Today Mark Monford, a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, suggests that Obama's candidacy is based not on his politics, not on his record, not on his qualifications, but on his very being:
They're already offering excuses for the fact that this pathetic new version of Dhimmi Carter would likely have a disastrous, failed presidency, if this Nation were condemned to his election, Heaven forbid. He won't actually accomplish any of his promises, but he will "usher in a new way of being on the planet." That of course is the old communist promise to create the "new man," a project usually attempted through concentration camps, re-education camps, starvation, and torture.Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord.
Here's where it gets gooey. Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
NO RECORD
The fact is, Obama has no record to speak of. Were it not for the way he is portrayed in the press by the starry eyed hypnotized, his accomplishments as a two-term State Senator and part-of-one-term U.S. Senator would be recognized as nugatory. He has never been responsible for any legislative accomplishment.
In today's Wall Street Journal, NPR commentator Juan Williams noted:
Most American voters know him only as a fresh face with an Ivy League education, an outstanding credential – editor of the Harvard Law Review – an exciting speaker, and a man who stands for much-desired change.There could be nothing more pathetic than the fact that this Presidential candidate's "outstanding credential" is that he was selected to be the editor of the law review while he was in law school two decades ago.
NO JUDGEMENT
The fact is, Obama has no judgment to speak of. On the single important foreign policy and national defense issue which was debated during his tenure in the United States Senate, the so-called "surge" strategy in Iraq, he was dead wrong. Watch Amb. Crocker and General David Petraeus set him straight here:
NO CHARACTER
The fact is, Obama has no character to speak of. He has been associated from the very earliest beginnings of his political career in Chicago with convicted felon Antoin Rezko -- who may have been a Saddam bagman in the oil-for-food crimes. He has admitted that he engaged in a slimy land deal with Rezko. Obama launched his political career by having his lawyers invalidate petitions nominating long-time 13th District Senator Alice Palmer for re-election.
The fact is, Obama is not an enlightened being. He is little more than another Chicago machine hack. He is no uniter. In the Senate, he has never deviated from hard left voting positions, he has never "crossed the aisle" to work with any Republican, and he was in fact taken to the woodshed by Senator John McCain for a particularly egregious double-cross:
February 6, 2006Obama chose to use his genetic background as a shield for criticism of his extremist leftist positions.
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my “interest in creating a task force to further study” this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate’s return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the public’s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn’t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Far from being a racial healer, he is at heart an angry, bitter racist who for 20 years sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. And directed hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to their projects.
And although he threw both Pfleger and Wright under the bus, and the Church which he said he could never repudiate, and his grandmother (that "typical white person") under the bus, he has not to this day repudiated the unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, whom he continues to refer to as "mainstream" political figures.
He has shown himself to be more loyal to his hard left extremism than he is to his Christian religion.
On every count, and in every respect, John McCain towers over Barack Obama. Senator McCain's sterling character, his accomplished record, and his insightful judgment stand in sharp contrast to Obama's deficits. I will devote a separate post to praising his qualities, since it would not be decorous to mention them in the same post as this account of Obama's failings. But compare these men fairly and --
as Reliapundit says, VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: Well said, Punditarian. AND HERE'S SOWELL'S TAKE:
Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.IOW: "YOU FIGHT FOR THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE CANDIDATE YOU HAVE, NOT THE CANDIDATE YOU WISH YOU HAD."
On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.
Elections are not ideal contests; they are about choices. We have only two: Obama or McCain. Only one man of these two men has the proven character, the proven record and the proven judgment to be president.
Er um... VOTE ACCORDINGLY!
No comments:
Post a Comment