaign represents the epitome of symbolism.  The first vagina vs. the first afro.  Substantively, does it really amount to more than that?  These ideas truly excite people.  It would be like me getting excited over the prospect of electing the first healthy, handsome German-Indian-American.  At least the Indian part must be a qualifying factor for president.

Going beyond that, Barack Obama is the -ism in symbolism.  Professor Charles Kessler wrote in Hillsdale College's Imprimus:

OF ALL of the presidential contenders’ slogans this year, Barack Obama’s have been the most interesting. His campaign creed is: “Yes, we can.” To which any reasonable person would ask: “Can what?” The answer, of course, is: “Hope.” But again, a reasonable person might ask: “Hope for what?” To which the answer confidently comes back from the Obama campaign: “For change.” Indeed Obama’s signs say: “Change We Can Believe In,” as opposed, one supposes, to the unbelievable changes.

The Left's zeal for exploiting all things symbolic about race has them hyperventilating over the prospect of an Obama presidency.  Obama has about as much legitimacy as a black candidate as John Kerry did as a military candidate.  Both candidacies have been about a candidate stepping into character.  A majority of voters in 2004 were sensible enough to not let John Kerry's posturing fool them into putting him in the White House at the height of a war.  While a Kerry presidency in 2004 was a troubling thought, the Obama campaign will surely go down as the more obnoxious campaign.

If Americans have to put up with the politics of racial-gotcha! for the next six months they may be wary of setting up the country for four additional years of it.  It's already snowballing - it's no longer a question of whether or not the race-card is going to be utilized in this campaign but rather a question of what this week's racist accusation is going to be.

That's ultimately the problem with basing politics on raw symbolism.  Words are always just words away from becoming self-destructive when words are all you have.  Obama may have an interesting life story but let's face it - as a presidential candidate, he is an underachiever.  He has no background that in any way makes him qualified to be president.  But he has the race issue.  Obama can link arms with anti-American race-baiters, he can make bigoted statements about gun-toting Bible-thumpers,  he as the black, post-racial candidate, can call for a national dialog on race but when Geraldine Ferraro makes an obvious observation about race and the Obama campaign, suddenly the dialog is over.

The use of symbolism of race of course is not solely an Obama issue.  It leads pundits to be simultaneously excited and outraged over the insignificant meeting (or "revolution" depending on your point of view) between a descendant of a slave and a descendant of his slave-owner.  Stop the presses!  A black man and a white man had a discussion about…race!  The "unity" is on!  But the historic event was tainted by the fact that most people don't care.  

Much in the same way the Left emboldens our enemies abroad and pro-longs our conflicts, they also perpetuate racial divisiveness and pro-longs that conflict.  The worst thing that could happen to the Left would be for racial unity and harmony to sweep the nation.  Of course they will see to it that it never happens because anything can and will be spun into racist hostility.  Unless it's the words of Jeremiah Wright. 

My own observation is that the Democratic campaign theme of 2008 is Big Symbolism.  And I have six fun-filled months ahead to build my case. 

Tags: 2004, 2004-election, 2008, 2008-election, barack-obama, elections, john-kerry, kerry, obama, race, racism, war

No Comments »

I've spent a significant amount of time defending the candidacy of Barack Obama.  I've complimented his rise from improbable challenger to inspiring front runner.  I've criticized attacks made against him, whether those attacks have been from the Clinton campaign or from conservatives.  I've even made the daring suggestion that Obama should be elected based on his merits rather than his skin color - we don't need a president elected through affirmative action.

That's not to say I haven't had my criticisms of Obama as well.  There is nothing wrong with being a bumper-sticker candidate so long as the candidate has some substance to back it up.  Obama is a nice smile and a nice voice.  But scratch beneath the surface and we have a candidate who has accomplished absolutely nothing as a political leader.  If Obama were to drop dead tomorrow, his legacy would be his campaign - he will be remembered for nothing more.  He is the consummate cult of personality.

Which is why the Reverend Wright controversy could prove to be fatal to his political future.  Suddenly the 'personality' has a dark side and this flap has people doing what the Obama campaign desires least:  wondering what's behind the smile and the voice.

Democratic politics has completed it's long transformation into the politics of "who are you gonna believe?  Me?  Or your own lying eyes?"

This is observed in response to the bizarre excuses and defenses that his supporters have come up with for both Obama and Wright.  Democrats have become the party of people instead of principles.  I am convinced that there is absolutely nothing negative that may be attributed to Barack Obama that will not be defended, even if it is indefensible.

