AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

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

SUPER DOOPER!

I write this as Monday turns to Super Tuesday. There are now 43 primary constests in 22 states. This is the day that makes or breaks Mitt Romney. For the Democrats, the slogging goes on until Feb. 12, and then we'll see what's what.

We all know where I stand on the races. John McCain would be like voting for Democrat-Lite. As near as I can tell, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Barak and Hillary. Huckabee wants to vice president under John McCain. And Romney is the only Republican who is actually Conservative and has had any real world experience.

John McCain, as was explained last week in The Elites Choose a Candidate, is the choice of the Establishment Rockefeller Republican elites, or RINO's. These Jurrasic era bluebloods look to McCain as the Republican most likely to win in November. Indeed, if some of the early polls of a match up between McCain and Hillary are to be believed, he has a slight lead, at least for now. That lead, though, is likely to evaporate should he become the Republican nominee and the Legacy Media bring out their knives.

That apparent lead, also doesn't take into account the simple reality that, without the Conservative base, the Republican Party would be in permanent minority status, as it had been before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, it seems aren't quite ready to drink the Kool-Aide for McCain, nor are they likely to just hold their noses and go along with their RINO leaders. And it's not just Montag's World that is decrying the apparent McCain juggernaut. Here are just a few examples

• Sean Hannity has endorsed Mitt Romney.


• Rush Limbaugh, who claims that McCain will mean the destruction of the GOP.


• Mark Levin, who frequently writes of McCain's apostacy from Conservative principals.


• Evan Sayet on his blog is quite critical of McCain and has endorsed Romney


• Ann Coulter has gone so far as to threaten to campaign for Hillary, should McCain get the nomination.

These are just a few of the Conservative luminaries, the brain trust if you will, who are vehemently opposed to a McCain candidacy. Should McCain sweep Super Tuesday, as the conventional wisdom says he will, rank and file Conservatives such as myself are left in a quandry: Do we support the Establishment candidate who has opposed our ideals for more than twenty years, or do we sit out the election, ensuring a Democrat in the White House. Actually, the choice isn't all that stark, since a McCain administration would look a lot like a Democratic administration, although a wee bit stronger on the War on Terror.

In The McCain Mutiny I wrote of a McCain nomination "...even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice." Now I'm starting to rethink that. For what possible reason would any Conservative stay with the Republican Party if our own elites reject us? What good is it to support a RINO just because "he's not as bad as those Democrats"? For all I can see (based on RINO's in New York and both Bush Administrations) we're still heading for the same destination, just at a slower pace.

Dennis Prager once said that you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for his Rolodex. In other words, who will he appoint to his Cabinet, his advisory staffs, or the courts? Generally, most RINOs have been OK on these matters, but there are some extreme exceptions. Although Bush the Elder chose well with Clarence Thomas, David Souter has been a nightmare. And we still have John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, another RINO. Even Conservatives give us a clinker now and then, Reagan having given us Anthony Kennedy, another Liberal judge.

So who's in McCain's Rolodex? One need only to look to Michelle Malkin to find out that he has advisors like Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, of the radical group, La Raza. Lest anyone doubt La Raza's radicalism, they oppose all immigration enforcement, favor immediate citizenship for all illegal aliens, and support the creation of Aztlan, the apocraphyl legendary home of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Human Events, in an essay penned by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R. Ga) deftly traces the relationships between radical, anti-American "immigrants rights" groups and their ultimate goal of having the entire America Southwest annexed to Mexico. These aren't the kind of folks I'd like in my president's Rolodex!

Of course, in an age where the electorate tires of the bitter partisanship in Washington DC, is it any wonder that maybe a John McCain, who has proven he can "reach across the aisle" to Democrats, would be welcom change? But is the purpose of a Republican president to reach across the aisle and become a "Me too!" Democrat? Or is it to convince the Democrats to move more to the Conservative point of view? The RINOs, it seems would prefer the former.

No, Friends! The answer isn't to redefine Conservatism as Democrat-Lite. That way lies madness and defeat. I'm still hoping and praying for a Romney come back. California is beginning to look promising, as John Zogby points out. Although the premeir pollster is still confident in an ultimate McCain victory.

And yet, I believe in miracles. Just last night, I was talking to a few people about miracles and my belief in them. One of them said "It'd be a miracle if the Giants won the Superbowl." Well, guess what? The Giants did indeed win the Superbowl!

McCain, like Hillary, may be the presumptive winner of the nomination. But, again like Hillary, the conventional wisdom might be wrong, as it so frequently is, once again.

Here's to Mitt Romney! May he prove the RINOs wrong, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980!

Copyright Feb. 4th, 2008