Obama and the Elite Can’t Understand Middle America

You know, I am very tired of people who pay more for a pair of shoes than many people make in a month telling me what it is my own best interest.  I am completely a product of small town America.  Most of my family do not live in anything you can’t pick up and take with you.  We more closely resemble the people in a Jeff Foxworthy comedy routine than we do those who sip coffee that costs more than a good greasy burger at places where a John Deere t-shirt would never fit in.

My Granddaddy always said that whenever someone started talking about doing what was best for you, you had better put your hand over your wallet.  Let me say this slowly, which is by all accounts the only way you think we hicks can speak.  We do not want what you are selling.

We understand what it means to be “progressive.”  We understand that you sincerely believe you have sat in those great ivory towers and figured out how to turn this country into a modern shining city on the hill.  We get that.  We just don’t want it.

We believe that abortion on demand is not only immoral but downright dehumanizing.  We believe that we can do better for our families with the money that we earn than any politician or government program.  We believe that while we are concerned with our neighbors and fellow countrymen’s wellbeing, we don’t owe them a living — only the equal opportunity to earn one.  We believe that the founding father’s enshrined our right to keep and bear arms and while we are on that subject, no one with a 20 gage has ever been scared into voting a particular way. 

You see, we are proud to be Americans not ashamed like you.  We hold one truth to be self evident and that is how great this country is and what a privelege it is to be an American.  Be very clear that we understand what you are talking about.  Why some of us graduated not only from high school but from prestigious Universities.  Hell, a few of us can actually speak in complete sentences.  We just don’t think a big government, nanny state is the best model for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

You can’t possibly understand why some of us vote the way we do because you are so out of touch with what is truly American that you can’t see beyond your carefully constructed nose.  You won’t ever get it until you leave Beverly Hills and spend a little time in the hills of Arkansas or Tennessee where life may be a struggle but it is a life lived in liberty.

And finally, we don’t need a savior, we already have one.  You won’t find us fainting in any rally over some fancy dressed, smooth talking, big city slicker.  We put our faith where it belongs.  In God and not the government.  We are the backbone of America and we will fight to keep this country strong.  Until you can not only comprehend this but respect it, we have very little to discuss.

 

No Defense for Obama

Andrew Sullivan asks the following question:

“What does it say that a leading Presidential candidate can boast of support from an institution that has a deep history of racism and religious bigotry? And what does it say of a candidate to cater to a man who once denigrated his fellow Americans?”

And he answers:

“The answer is that the candidate is putting power before decency…”

OK.  He didn’t exactly write those words.  I’ll admit I changed a few.  But even in reading the original text where he rips Romney for supporting Bob Jones University and even mentions his detest of Bush for catering to them in 2000, the point gets made. To support a racist institution is, by inferrence, to support racism.  

But neither Bush nor Romney as far as I can find, attended Bob Jones University, sent any of their children to Bob Jones University, ever gave one penny of financial support to Bob Jones University, etc. etc.  Simply for speaking words of admiration Sullivan tarred these candidates through rather limited association with the racist past of BJU.

Contrast this with his support of Barack Obama who has a 20 year history of admiration, association and financial support for a church whose pastoral guide is a man who blasted racial, bigoted and unpatriotic speach from the pulpit.  Sullivan excuses Obama by writing:

“I think that the kind of politics that ensures that someone’s pastor’s rhetoric trumps every other issue in a campaign is waning. Because many Americans understand that the country’s problems are really too deep for this kind of thing to be dispositive. Because Obama’s long record is transparently not in any way equatable with Jeremiah Wright’s worst moments on YouTube.”

Sullivan is fully in the grips of Obamamania.  He is firmly an “Obamaist” if you will.  His arguments are intellectually convenient.  For a man who wrote:

“I had a conniption about Bush’s catering to BJU bigotry in 2000 and then swiftly forgot about it. I didn’t see it as the harbinger that it was: of a GOP rooted in religious prejudice, racial fears, and sexual panic. I’ve learned my lesson.”

the lesson obviously didn’t stick. Or it got in the way of his rush to elect a candidate who has described himself as a blank slate upon which others project their political hopes.  Well, Sullivan’s hopes are in the Barack basket and now he must rescue the politics of the future by practicing the politics of the past.  The story of Obama’s support of Reverand Wright is not going away.  I fear Obama may be, as Sullivan titled his post, toast.