The only way to actually get a Democrat to do the right thing in a scandal is to convince them that it will further their political career.

Google "mccain" and "100 years" and it pulls up 349,000 hits.  Why?  There was nothing controversial about it and what he was indicating was pretty obvious.  Yet there are thousands of sites out there right now creating a hoopla over this statement.  Many, mind you, aren't addressing the issue of why a long term presence will be necessary (ala South Korea) but rather how McCain wants to have a hundred year war in Iraq (Google "McCain" and the more hyperbolic "1000 years" and you get 56,000 hits).  When a Republican speaks, there is no question in what he said and meant - only through convolution are the words controversial.

In December of 2002, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott resigned his leadership position (and any presidential ambitions) after praising former segregationist Strom Thurmond at his 100^th birthday celebration.  Lott made a glowing reference to the Dixiecrat presidential campaign Thurmond conducted some half-century earlier.  Within two weeks of making this single, off-the-record comment, Lott was giving up his position - with the Republican Party and the White House showing him the door.

To put it in some context:

• Lott said one controversial statement about a man based on something that happened over 50 years earlier
  • Obama has looked the other way while Reverend Wright has made vile comments multiple times over the years

• Thurmond had long since rejected his controversial former views 
  • Wright was in his prime up until his recent retirement

• Lott said a couple of nice things about the controversial Thurmond
  • Obama has supported Wright as a leader, a mentor and for having an intricate and personal role in his family and faith
    

So why exactly is it okay to throw Lott to the dogs and yet give the old kitchen sink defense on behalf of Obama?  One showed some passing support for an ancient and disgusting (and reformed) position of a long time senator; the other has expressed 20 years of inspiration and admiration of a racially divisive America-hater.  Basically, both Lott and Obama have expressed respect and gratitude for racists.  Just a bit of a double standard here?

John McCain recently blasted talk show host Bill Cuningham, who, while speaking at a McCain rally, made several insulting references to Obama by injecting his middle name (Hussein) multiple times in an introduction speech for McCain.  Although this pales in comparison to the caliber of Wright's comments, McCain didn't need polling or focus groups or late night campaign meetings to determine that Cunningham was tactless and out of line and that his campaign would not benefit from this kind of association.

Likewise, Hillary Clinton's campaign staff has seen numerous firings, resignations and disassociations due to inappropriate comments and tactics by people representing her campaign.  Again, these offenses pale in comparison to the Wright controversy.  Yet Hillary knows that she will be judged by the kind supporters she endorses.

Though this is foreign to some people, that is what a campaign is.  The voters judge the candidates based on many qualities, one of which is 'who does this candidate represent and who represents this candidate?'  Ron Paul supporters couldn't figure this one out - Paul's ties to and support from a whole host of racist organizations and personalities was inconsequential to them.

Let's say the Klan becomes vocal supporters of McCain (for whatever reason).  McCain expresses admiration for IKA Grand Wizard Ronald Edwards, cites his service to the community and his opposition to violence as a means to an end.  Edwards shows up along side McCain and McCain attends speaking engagements by Edwards.  When confronted about certain perspectives of Edwards, McCain says that he's not that familiar with Edwards controversial views or he says that he disagrees with or rejects them, yet Edwards is a mentor and moral leader outside of the controversial things he's said and when Edwards isn't wrong, he's quite inspirational.  And they both believe in Jesus!

Obama supporters - are you saying that we should just shrug this off?  Do we ignore the macro and twist and stretch various micros in efforts to give McCain the benefit of the doubt?  Or do we simply judge him by who he associates with?

We want to know who we may be giving the keys to the nation to.  Barack Obama's connections to Reverend Wright are very much a window into his soul - the first real thing we've learned about Obama in some time.

Wright is a man, by Obama's own accounts, who impacted his life and shaped his philosophy.  Obama has spent most of his adult life under the moral and spiritual guidance of Reverend Wright.  How do Obama supporters get the nerve to think that they can just dismiss that and recreate an Obama justifiably ignorant or indifferent to Wright's troubling sermons?

This story now reintroduces the recent "proud" comments by Mrs. Obama.  If Obama rejects anti-Americanism, then why does it seem that the most important people in his life all have a beef with this country?  And that's what we want to know - who is going to be whispering in President Obama's ear?   Who is he going to surround himself with?  People who think that "AmeriKKKa" deserves to be attacked?  That it is a racist country?   That there is little to be proud of America?  Will his "mentor" of 20 years have any sway over the Obama's?

