Obama's Race Speech Fails

Having seen the speech and heard a day's worth of commentary on Obama's attempt to quell the mounting furor over his minister and spiritual adviser's well-publicized and documented racist and anti-American speech, I must conclude that he failed.

Sure, as I told the liberal son of a friend last night, Obama convinced his own party's left wing, and probably the slightly-left-of-center members, as well.

But, despite naming the fear, in hopes of conquering it, he almost certainly has lost the 'Reagan Democrats' of mid-America. They are the middle-class, sometimes blue-collar, often male voters who swing about the center of the American political spectrum.

Listening to the more balanced black commentators yesterday, including Fox News/NPR's Juan Williams, it was obvious that even they felt Obama erred grievously by failing to have left his church and minister years ago, upon hearing the latter's anti-white and anti-American statements.

A liberal friend of mine agreed with me that Obama has now lost the election by failing to explicitly and totally sever himself from the repugnant minister. But, in reality, she said, he lost when he continued to sit in the church's pews and silently accommodate and tolerate such speech. Interestingly, she asked,

'How, as a partly-white American, could he sit there in silence and have half of himself damned by this minister?'

As I recollected to my friend's son last night, Michael Dukakis' turning point came in a debate, when he failed to say he'd want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist of his wife, should such a person be caught. Americans found his carefully-couched, legalistic reply to be unnatural and suspect.

In this campaign, I believe we are witnessing a similar moment for Obama. This is his Waterloo.

For what it's worth, his speech reflected the perspective of someone with whom, frankly, I seem to share very little in the way of views of our country.

Again, speaking with my friend's liberal son, I opined that while Obama is contending that race is a paramount issue in today's America, I simply don't agree. It's nowhere on a list of my top five or seven issues most in need of address in America today.

In fact, this young man with whom I spoke is, himself, the son of a multi-cultural couple, and speaks his mother's non-English language fluently. He attended a first-rate private high school, and one of the best Ivy universities. He surely is not the victim of racism in today's America.

What Obama construes as racism is, I believe, more a function of poverty stemming from America's uneven, locally-funded and controlled educational system. Confusing the two is a horrendous mistake.

By, among other things:

-comparing his minister to 'everyone else's' minister, rabbi, or priest in making statements with which he disagreed,
-using his own grandmother as a source of racial slurs,
-claiming that the race issue will be used by conservatives as they have used 'fear' tactics in other campaigns,
-claiming that the race issue leads to legitimate, wider debate of Obama's other favorite campaign topics,

I think Obama pointlessly and ineffectively made his speech a grab-bag of topics which both elevated the minister, rather than disowned him, and blurred the focus of his statements.

In the end, his explicit refusal to repudiate his relationship with the racist minister will assure that this issue has a life as long as Obama's candidacy.

On Race & Obama's Minister

Let me state my conclusion up front and clearly. In my opinion, Obama's church's minister probably has, and/or will, cost him his chance to become President in November of this year.


Over the past week, the just "retired(?)" minister of Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has once again ignited a firestorm. I write 'once again, because he was identified as a racist minister as long ago as last March.

Here are two YouTube videos from that time period. One is of Sean Hannity interviewing Wright on Hannity & Colmes, while the other, a month earlier, shows Tucker Carlson discussing Wright's explicitly racist themes.


Hannity & Colmes interview with Wright March 2007



Tucker Carlson February 2007




More recently, these two clips were added on YouTube. The first is a video of Wright's anti-white, anti-Hillary diatribe.




This next clip appears to be the taping, while in a car, of a radio address by Wright.



I was unable to locate the video in which Wright, shortly after the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, rails against US foreign policy and echoes Malcolm X by saying that the 'chickens have come home to roost.'

Why did it take so long for the mainstream media to finally identify Wright's racist themes? Why has it taken over a year for Obama to address this issue?

This isn't about freedom of religion, or the explanation of a race-neutral church to the rest of America.

This church had on its website, until, it has been reported on Fox News, just this week, information about it's insistence for church members to propagate 'black values.'

The problem for Obama, as I see it, is to explain to Americans why the pastor whom he says converted him to Christianity and has been a close confidant for over a decade holds explicitly racist, anti-American views. And why Obama has, in full knowledge of this, continued to participate in the church and associate with the minister.

If I had five minutes in which to question Obama, here are some questions which I would ask:

-Do you agree with your minister's expression of your church's precepts in explicitly racist tones?

-Do you feel that by associating with this church and minister, and its racist views, you are expressing your own values to the American voting public?

-If you continue to support this minister's views, by not explicitly denouncing them and leaving his church, does he not provide an example of the sort of advisor you would choose as President?

-Is your support of this minister an example of your judgment of people and values which you would carry over to your administration, if elected President?

-If you don't feel it is fair to judge you by this minister, his words and values, then how are the American people supposed to gauge what you have done that does provide evidence of your judgment, values and choices of advisers? Are they to assume that you will dump any now-inconvenient and inconsistent prior advisers, or repudiate similar actions or beliefs, in order to win votes?

