Doctor Barack, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Maverick
I must pinch my nose, bite my tongue, and cross my fingers as I go on record as rooting for John McCain this election. I never liked John McCain, and I never saw myself "supporting" such a disappointing and inadequate candidate, but America is currently clinging to life on the operating table, and as the reaffirming beeps from the life support machine grow farther apart, I simply can't bring myself to place the scalpel in the hands of Doctor Barack.
Besides the fact that Obama represents the farthest Left America will have ever ventured, he would also be the most inexperienced and previously unknown candidate ever elected. After all, I've still yet to hear a compelling answer to the question "what has Obama ever accomplished?" The only thing his supporters can come up with is, "he was elected to the U.S. senate." Well, so were 99 other people, many times over. Does that make them qualified to lead the free world?
When backed into a corner on the experience issue, Obamatons will frequently cite his ability to "inspire people," especially youth, without ever answering the pertinent question: inspire them to do what? Does he inspire them to volunteer in homeless shelters? To donate to charity? To join the armed forces or the peace corps? The only thing Obama "inspires" young people to do is vote for him. His message is loud and clear: the best way to help out your community is to vote for Barack Obama. The Messiah himself will take care of the rest.
Because we knew so little about Doctor Barack at the outset, we were forced to look at his associations and his voting record. Starting with the latter, as you should know by now, he was ranked in 2007 by a non-partisan journal as the #1 most liberal voter in the U.S. Senate. To give you some perspective, Obama came out to the left of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist.
As for his associations, I'll say this: Throughout his brief political career, Barry has had an uncanny ability to be comfortable around people who simply hate this country. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalidi...the list goes on. Barack has had so many ties to so many controversial and America-loathing characters, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own secret service bodyguard. Anyone who has worked for the FBI knows that someone who was associated with the former spokesmouth for the PLO, or who kicked off a political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, would be denied the security clearance and thus the job based on those connections. Obama couldn't qualify to be an FBI agent, but somehow he's qualified to be president.
After establishing that he had no experience (Hillary helped with this one), and that he wished not to be judged based on his associations with the aforementioned unsavory characters, he pleaded with the American people to elect him based on his "judgment." Once again, this aspect leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Obama gained a lot of traction early on by touting his opposition to the Iraq war. While it's a given that he didn't even have a vote on the Iraq war resolution (remember, in 2003 Barack Obama was a complete unknown), one wonders how much political risk he took by speaking out against the war as a state senator from a decidedly liberal, anti-war district.
Regardless of his position in 2003, after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was faced with an actual vote on a controversial foreign policy decision: the troop surge. John McCain and other members of congress said the surge strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from Bush's horribly mismanaged conflict. The last 16 months have shown their judgment to be correct.
Obama didn't just vote against the surge, he actually predicted it would make matters worse. Even the New York Times now admits Iraq has been completely transformed by the increased troop presence, casualties are at all-time lows, and conditions for withdrawal are in sight. In fact, over the Summer, the murder rate in Obama's hometown of Chicago was higher than that of Baghdad's.
So, his experience is non-existent, his associations are downright terrifying, and on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate, he was spectacularly wrong, and stubbornly refuses to admit it. So what's left? What does ol' Barry really believe? What are the ideals and principles that form the core of the man who's being virtually catapulted into the White House? Folks, understand this: if we omitted everything about this man that didn't reek of failed Leftist policies or outright Marxism, we'd be left with nothing to discuss except his shoe size, which is incidentally something that the throngs of Obama worshipers could probably talk about endlessly.
Perhaps the most telling bits of evidence of Barack's radical views have come from his own mouth in the form of comments like "spread the wealth around," and tax increases "for the purposes of fairness." His egalitarianism is plain to see, which explains in part Europe's childlike infatuation with him. With so many Obama voters focused on his love for equality, no one seems to remember that equality was never an American value. Sure, Americans support equality for citizens in the eyes of the law, equal protection of the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and equal economic opportunity - that is, the freedom to earn as much as your skills and work ethic allow you to.