I have been making the point that Obama needs to essentially fire Wright from his life.  Thank him for what he's done for him but their relationship is over.  Then Obama needs to find himself a mainstream church.  I said this with the notion that only then will people get over it.  If his interest in this church is purely religious, then he should have no problem doing that.

Now frankly, I don't think that should cut it.  Obama has made it apparent that the rhetoric of the preaching cliche and charlatan Wright wasn't too radical for him.   Obama has had years to renounce his pastor and put it behind him.  He chose not to.  And now that his seat is in the frying pan, we're supposed to respect any denunciation he expresses in efforts to turn down the heat?

This isn't on the same level as Trent Lott who was punished for a careless remark.  This represents a life-time of adulation for a troubled mind.

I've never taken Obama too seriously, but suddenly I find myself questioning who this man really is.  If he's not sympathetic to his mentor's public views then he is an enabler or at the very least, not troubled by them.  Whatever he is, he's not fit to be president. 

Tags: 2008, 2008-election, barack-obama, elections, obama, reverend-wright

6 Comments »

In defense of Obama, this has to be the silliest political debate so far of this election season.

Obviously the use of his middle name by his opponents is meant to marginalize him in some way - it amounts to an ethnic slur.

To all of those who insist that it’s somehow appropriate to emphasize his middle name, then without looking it up, let’s see who can state Mike Huckabee’s middle name. Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich. Mitt Romney. Joe Biden. Bill Richards. Fred Thompson.

I suspect that 99% of us don’t know these candidates and former candidates middle name. So this ‘what’s wrong with using his middle name?‘ argument is fallacious. I can’t speak for Clinton supporters, but it should be beneath conservatives who otherwise have a treasure trove of more substantive complaints to raise against Obama (besides, the names “Barack” and “Obama” are hardly traditional, Christian sounding names themselves - it’s not like his name is Michael Hussein Smith).

Cunningham, Limbaugh, Coulter etc…grow up. This is another glaring and shameful example of ditto-heads run amok, proving to their opponents that they indeed can’t think for themselves, that whatever their opinions and tactics are, they are filtered down from conservative mouthpieces who should know better.

John McCain is right to chastise this lame tactic.

No Comments »

I’m wondering…why are we supposed to be upset with Bill O’Reilly and not Michelle Obama?

O’Reilly dared to mention the word “lynching” and the name of a black person in the same sentence. Never mind that there was nothing derogatory in his statement, just the mere presence of the “L” word indicates…pretty much whatever we want it to mean.

Meanwhile, some of the same people trying to lynch Bill O’Reilly (it’s okay - he’s white!) are also playing word games with Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle. This is another example of one person being wrong by having his words twisted around and another person being defended by having her words…twisted around.

It depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. Michelle Obama drew some deserved criticism for a recent speech where she said (her words), “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

The defenses range from the leftist standard of saying that anything unpatriotic spoken by a member of the left is really patriotic (in it’s own peculiar way) to mincing words that she either left out or meant to say. One pro-Obama comment to USA Today emphasized that the word “really” (as in “really proud”) makes all of the difference. Another opinion piece on Newsvine tries to convince us that national pride and love for country are two different things, that because Michelle Obama has virtually never been proud of her country, it means she loves her country. Leftists are torn between being proud of her remarks and mincing words in clumsy attempts to soften or redefine them.

There is legitimate criticism of her remarks - it isn’t based on her feelings but rather her choice of words. Words have meanings and any speech writer worth their credentials would know better than to put such careless language in a presidential campaign speech (and any serious speaker would know enough to question them prior to saying them). This is one of the inherent problems of a leftist being put in a position to make public comments about the nation that don’t jive with run-of-the-mill Americans, whether those comments touch on patriotism, racial issues, issues of life…few honest comments from the left are supposed to be taken at face value by non-leftists.

One attempt to convolute the meanings of her words suggests that she is simply not proud of certain things about her country. Basically, because we invaded Iraq, she is justified in suggesting a lack of pride in her country…if that is what she really said, which we’re supposed to also believe isn’t what she really said.

It doesn’t really add up.

I’m not proud of the entitlement state we are sliding into. I’m still proud of America.

I’m not proud of the tens of millions of abortions in the last few decades. I’m still proud of America.

I’m not proud of our disgraceful abandonment of Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam War. I’m still proud of America.