Last night, on Fox News, an Obama apologist kept exhorting the on-air anchors to 'give (Obama) a chance to explain himself' in his speech later today.

Frankly, I don't think that speech will matter. What is to 'explain' about Wright's recorded anti-white, anti-American speeches? Nothing. They speak for themselves. So does Obama's lack of response to their known existence.

He didn't leave his church a year ago, when these issues were raised. He didn't repudiate the minister.

It seems very clear that Obama is now caught precisely in the race-trap he sought to avoid. Many who ardently support him are anti-white racists. If a white candidate for President had a church and minister which had identical themes and 'values,' only substituting the word 'white' for 'black' or 'african american,' he'd be hounded out of the Presidential race and his party by the (liberal) mainstream American media.

At this point, even if Obama can paper over this mess among his party's voters, and still beat Hillary, I think it will turn many centrist, blue-collar Reagan Democrats against him. Obama's apologies or late attempts to distance himself from his racist minister may play well to the upper-income white Democrats who feel guilt for prior anti-black racism, but it probably won't work with middle-class white voters.

By failing to have openly denounced his church and its minister as soon as they espoused racist and anti-American themes, Obama has opened himself up to justifiable criticism of his judgment, awareness of the actions of those he claims are close to him and advise him.

When we choose a President, we ultimately choose his/her character and values, because we don't know exactly what challenges our country will face on that President's watch.

As Obama attempts to dance and weave away from this crisis, he exhibits a character which is, in my opinion, fatally flawed for a person who would be President.

Dick Morris opined on Hannity and Colmes last night that the Democrats mistakenly have chosen Obama as their Presidential candidate before appropriately vetting him.

I think Morris is right, and this issue with Obama's minister and church are a prime example of that.

McGovern's Conversion To Conservatism

Last Friday's Wall Street Journal featured a remarkable editorial by George McGovern entitled "Freedom Means Responsibility." To read his latest piece is to, I believe, witness the final conversion of Senator McGovern into a man of truly conservative values.

Some passages from his editorial are,

"Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.

Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages.

Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states.

Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all.

Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending.

With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.

Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next."

That last line is amazing to read. I'm old enough to remember McGovern's run for the Presidency, so this is particularly sweet to read. Imagine him, a former ultra-liberal Democratic US Senator, acknowledging the 'law of unintended consequences.'

It harks back to his reflections on attempting to run a B&B some years ago. Whether he appeared on Firing Line with Bill Buckley, or merely wrote about it in the Journal, I recall that he seemed a truly chastened man. His admission of frustration in dealing with the very same laws and paternalistic attitude he had helped craft as a Senator was gratifying to watch.

McGovern closed his piece with these words,

"Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else."

I could not put it better myself. Nor, I think, could any conservative of longstanding beliefs in that vein.

William F. Buckley, Jr. On A Liberal Democrat President

As part of my recent memorial post to William F. Buckley, Jr., I found and embedded several vintage Buckley video clips from 1968.

The occasion was his, and Gore Vidal's employment as conservative and liberal, respectively, commentators for the Democratic Party's nominating convention for that year.

In addition to the two clips which I found for the prior post, there is an additional one from the set. This clip continues each commentator's views, this time, as explained by ABC's Frank Reynolds, on how the candidate of the 'other's' party would govern as President.



Isn't Buckley still more or less describing liberal Democrats? Chilling, no?

And didn't Vidal off-handedly sniff that Nixon might be a 'statesman?' Which, in fact, is exactly that for which the former cold-warrior became known- opening China and, to some extent Moscow, to the West.

It took the former anti-communist bulldog, Nixon, to credibly thaw relations with the two major Communist powers, despite Vidal's doubts.

Yet Buckley's characterization of a hypothetical Humphrey Presidency isn't all that different than what one might expect from Hillary or Obama today, is it?

Scary.

The Second "Super Tuesday" Results

It's been a while since I've commented on the Presidential campaigns. This morning, in the wake of last night's significant election results, seems a propitious time to revisit them.

If you are a conservative and/or notionally Republican-leaning, all is right with the world today.

McCain won convincingly, Hickabee has finally faced reality and conceded, and the Democrats will remain at each other's throats until Labor Day.

Hallelujah!

Truly, it can't get any better than this. Confusion to the liberals, while the conservative-to-moderates can coalesce and see the clear differences between the ever-more-left-moving Hillary and Obama and the centrist-conservative McCain.

If Obama had managed to win Texas and Ohio, or either one, he might have driven Hillary out and begun to swing into general election mode. As it is, both will push each other further left to try to cinch their party's nomination.

In the meantime, the fights over the Florida and Michigan delegations, plus the now-important, secretive 'superdelegates,' will put the Democratic Party on display before the American electorate as pandering, inwardly-divided and craven. Both candidates will be trying to out-grovel the other as they pander to the extreme left of their party.