Obama as Messiah

E.J Dionne writes:

“She [Clinton] promises toughness, competence, clarity and experience in a year when Democrats are seeking something closer to salvation.”

Maybe after years of wandering in the liberal desert, Democrats aren’t seeking a competent leader as much as the “chosen one.”  Someone who reinforces their instilled ideas and makes them feel good about their core beliefs.  Obama’s campaign isn’t as much about how he will govern as how he makes people feel about government and themselves. It is the liberal’s unending search for acceptance played out on the national stage.

Obama’s campaign has tapped into the collective cult of victimization.  He has spoken to those who feel put upon, unfairly disadvantaged and outcast with the same message delivered from countless Sunday pulpits — if you simply believe it will be manifest.

Left out is the message of self reliance and hard work.  Brushed aside is the concept that success is built upon effort.  Obama gives hope that things can be better not based on concrete policies requiring the drudgery that is governing but magically by his occupation of the Whitehouse.

As James Kirchick writes:

“What is most obnoxious about the Obama candidacy is the belief that his mere presence in the White House will end the world’s problems…”

He points out that Andrew Sullivan, a self-described conservative and all out Obama supporter, asserts that a “first and foremost” reason to vote for Obama is “his face.”  As if the presence of a young, bi-racial man in the Oval Office will somehow show the world that America has now redeemed itself.  By being who he is, Obama offers an opportunity to transcend racial tensions and repay years of oppression. His candidacy is a chance to assuage liberal guilt.

And this makes people feel good.

This hyperventilation is the actualization of a society that has told their children they were special regardless of performance.  This has bread an expectation of success.  Obama is the personification of the core liberal belief that society (and therefore government) can and should do better at taking care of it’s citizens.  The idea that everyone is entitled is his message of hope.

As Kirchick points out, one day America may well look back on this time and ask, “What the hell was this all about.”  Hopefully, for Obama’s sake, he won’t be expected to deliver the hype.

Obama Seen As Weak

Melanie Philips (an award winning British journalist and author) and Daniel Hannan (a writer for the Daily Telegraph and Conservative MEP for South East England) have been having a discussion regarding Barack Obama’s campaign for President of the United States.  Hannan is in support of Obama but for reasons quite revealing:

“Surely there is a respectable conservative argument in favour of Obama, one which sees a virtue in his lack of detailed plans. Isn’t it possible to argue that we want a relatively supine president, at least in the sense that a strong legislature is preferable to a strong executive, and that strong states are preferable to both?… To put it another way, I’d rather have a president who was decorative than one who was over-active. And Obama is certainly decorative…”

Hannan is making a conservative case for Obama based upon a hands off approach to federal government.  His basic argument is that Obama will be primarily a symbolic President who will not possess the ability to have a great effect on domestic policy and that this, inadvertently, will have a positive impact on American politics by empowering Congress against a weak Executive.

Philips writes:

“I do think he’s on the wrong side of everything…  He is on the further reaches of the left, with all the attitudes that go with that. On culture war issues, he’s on the side of social anarchy. On counter-terrorism, he’s against all the measures the US needs to take to make itself safer. On Iraq, by saying he’d pull out he has already made the west less safe; if he carried this out the consequences for the region and for the west’s defence would be calamitous.”

This is why I disagree with Hannan.  A weak US President in the current climate of terrorism and radical political fervor will not do America any service.  Someone who’s greatest asset is optimism and hope could tend to wilt in the face of such overwhelming hatred. 

We can’t forget, regardless of how we feel about the Iraq war, that there are people plotting to do very real harm to America.  At this critical juncture in history we need bona fide strength and solid leadership to combat the rising tide of anti-American forces. 

Both McCain and Clinton have proven their determination and resolve.  Both have dedicated their lives to service of our country.  Either could stare down the challenges we face.  Even a British journalist writing in support of Obama sees him as “relatively supine.” 

America doesn’t need to gamble it’s future on a President who might lay down when confronted.  We need a true contender and that isn’t Obama.

Liberal Changes Offered By Obama?

Cheerleader Andrew Sullivan seemed to downplay a little of the “change” aura surrounding Obama with this post:

“Big transformative changes? First I’ve heard of them.”

I think that this is part of the problem.  When you have the sort of inspriational, transcendant (and yes transfiguring) campaign such as Obama is waging, people can’t help but expect big sweeping  changes.  Part of the appeal of Obama’s campaign is that he will ride into Washington and miraculously unite everyone into a common direction. 