I’m not proud of the Democratic Party (or Republicans at times for that matter). I’m still proud of America.

Never mind that Michelle Obama has come back with the ‘clarification’ that she is indeed proud of her country. She had followed up the line in her speech claiming a sudden pride in America by saying that, “Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”

In her clarification however, she seemed to backpedal on this by saying her pride is based on how her husbands supporters are rallying around him. The rhetoric of “change” is almost as annoying as her anti-pride remark. She doesn’t care about “change”, she cares about change that benefits her candidate husband. Michael Bloomberg could run on the silly campaign strategy of “change” and if Obama supporters left his side to swarm around Bloomberg, I suspect that her “pride” for the country’s rally around “change” would magically disappear. Every election to a leftist is about change…unless the incumbent is a leftist.

There is an oft ignored lesson in this for Democrats: you can’t win elections by being honest. No one in the Obama camp thought at the time that there was anything wrong with expressing a decades long lack of pride in America. It wasn’t until reactions woke them up that they suddenly realized that these rather simple words needed ‘clarification’.

Clarification is necessary because honesty in this regards will cost her husband votes. Until her husband loses, she will come up with ways to be proud of this country.

For the rest of us, it’s not that challenging.

1 Comment »

Here is the first round of what I'm sure will be many Shame On You Award ceremonies.  Perhaps in November (or when the recounts end) I will have some best of awards to summarize the election season. 

Shame On You Award #1/New York Times:

In what I'm sure won't be their last, the first award goes to the Old Braying Lady for it's shameful hit piece on Republican presidential candidate, John McCain.  Applying the Dan Rather School of Journalism technique to reporting, which states that as long as the reporter feels that a story must be right then it is okay to present it, several Times reporters worked for some time to put together a story that almost implies that McCain might have been suspected by unnamed sources some years back of maybe having an affair with a lobbyist, that sort of suggests that McCain may have perhaps traded political access for sex, that leans toward the possibility that someone thinks that McCain just may have assassinated JFK…

Alright, I made that last one up.  But not the first examples - the NYT made those up.  From citing unnamed, unidentified (unwilling to come forward), disgruntled former McCain campaign staff (from the 2000 campaign); to sitting on this story while their paper endorsed McCain - based in part on his character; to their apparent desire to get the story out before other media sources could expose the story for what it was…it's almost as if we shouldn't even get angry about it.  It's standard maneuvers from the MSM playbook:  smear Republican candidates through any means necessary.

So who really cares?  McCain is being vindicated and once again, the wilting Times has managed to allow it's partisan zeal to damage the newspaper's reputation.   But there is something to come of this that I find important and it backs up what I've been saying for weeks:  there is no such thing as a NYT endorsement for a Republican candidate.

For those who believed that a Times endorsement is hard proof of a Republican's liberal credentials, surely a 180 must mean that McCain is a right-wing zealot!  The true motivation of the NYT endorsement of McCain is  something we can only speculate on (and there are several theories).  But as I've been saying, the paper will turn on McCain once he becomes the nominee-in-waiting and we enter the general election season.  What I didn't expect was that it would start out with something this bold and obvious - and this soon.  Anyone who believed that the NYT wanted or wants a Republican president had better put down the gin and tonics for a while and rethink their lives. 

Shame On You #2/Barack "Change We Can Believe In" Obama:

I like Barack the candidate.  Let's face it, the guy knows how to campaign, he knows how to excite and energize his supporters and do so based on personality more than politics:  he is the classic Democratic superhero. 

Which make some of the recent revelations about his campaign even more disappointing.  I'm not sure which is more of a let-down from a candidate who otherwise has been engaged in a dream campaign:  his unreferenced use of part of another politicians campaign speech or his staged 'fainting' dramas.

While there has been no concrete proof (like an admission from the campaign), there is enough evidence to move these items beyond mere allegations.  The Obama campaign has acknowledged that the 'Just Words?' speech was borrowed from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick but haven't quite summed up why, in the multiple times he has given the speech, Barack passed it off as his own.

The 'Faint Near The Saint' episodes are certainly more original.  There are several clips of Obama at various venues going through the same motions:  a woman at or near the podium faints or is about to faint, Obama chimes in with calls to give the person some room, requests medical care, tosses a bottle of water out from under the podium and uses virtually the same exact language in each event.