But Barack's idea of equality isn't the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of result. Everyone will have an "equal amount of stuff," even if it means taking from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Obama advocates what Frederic Bastiat termed "legal plunder." That is, when the "law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Even Michelle Obama has expressed the virtues of legal plunder, although she used a much more voter-friendly foodstuff analogy:
Doctor Barack is also remarkably dishonest - something that goes unnoticed by the Obama droves who will line up tomorrow to vote for a slogan, not a candidate. He constantly trumpets his plan to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and he's allowed to pass off such rubbish because most Americans (and probably close to all of his supporters) don't realize that 40% of Americans don't even pay income tax. They're never curious about exactly how you can give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't pay taxes. If Obama said, "I'm raising taxes on the rich, and I'll give that money to people who don't even pay taxes," even the most deluded American would understand that right about now, Marx and Lenin are high-fiving in hell.
Another bit of dishonestly comes in the form of his claim to "end the power of special interests" - as if Republicans are the only ones beholden to lobbyists. When Barack Obama and the Democrat party decide to get out of bed with the teachers union, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, I'll start believing his promises about "special interests."
Barack's naive outlook is neverending, and frankly, I don't trust him. Not on energy, not on national security, not on taxes; there isn't a single issue where he and I agree. Perhaps if Obama had a litle more time to build up his resume with some executive experience and actual accomplishments, he could be a somewhat compelling candidate. Instead, he wants Americans to support the most radical and least qualified candidate in American history.
Our country deserves better, and it's for this and countless other reasons that I must relectantly (and secretly, lest I be branded a racist) root for John McCain, with all his flaws. He's a washed up middle-of-the-roader; a compromised man who has lost his will to fight - something which may ultimately cost him this election.
But admittedly, I'll take the guy who shot rockets in Vietnam over the guy who shot staples in Chicago. I'll take the guy who has a son fighting in Iraq over the guy who says Americans "cling to their guns." I'll take the guy who palls around with liberal Democrats over the guy who palls around with racist preachers and former terrorists. I'll take the guy who says he wants government to "get out of the way" over the guy who says he wants government to "spread the wealth around." I'll take the guy who views babies as blessings over the guy who views them as "punishments." I'll take the guy who's concerned about how much energy we can produce over the guy who's concerned about how little carbon we can produce.
Simply put, after pinching my nose, biting my tongue, and crossing my fingers...I'll take the guy who wants to change Washington over the guy who wants to change America.
Besides the fact that Obama represents the farthest Left America will have ever ventured, he would also be the most inexperienced and previously unknown candidate ever elected. After all, I've still yet to hear a compelling answer to the question "what has Obama ever accomplished?" The only thing his supporters can come up with is, "he was elected to the U.S. senate." Well, so were 99 other people, many times over. Does that make them qualified to lead the free world?When backed into a corner on the experience issue, Obamatons will frequently cite his ability to "inspire people," especially youth, without ever answering the pertinent question: inspire them to do what? Does he inspire them to volunteer in homeless shelters? To donate to charity? To join the armed forces or the peace corps? The only thing Obama "inspires" young people to do is vote for him. His message is loud and clear: the best way to help out your community is to vote for Barack Obama. The Messiah himself will take care of the rest.
Because we knew so little about Doctor Barack at the outset, we were forced to look at his associations and his voting record. Starting with the latter, as you should know by now, he was ranked in 2007 by a non-partisan journal as the #1 most liberal voter in the U.S. Senate. To give you some perspective, Obama came out to the left of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist.
As for his associations, I'll say this: Throughout his brief political career, Barry has had an uncanny ability to be comfortable around people who simply hate this country. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalidi...the list goes on. Barack has had so many ties to so many controversial and America-loathing characters, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own secret service bodyguard. Anyone who has worked for the FBI knows that someone who was associated with the former spokesmouth for the PLO, or who kicked off a political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, would be denied the security clearance and thus the job based on those connections. Obama couldn't qualify to be an FBI agent, but somehow he's qualified to be president.
After establishing that he had no experience (Hillary helped with this one), and that he wished not to be judged based on his associations with the aforementioned unsavory characters, he pleaded with the American people to elect him based on his "judgment." Once again, this aspect leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Obama gained a lot of traction early on by touting his opposition to the Iraq war. While it's a given that he didn't even have a vote on the Iraq war resolution (remember, in 2003 Barack Obama was a complete unknown), one wonders how much political risk he took by speaking out against the war as a state senator from a decidedly liberal, anti-war district.
Regardless of his position in 2003, after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was faced with an actual vote on a controversial foreign policy decision: the troop surge. John McCain and other members of congress said the surge strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from Bush's horribly mismanaged conflict. The last 16 months have shown their judgment to be correct.