But what direction?  Obama hasn’t exactly made clear what his vision for America is beyond being united.  He certainly stands behind all the common Democratic rallying points which in and of themselves are enough to make a Conservative’s head explode.  But what else? 

There is enough in his background to suggest a very liberal agenda.  He supports:

• government programs to protect rural economies
• government intrusion into business with better inforcement of the Equal Pay Act
• racial preferences through affirmative action
• alternative sentencing and criminal rehabilitation
• lighter sentencing for drug dealers by questioning harsh sentencing
• a free public college education to all students with a B average

And there is more in his beliefs that are anathema to a conservative view.  It isn’t too far of a stretch for people to be concerned with just what kind of change Obama offers.

This election is about the direction of America’s future.  Obama’s ultra-liberal wish list offers a glimpse into where he believes we should go.

Obama’s Immaturity Shows

In 1990, Clayton Williams the Republican candidate for Governor, was leading his Democratic challenger Ann Richards by a very large margin when it happened.  It was a simple gesture but it changed the dynamic of the race and quite possibly handed Richards the Texas Governor’s Mansion.

Richards, in quite typical fashion, had been giving it to Williams pretty good out on the campaign trail and the Texas Oilman was visibly upset about this when they met at an event.  Richards extended her hand and Williams refused. 

While it is certainly true that Williams had a few other foot in mouth moments that didn’t help his cause, it is widely believed that this was the moment the tide turned.  It is in these simple unscripted moments where people see and judge the true nature of a candidate.

Now we have what will almost without a doubt become the next “snub” heard round the world.  Obama’s refusal to shake Hillary’s hand was ungracious at best and calculatingly rude at worst.  To some it will serve as proof that his youth and inexperience equals a lack of maturity necessary for the Oval Office. In his defense, Obama has offered an excuse but even Maureen Dowd, hardly the Clinton fan, isn’t buying it. 

It is common courtesy.  A gentleman always takes the hand of a lady. This was not his finest moment.

Obama Heir to Kennedy? Not So Fast.

Seems that just like the Democratic Party, there is division within the Kennedy family:

“By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy, and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party and our country. While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes… The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues.”

They did not base their endorsement on a recent familiarity or on feel good intentions nor as a retaliation against anyone (as much as for someone).  No.  They based it upon:

“We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen’s case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We’ve seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We’ve also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America’s principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation’s most determined and most democratic warrior.

She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our battles to protect the environment and to promote human rights around the world and juvenile justice in America. Hillary is a problem-solver, listening to people and then achieving solutions by changing attitudes.”

Caroline may have passed her father’s mantle to Obama but the children of Robert Kennedy have certainly innoculated Hillary by invoking the civil rights legacy of their father:

“Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and including those on the bottom rung of society’s ladder — giving voice to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind. She’s been an equally effective champion for human rights and for women’s rights…”

Coincidence that this appeared a day after the other Kennedy endorsement and in the LA Times whose readership will soon be voting?  I don’t think so.

This dilutes Ted Kennedy’s endorsement and certainly prevents Obama from wrapping himself in the entire Kennedy legend.  It also reinforces to Hispanic voters the image of Cesar Chavez whose bond with Robert Kennedy is well documented. 

Hillary is Ready Now

Gary Younge of The Nation writes today:

“Arguing for policies that eradicate poverty, confront racism and homophobia, tackle economic and gender inequality and corporate excess, normalize the status of millions of undocumented immigrants and address the ballooning prison-industrial complex is about being progressive, not divisive. It does, however, mean recognizing that divisions exist and that to resolve them we have to take sides and fight for our beliefs. Unity is not forged by fiat but by struggle. Candidates can talk about “transcending” race, gender, region and party all they like. But before we can talk sensibly about transcending difference, we must first transform the conditions that give these differences meaning. [emphasis added]

This has been my argument against Obamamania.  While it is highly inspiring and quite infectious, rhetoric without the fortitude to stand and fight is little more than empty promises.

I have no delusions about Hillary Clinton.  Having had the microscopic inspection of her life over these many years leaves us with a pretty good picture of who she is.  The important part of this picture for me is not only her ability to fight but her annoyingly resilient ability to persevere.  She is smart, tough and politically astute. She has been preparing for this moment since the first campaign the Clinton’s ever conducted and she is battle tested and ready.