Why would Barack Obama have to stoop to these tactics?  He has the momentum, he has a near-lock on the nomination and Hillary supporters appear to be defecting to his camp in droves.  Why risk it for some faux theatrics?  The most damaging result seems to be that this kind of behavior solidifies the accusations against Obama that he is all show and no substance.  I know there are those who will try to explain away or concoct justifications for these strange occurrences, but does anyone think they are ultimately good things in such an otherwise solid campaign?

Shame On You #3/Hillary Clinton:

It seems as though the Clinton campaign was behind the circulation of a photo of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali garments.  This on the heels of previous attempts by Hillary supporters to make sure that every American is aware that Obama was born to a Muslim father and that he has (as he has already admitted) done drugs.

This behavior shows the Clinton's contempt, not for their opponent, but for the general public.  These tactics, including the circulation of this photo, demonstrates that her campaign believes that the American people are stupid racists and a picture of their opponent dressed like one of them-there-9/11-killers will make at least of few Obamamaniacs defect. 

This is as bad as the internet campaign that tries to convince people that Obama is a secret Muslim and as deplorable as those who repeatedly emphasize his middle name (Hussein).  If we're going to get bent out of shape about Obama's religious beliefs, then let's attack it where it's real - his allegiance to a racist, anti-Semitic black-nationalist church leader and his segregated church.  But since that's even less politically correct than attacking him for a supposed Muslim background, we'll just leave that one alone.

A couple of observations about the fallout from this photo release:

"On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election"…"suggest[ing] that the customs and cultures of other parts of the world are worthy of ridicule or condemnation."

The Hillary campaign's distribution of this photo amounts to nothing more than an ethnic slur.  This is worse than George Allen's 'macaca' comment that cost him his Senate seat.

No Comments »

“It’s not the years, it’s the mileage”

- Raiders of the Last Ark

When I was a kid, if I could have been anyone, it would have been Indiana Jones.

The teaser trailer for a movie almost twenty years in the making is now available. Indy 4, or now known as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (KOTCS), is due for a May 22nd release…and I’ve been waiting with anticipation for this one. I’m one of those who believes that a movie should be a fun escape from reality and the trailer has accomplished it’s goal of piquing my interest.

I’m predicting now that discussions and forums in the next few months will be populated with some of the same cynical complaints that dogged the second Star Wars trilogy. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have stated that like the previous Indy flicks, this one will rely on human stunts and traditional special effects - unlike Star Wars, it will not be a CGI spectacular. And it seems that yes, the aging Harrison Ford still does most of his own stunts. Which brings about what will surely be the biggest complaint, particularly from the younger folks who have little investment in the original trilogy: Indy/Ford is just plain too old (my wife, who adores Ford, seems to disagree).

All buzz around the new film indicates that age will be a factor in the film. It is set roughly twenty years after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Even in the trailer, Indy’s advancing years is noted. Upon being surrounded by armed soldiers, another character quips, “This isn’t going to be easy” upon which Indy looks at the soldier standing closest to him and replies, “Not as easy as it used to be.”

The Jones saga (which was originally intended to be five movies) was presented as a throwback to 1930’s adventure serials. It appears that KOTCS may even have it’s own throwback to the first Indiana film, showing parts of an action sequence that appears to be set in the government warehouse where the Ark of Covenant was hidden away and stored among tens of thousands of similar looking crates.

Indiana Jones is as American as apple pie. His adventures seek spiritual or religious answers or solutions to his predicament and each film was above all else a battle between good and evil. In two of the past three films, Dr. Jones squared off against Nazi’s in the late 1930s (”Nazi’s - I really hate these guys”). Twenty-some years later, the evil is still there, only under a new identity: Soviet Communism. While Jone’s battles are intra-national there seems little doubt that Jones is a patriotic American, fighting to keep earth-shattering powers from falling into the hands of the worlds worst people. The imagery at one point in the trailer, uses a fluttering American flag as a segue from the flashback portion of the trailer to the flash-forward.

This film may have a patriotic twist to it (perhaps capitalizing on the success of the National Treasure series). We weren’t at war with the Nazi’s in the 1930s. But we were at war with the Soviets in the era of the new film. I guess a question is has Indiana kept up with the adventures all of these years? If not, then what brings him back to take on the evil empire? Service to his country? Or is it just another museum run?

A superhero without the superpowers, Indiana Jones is classic America: roll-your-sleeves-up ruggedness complimented by clearly defined rights and wrongs and a determination to win.

The Indiana Jones films are timeless…even if Indiana Jones isn’t.

No Comments »