It’s not my opinion, though, this article was written by someone else. And after I give credit to my fellow Wicomico County Republican Dave Parker for passing this along to me, I’m going to post what this person wrote. At the end, I’ll tell you a little about the person who penned it – you might be surprised.
This is from the New York Sun:
It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first frontrunning freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first. We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America.
But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.” Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban – ban – on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs. But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and – yes – they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president.
Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Any guesses as to who this is? The author is Ken Blackwell, who is now a columnist for the paper, and the piece is entitled “Beyond Obama’s Beauty”.
I may have tipped this off a little bit with the categories at the top, but Ken Blackwell ran and lost for the Governor’s seat in Ohio in 2006. However, had things been as I thought they should be in a perfect world, that would have been the point where Blackwell was wrapping up his second and final successful term as the chief executive of my home state. Unfortunately, the Ohio Republican Party leadership abhors contested primaries and their choice in 1998 was the moderate Bob Taft – a guy who allowed state government and taxation to grow and the one who pretty much ran the state party into the ground by 2006. It was at that point that Blackwell defied the state powers-that-be and contested the primary against establishment candidate Jim Petro. Sadly the damage was done and Blackwell lost handily that November to Democrat Ted Strickland.
Ken was a figure in Ohio politics well before running for governor, though. He first won statewide office in 1990 as Ohio’s state treasurer, then became Secretary of State in 1998 after the Republican brass talked him out of the primary fight he just might have won. He certainly had my support because he was by far the more conservative candidate running. But perhaps the Ohio Republican party thought the state and nation weren’t quite ready for a black governor at that point.
You see, a half-decade before Michael Steele became a household name in this state, we in Ohio had the conservative black guy in Ken Blackwell. I don’t know if they ever threw Oreo cookies at Ken but I’m sure he took his share of abuse from those who share his skin color but not his political philosophy.
What this means is that the article you see above can’t be dismissed as racist. It’s sad that we still have to deal with this sort of name-calling over forty years removed from the advent of the civil rights era, but there is a class of people out there who depend on these divisions for their living, and even if Barack Obama should become President they’re not going to go away quietly.
Besides, I don’t recall those people and groups making much of a fuss when Blackwell and Steele both lost their bids for statewide office in 2006. It proves my point that sometimes the civil rights movement is about power more than about race. Luckily thoughtful criticism knows no skin color and Blackwell is right on point with his column.
You seem overly sensitive to the racist tag these days. I can honestly say that I would never have considered the article to be racist. Of course few people would know that the author was black, and I am not sure why that matters anyway. If a conservative person disagrees with Obama’s views, they have every right to voice their disagreement. White conservatives criticize white liberals all the time. Is there a rule somewhere that black conservatives are not allowed to criticize black liberals? Why does the race of the critic matter? In fact, I think you do Blackwell a disservice by labeling him a black conservative instead of just a conservative.
Perhaps. But the idea behind writing this was to point out that many critics of Obama are deemed racist. Here was a person to whom the tag could not be applied.
I also wanted to point out the double standard that will surely be applied if Obama doesn’t win the election whether it’s because Hillary takes the nomination or John McCain wins the general by using election losses by Steele and Blackwell for examples. I just happen to think that a loss by Obama will be judged as solely race-based and not because his views are so out-of-step with what many believe, as Blackwell points out.
Two Things:
1. Blackwell is a dirtbag hack. his race has nothing to do with it, he is slimy. and just being black doesnt make you an authority of all black things and all people black. He is entitled to his opinion, but just like a white man, he can be incorrect.
2. Obama and race: no one cares that he is black. i suport him and plenty of friends do. nobody mentions his race as a factor in supporting him. we arent pissing off our parents voting for the black guy (dont bring one home, but you can vote for one for president). i think it will be a proud day for america when we finally get a president that is not an old white guy. But that is no reason to vote for someone. i also know plenty of older white people who are pretty racist, but are still supporting Obama because they realize the quality of the candidate. This has nothing to do with race.
And people are more then welcome to criticize Obama, but lets not play dumb here and pretend that most of the criticism isnt nothing more then cloaked racism. There are certain code words that are used that we all know what they really mean, and what they are supposed to trigger in those that are uneducated or even not up to date. (Maybe it is because she is a diehard Republican, but I spoke with an intelligent business woman recently who was shocked that Obama wasnt really a muslim. STILL!. Even from the Clinton camp I have yet to see criticism of obama’s policies. She cant, because they have basically the same policies. He is not a airtight candidate, but if his critics just want to focus on superficial or incendiary attacks, he will continue the have the appearance of Teflon.