Obama’s tendency to shirk the tough fight, to compromise when confronted and just generally the ability of his opponents to rattle him leaves me wondering what will happen when sitting across the table from Kim Jong Il, Vladimir Putin or a host of other international political bulldogs.  I have no such qualms about Hillary.

Right now we need someone who will take the side of America and fight.  There is little doubt Hillary is a scrapper.

Democrats and the Politics of Identiy

Democratic leaders are upset that the harsh rhetoric being hurled during this primary season will cause the Party to break apart.  This is what happens when conflicting identities compete.  The words “reap what you sow” come to mind.

Identity politics is the idea of grouping people along a common trait such as skin color, national heritage, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and believeing that this group will (and should) vote only in its own self interest.  The modern Democratic Party is built upon this concept and it is this loose coalition of self interest that is causing the conflict. 

Any person is rarely one thing.  Clinton is more than just a woman and Obama is too complicated and too multi-faceted to be put into the black man box.  Each however, represents an identity bloc that the Democratic Party has fostered to its advantage over the years.  It has repeatedly demonized the Republican’s as a Party against the interest of women, of blacks, of hispanics, of gays, of….. fill in the blank.  The idea that the opposing side “hates” the other, not because of ideas but because of belonging to a victimized group, was encouraged and intentionally instilled.  The current Democratic primary is simply the natural progression of this type of politics.

In a society whose resources are limited it is inevitable that groups will come into conflict.  When you have created these groups and empowered each of them with promises of support, it is hard to suddenly want to become group neutral.  Each group expects what it was promised.  This type of organization feeds a group first and above all mentality. 

The best thing that could happen to the Democrats is what they are fearing the most - that these identity groups will blow apart and splinter the Democratic base.  This would force the party to have to be rebuilt along ideological lines, not identity.  Republicans learned this and that is why, as Obama rightly said, they were the Party of ideas.  Democrats need to loose the group think and formulate around fundemental principles of what (and not who) they stand for.  This would suit them well for the future.

The Race Race. Obama vs. Predjudice

Dick Morris of The Hill writes:

“If Hillary loses South Carolina and the defeat serves to demonstrate Obama’s ability to attract a bloc vote among black Democrats, the message will go out loud and clear to white voters that this is a racial fight…  if blacks deliver South Carolina to Obama, everybody will know that they are bloc-voting. That will trigger a massive white backlash against Obama and will drive white voters to Hillary Clinton.”

The Democratic race for the Presidency has always been about race.  Anytime you have the “first” anything, it will be about that.  No matter how hard Obama wanted to trascend race, no matter how much Obama believes (sincerely) that he is just a man running for President and not the black man running, the fact remains… he IS a black man running for President and the first of his race to be a serious contender.

Now we can argue all day long about whether this should matter or not (and I believe it shouldn’t) but that will not change the fact that Americans will be deciding if they are going to elect the first black President.  Obama will bear the scars and the perks of this because he is a symbol. 

Oprah acknowledged that Obama was the chance to fulfill Dr. King’s dream.  Obama plays to his race as well by saying things no white politician could get away with such as suggesting that Bill Clinton’s dancing skills would keep him from being a brother. 

Race should not play a part in anyone’s decision about whether someone is qualified for any position including the Presidency but as Dick Morris points out, let’s not kid ourselves that it won’t.  Obama will open doors for future black politicians that he, himself might not be able to walk through. Pioneers and “firsts” often fall short but are instrumental to progress.

I do not support Obama due to my feelings about his experience level.  To not vote for him because of pigmentation would be shameful. 

Stereotyping NRO Style

I might be misreading KJL when she writes:

“I don’t want a female president either. She’d be whiny and annoying and the embodiment of identity politics (as I said, whiny and annoying)…”

It is kind of hard to “whine” about identity politics when playing them.  I don’t care if the President is male, female, animal, mineral or vegetable (or chartreuse for that matter) as long as they have great ideas, solid management skills and the fortitude to take on those who would do us harm.

Restore America

Today Andrew Sullivan called Hillary Clinton’s race for the US Presidency a restoration project.  Well… what is wrong with restoring America to the world standing, the economic strength, the greatness that it had prior to the leadership of George W. Bush and his merry cadre of neo-cons?

Though I do think Hillary is the strongest Democratic Party candidate, this really isn’t just about her.  It is about where this country will head and how it will get there. 