Obama didn't just vote against the surge, he actually predicted it would make matters worse. Even the New York Times now admits Iraq has been completely transformed by the increased troop presence, casualties are at all-time lows, and conditions for withdrawal are in sight. In fact, over the Summer, the murder rate in Obama's hometown of Chicago was higher than that of Baghdad's.
So, his experience is non-existent, his associations are downright terrifying, and on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate, he was spectacularly wrong, and stubbornly refuses to admit it. So what's left? What does ol' Barry really believe? What are the ideals and principles that form the core of the man who's being virtually catapulted into the White House? Folks, understand this: if we omitted everything about this man that didn't reek of failed Leftist policies or outright Marxism, we'd be left with nothing to discuss except his shoe size, which is incidentally something that the throngs of Obama worshipers could probably talk about endlessly.
Perhaps the most telling bits of evidence of Barack's radical views have come from his own mouth in the form of comments like "spread the wealth around," and tax increases "for the purposes of fairness." His egalitarianism is plain to see, which explains in part Europe's childlike infatuation with him. With so many Obama voters focused on his love for equality, no one seems to remember that equality was never an American value. Sure, Americans support equality for citizens in the eyes of the law, equal protection of the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and equal economic opportunity - that is, the freedom to earn as much as your skills and work ethic allow you to.
But Barack's idea of equality isn't the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of result. Everyone will have an "equal amount of stuff," even if it means taking from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Obama advocates what Frederic Bastiat termed "legal plunder." That is, when the "law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Even Michelle Obama has expressed the virtues of legal plunder, although she used a much more voter-friendly foodstuff analogy:
"The truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive just a little bit...in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."I shouldn't have to explain to you how much this fundamentally conflicts with the principles of liberty upon which America was founded. Old school Democrats like John F. Kennedy used to construct tax policies with the ultimate goal of "growing the economy." Liberals today (better described as Leftists when compared to the likes of JFK) have modeled their tax policies with the ultimate goal of "fairness." This is truly the only way to make something as un-American as the federal income tax even more so. And rest assured, Obama represents the cream of the Democrat party's far-Left crop.
Doctor Barack is also remarkably dishonest - something that goes unnoticed by the Obama droves who will line up tomorrow to vote for a slogan, not a candidate. He constantly trumpets his plan to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and he's allowed to pass off such rubbish because most Americans (and probably close to all of his supporters) don't realize that 40% of Americans don't even pay income tax. They're never curious about exactly how you can give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't pay taxes. If Obama said, "I'm raising taxes on the rich, and I'll give that money to people who don't even pay taxes," even the most deluded American would understand that right about now, Marx and Lenin are high-fiving in hell.
Another bit of dishonestly comes in the form of his claim to "end the power of special interests" - as if Republicans are the only ones beholden to lobbyists. When Barack Obama and the Democrat party decide to get out of bed with the teachers union, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, I'll start believing his promises about "special interests."
Barack's naive outlook is neverending, and frankly, I don't trust him. Not on energy, not on national security, not on taxes; there isn't a single issue where he and I agree. Perhaps if Obama had a litle more time to build up his resume with some executive experience and actual accomplishments, he could be a somewhat compelling candidate. Instead, he wants Americans to support the most radical and least qualified candidate in American history.
Our country deserves better, and it's for this and countless other reasons that I must relectantly (and secretly, lest I be branded a racist) root for John McCain, with all his flaws. He's a washed up middle-of-the-roader; a compromised man who has lost his will to fight - something which may ultimately cost him this election.
But admittedly, I'll take the guy who shot rockets in Vietnam over the guy who shot staples in Chicago. I'll take the guy who has a son fighting in Iraq over the guy who says Americans "cling to their guns." I'll take the guy who palls around with liberal Democrats over the guy who palls around with racist preachers and former terrorists. I'll take the guy who says he wants government to "get out of the way" over the guy who says he wants government to "spread the wealth around." I'll take the guy who views babies as blessings over the guy who views them as "punishments." I'll take the guy who's concerned about how much energy we can produce over the guy who's concerned about how little carbon we can produce.
Simply put, after pinching my nose, biting my tongue, and crossing my fingers...I'll take the guy who wants to change Washington over the guy who wants to change America.
Labels: Election 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
I think we both feel the same way about Obama, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here! Obama > McCain... top