And I don’t here anyone blaming Blackwell or Steele’s losses on race, they were because they lost because they were either an unsatisfactory candidate or because they faced an uphill battle against negative party identification. However, IF Obama loses, it will be the same, but race will definitely play a factor. I cannot see race playing an issue at all in the primary (because it has been demonstrated that he possess widespread racial appeal for democrats- haha except for Mississippi), but if Obama loses the general, race will play a part. Just like Smith (correct guy off the top of my head?) against Hoover or JFK- non WASP candidates have always had an uphill battle. Hillary will have an uphill battle for being a woman.
And I challenge you that his views are out of step with the majority of the people. They are out of step with you. I am sick of the conservatives framing the conversation calling these candidates liberals. I know liberal politicians, and these sir are not liberal politicans. These Democrats, especially Hillary, are positioned in the center or a little to the left. They are not trying to overall the system, as evidenced by Ralph Nader getting pissed off. It is intellectually dishonest for an informed individual such as yourself to make such hack accusations (start calling it the Democrat Party next?). That is like me calling Gilchrest a conservative because he is not in lock step with other moderate Democrats.
This was hastily written, but I think I got the gist of what I wanted to say across. If you respond I will try to write a more coherent argument tonight. In the meanwhile, may I suggest a podcast that I have really enjoyed lately, “The Rush Limbaugh Lie of the Day”. It is a little hacky, but mostly it is filled with facts to rebut the false insinuations that you are hearing. It is always good to take from all angles to formulate your opinion. Its free and if you have access to iTunes, I recommend you check it out. Haha but it’s a little unfair because it gives me a heads up on what I will be reading from you before you write it.
Obama did not suggest that we should invade Pakistan. He said that it might be necessary to go after al Qaeda targets within Pakistan. This should not be a problem for Republicans based on this:
The charge from Bush and McCain is especially unusual in the light of a Feb. 19 article in the Washington Post that revealed missiles from a CIA-operated Predator aircraft recently killed a key al Qaeda commander in the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The U.S. government did not have permission from the Pakistan government for the attack, the article said.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/367/
I also find it a stretch to say that Obama “espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.” Obama is a supporter of Planned Parenthood, which is the supposed connection to Margaret Sanger, who was part of the organization in the 1930’s. To suggest that this makes Obama a proponent of racial genocide is ridiculous.
I think this is unbelieable that AMERICAN’S would bury their heads so far in the sand that they can over look what Obama stands for and he has shown us by attending the church he has for TWENTY YEARS and says “he never knew what his pastor was talking about”. If he is that stupid, he is much too stupid to be president of my grandson class never mind the United States of America. It isn’t because he is Black, he is a liar and hasn’t the ability to make unbias opinions. If it is about race, he will be voted president for the same reasons O.J. was found innocent! Ask yourself this if Hilliary Clinton had attended a church for 20 years that her pastor talked about how blacks are lazy, criminals, less caring, haters of their own race, etc, etc. just to lightly touch on a small faction of the things Obama’s pastor has said about whites, she would be thrown under a bus and never be elected to another office! There would be marches, protests, riots, etc. all over the nation is she had been in ONE church service never mind having gone there for TWENTY YEARS. Be truthful with yourself. I wanted to vote for Obama because I thought he was a breath of fresh air but discovery it is a very foul air but I will not vote for him and urge others to realize that he has not the experience, backbone, belief, understanding to be president but above all OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT OF A COUNTRY THAT HE HAS NO RESPECT OR PRIDE IN. This man should never had gotten in the Senate but God pray never into the Oval Office.
Make Obama attack Pakistan he’ll crash his ass in Pakistan. Pakistan a nation that is armed with Nuclear. Pakistan ain’t Iraq or Afganistan its very easy to say it but reallllllly reallllllly hard to invade it. Pakistan will ruine Obama’s dreams that he has in his mind. Obama should think twice or more to invade the country he better knows what will be his future or America. It will be 10 time worser than Iraq war. Wish him good luck with his useless ideas!!!!!!