The United States is without question the last standing super-power and the greatest republic in the history of civilization.  Take us back to 2000 before the changes advocated by President Bush and I believe this country was not in too bad of shape. Certainly better than it is now. 

Eighteen years of Conservative Republican governance (including six in the Congress) along with eight years of mostly moderate compromises from the White House left us with a balanced budget, a budget surplus and a country respected around the world.

The point to this is that change isn’t always good.  President Bush certainly oversaw a lot of it during his tenure and most of those have not had positive impacts.  The question for this campaign season is, “What kind of change.”

That has not been answered sufficiently from the Obama campaign.  And what he has said, erasing partisan divides, government providing rather than a reliance on individual effort and further intrusion into our daily lives by the federal government, are not all exactly changes that will take this country in the direction it needs to go. 

Don’t get blinded by the pretty wrapping.  Think about what he is advocating and where it will take this country. One positive thing about the possibility of an Obama Presidency is that he seemingly lacks the necessary experience and skill set to enact any of the changes he so eloquently advocates.

Waffling on Republicans

By now, most readers know that I favor Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination.  I have not settled on a Republican candidate as of yet. 

Several offer ideas and strengths that are critical to success in the Oval Office.  McCain’s military service and foreign policy experience and Thompson’s consistent conservatism are two being considered.  However each of these falls short in other vital areas.  McCain with his non-conservative views on political speach and Thompson’s rather lackluster enthusiasm in campaigning for the job.  Viability in the general election is also a concern.

South Carolina and Florida will hopefully help clear things up.  I, like the Republicans, haven’t made up my mind.

Clinton vs Obama - Competence vs Communication

Andrew Sullivan, who no one could ever call a Clinton supporter, offers this insight into Hillary’s campaign and possible presidency:

“I think Clinton won the debate, and at this point in time, is winning the battle of nerves. Obama is still human. He looks deflated, as he must be, after New Hampshire. And whatever else you say, you have to admire Clinton’s sheer stamina. I don’t think she’s more experienced in any relevant way; I do think she is more emotionally and psychologically tested for the presidency. She and her husband are not, it seems to me, always the better politician in the race. But they have the most staying power, a preternatural ability to absorb blows and keep going. Like some sort of new political zombie, they just keep coming at you. I’d almost forgotten their shameless resilience.

The one sliver of optimism I can find in a Clinton presidency is that the enemies of the United States might one day feel a little bit of what Clintons’ domestic enemies do. Maybe they can bore and grind al Qaeda into submission.”

It is this resilience, this toughness and this ability for Hillary to  (dare I say it) be ready to govern on day one that makes her the best candidate on the Democratic side.  Time will tell if cool, logical aptitude will win over inspiring rhetoric. 

Obama himself knows that he isn’t ready to run the bureaucracy of the US government.  That is why he thinks being President is about vision rather than action. He is wrong and we cannot afford for him to learn that lesson while in office.

Obama Not Tough Enough Part II

I am not an Obama basher.  I personally feel that he is by all accounts a decent, honest, likable sort of chap who is constitutionally smart and very well spoken.  I agree with him when he says:

“I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can. And I don’t think there is anybody in this race who can bridge differences … better than I can….”

But I have said it before, “Obama is not tough enough.”

In a perfect world that sort of Pollyanna attitude could work and it is inspiring to look to the best in human nature.  Unfortunately we don’t live in this world.  The partisan battleground that is Washington DC, if not America as a whole, is not going to miraculously disappear based on the outcome of one Presidential election no matter how steadfastly we wish for it or how hard we click our heels.

Politics is a contact sport.  It is ruff and tumble, messy and not for the fainthearted.  For change to be more than lofty words spoken with conviction it takes in the trenches warfare.  Day to day handling of the biggest collections of power hungry egos since the Oscars.

Obama isn’t this person.  He is not a person who tackles problems and with the sheer brute force of his will moves the ball down the field.  He is an incremental compromiser at heart. When the going gets tough he tends to bend and that we do not need leading this country.

Look to his campaign to understand the operational style of the candidate. While “transformational”, “lofty” and my personal favorite “post-partisan”,  Obama cannot seem to even formulate a tough response when attacked.  His can’t-we-all-get-along-kumbaya world outlook may be inspiring but it is not practical. [link via Andrew Sulivan]

Lots of Presidents have been decent guys with good intentions (Ford and Carter to name two) but they didn’t make effective Presidents.