Wednesday, February 13, 2008


Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

  • Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.

  • He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".

  • He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.

  • He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".

  • He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".

  • Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008


Anonymous said...

A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Roots in the know a bird brain that will say something that idiotically bogus is just another dreary reicho clone clown. Duh...see, when they moved away from that, all the honkies went you know in our infrequent lucid moments. Which is why Obama could only win in the Democratic party ...where 90 plus percent of the blacks are. Do me a favor and shove this comment where the sun don't shine, fool.

Anonymous said...

Btw, this is like rilly convincing to a fool whose party is in the toilet.

Montag said...

Roots in the Klan: The Klan was started by the Democratic Party to undo or minimize the efforts of Reconstruction.

Jim Crowe laws were promulgated by Democrats.

Democrats resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore's Dad led that obstruction. Had it not been for Republican support, it would never have passed.

LBJ spent most of his congressional career obstructing the Civil Rights Act, supported BTW by Dwight Eisenhower.

It was Eisenhower who sent the troops into the South to enforce desegragation, while JFK spearheaded the effort to discredit Martin Luther King.

Robert Byrd has never renounced his membership and leadership in the Klan. Strom Thurmond, on the other hand, not only quit the Klan very publicly, he switched parties to distance himself from them.

Name calling is not an argument. The above facts underline my point.

Now, do you have a point, other than the one on your head?

Montag said...

Anonymous wrote: "...this is like rilly convincing to a fool..."

I've got two words ro you, anonymous: SPELL CHECK!

Anonymous said...

Haha...are you talking about rilly?

Wow, you rilly are slow. Yes, we all know about the Democrat's racist PAST...and that living either in the past or in never never land is the only way you can make your pathetic, head up the ass argument. Try to deal with somewhat comtemporary history. The pathetic, shrill attempts to clean up the GOP's sorry, racist, CONTEMPORARY orientation goes nowhere with anyone but fools like yourself and six percent...hahaha...of blacks. It's astonishing that you fools even keep trying that nonsense.

Montag said...

Anonymous wrote of: "the GOP's sorry, racist, CONTEMPORARY orientation"

I ask you: what is so racist about the Republicans in general and the Conservatives in particular?

Opposition to affirmative action?
That's merely discrimination against other folks, rather than traditional discrimination.

Not looking at life "Through Race Colored Glasses"?
I thought that was what MLK was talking about: "...judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..."

Tax cuts, as Charlie Rangel once suggested?
How does anyone keeping more of his income to himself equate racism?

And what's so racist about a president who appoints the first black National Security Advisor and the first and second black Secratery's of State?

You're going to have to do better than merely shouting "RACIST!" to win any debates, my Friend!

Anonymous said...

Opposition to affirmative action is just a way of denying that blacks are at a disadvantage to begin with. The disadvantage to blacks is already the racism they have to face every day. AA is intended to ameliorate a very small part of that. Saying it is reverse racism is merely a facile, specious and perverse denial of the original problem...and obviously racist.

The glasses thing is just another version of that. You want to say...oh, let's just forget all that Jim Crow stuff and all the continuing racism and wipe the slate clean. Well, the slate is not clean and the racism goes you face that reality and do what you can...your nonsense is just thinly veiled racist callousness. As for appointing a few Toms for window dressing...get serious. How many blacks do you fool with that bullshit?

Anonymous said...

Stalinist!! Do you work hard at making sure you're a fringeo lunatic who no one could possibly take seriously? Of course's the real you.

Dan Kurt said...

re: "anonymous said...
Opposition to affirmative action is just a way of denying that blacks are at a disadvantage to begin with."

Blacks do have a disadvantage vs. Whites and North Asians > 15 point mean IQ difference. No amount of special pleading can erase that fact.

Dan Kurt

Anonymous said...

Americans have a ten point IQ deficit vis a vis Japanese. No wonder they've got so many stupid, Christian honkies and racists like Dan Kurt who is too simple to understand the dishonesty in plucking irrelevant stats out of context. And that, regardless of other considerations, it's the individual who counts and that character is much more important than IQ...which measures only certain, superficial aspects of intelligence. Just another bigot hiding behind numbers.

Montag said...

anonymous wrote: "'s the individual who counts and that character is much more important than IQ..."

Well, well! That's exactly what I was saying in my opposition to affirmative action. Glad to see we can agree on something.

Oh, by the way, if you can't control your blatantly bigotted impulses regarding whites and Christians, as well as your occasional episodes of scatology, I will be forced to ban your posts.

Sorry, but I like to run a family business here!

Dan Kurt said...

re:" anonymous said...
Americans have a ten point IQ deficit vis a vis Japanese."

You are incorrect if you are talking about white Americans. White males have a mean I.Q. of 106 and a SD (sigma) of 16. White females have a mean I.Q. of about 102 and a SD of about 11. North Asians and American Blacks also have SDs of a narrower range circa 10 than the 16 of White males. I don't have the book here at home so I am giving my recalled numbers. Reference is "The Scientific Study of General Intelligence (Hardcover), published circa 2003 by Helmuth Nyborg (Editor)." The chapter on Male-Female I.Q. differences has a number of charts that demonstrate the I.Q. differences. The SD disparity shows why in examining the really bright ( I.Q.s over 150 ) most individuals are White males.

Dan Kurt