Meanwhile, McCain can finally be recognized by the sitting President as his party's candidate. Party-level fundraising, with the assistance of President Bush, can begin. McCain has seven months to prepare for the final month of the general campaign.

Hard as it is to believe, the Democrats may actually be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, again, this year. You'd have thought, last summer, that it was a cinch that a Democrat would be sitting in the Oval Office at this time next year. Heck, most of Wall Street thought so, judging by their rush to back Hillary and Obama.

Not now.

Instead, many financial service firm leaders are watching in dismay as their pet liberal candidates now turn on American business, the better to garner extremely liberal votes.

As one Fox News Network guest pundit opined a month ago,

"If the Democrats can't win the White House this time, they should fold up their tent and close down their party."

Well said.

My First Memory of William F. Buckley, Jr.

It's been a week since the death of William F. Buckley, Jr.

As a conservative, I would be remiss if I did not write something in his memory. This is a week late simply because I've been so busy with other matters.

In the intervening week, many media sources, especially mainstream print and network, have produced and aired/printed exhaustive treatments of Mr. Buckley's full and amazing life and influence on modern, post-WWII American politics.

Thus, I'll make my own small contribution a personal one.

Growing up in downstate Illinois about the time Mr. Buckley founded National Review, I, of course, had little knowledge of him in my pre-school years. However, as a late pre-teen, I was treated to live coverage of the Democratic National Convention being held just upstate from us, in Chicago, in 1968.

My very first awareness of Mr. Buckley came from his stint as the conservative half of the original 'Hannity & Colmes' team during that convention. ABC hired Buckley and Gore Vidal to represent conservative and liberal views, moderated, if you can call it that, by then-news anchor Howard K. Smith.

Originally, for this post, I expected to write about the exchange still etched in my memory. Then, I thought....YouTube!

And, what do you know, but to my wondering eyes appeared the clip of the very 3 minutes or so of my first memory of the late Mr. Buckley in action. Good thing, too, because I was off in my memory by four years. I thought this interaction occurred in 1964. But the content is just as I recalled.

So, without further introduction....

Buckley v. Gore at the 1968 Democratic National Convention on ABC



Note the era of conservative suits and somewhat restrained manners. Until, that is, Gore calls Buckley a 'crypto-Nazi.' Then Buckley lets loose on the live feed with words for which, today, he'd probably be called on to recant.

Ah, for the simpler times of old.....

As a further tribute to Mr. Buckley, here is a clip of him espousing his views on the necessary qualifications for the Oval Office occupant circa 1968. I think Buckley is still on target today, as well.

Additionally, this clip portrays Buckley behaving quintessentially. The verbiage, mannerisms and delivery are just classic.

Like Reagan, he'd been gone from the public scene for a while before his death. Never the less, I'll still miss him, as well.

Buckley on Presidential Qualifications for 1968





Still makes sense, doesn't it?

McCain, The NY Times, & Campaign Funding

Last week's news was full of the ill-advised, largely-unsourced New York Times smear...or, as a liberal would call it, 'story-' regarding John McCain and a female lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee back when the Republicans were in the majority.

At least one of my liberal Democratic friends avers that the Times is 'the national paper of record,' and 'unbiased,' so if it prints a story, then it's true.

Honestly, this is one problem in our country today. Liberals are so far left that they can't even see how slanted and liberal the three broadcast networks and the Times have been for at least two decades.

There is effectively no 'moderate' newspaper anymore. Most of the daily print media is liberal, while the Wall Street Journal editorial page tends conservative. Its news pages are a toss up.

Among television networks, the ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN are all solidly liberal, while Fox is news-neutral, and even issue analysis-neutral, but editorially largely conservative.

The fact that the McCain story elicited as much furor against the Times as it did questions of McCain's conduct, which is generally considered above reproach, tells you what you need to know about the Times smear piece.

However, as the Wall Street Journal noted last week, the Times story obscured the real McCain story in this campaign season. That story involves how his campaign is twisting itself into a pretzel in order to try to raise funds while conforming with campaign finance laws co-authored by....John McCain.

I have to say that I am actually pleased to see this. Maybe now McCain will stop being so sanctimonious and 'holier than thou' about campaign funding legislation.

From the passage of McCain-Feingold, I felt that both co-sponsors should be summarily disqualified from running for President on the bases of idiocy and attempting to deprive the American voter of his/her freedom of speech. And, in fact, portions of the ill-advised law have been struck down precisely for first amendment violations.

McCain is currently involved in sleights of hand such as filing an intent to request public funding in the general election, in order to use that intent as collateral to borrow money now. But he's not actually, according to his campaign, declaring to use public funds.

Earlier in the race, he pledged his donor lists as collateral for a loan.

Of course, if McCain had used the common sense with which he evidently wasn't born, he would have not only not sponsored his campaign finance 'reform' bill, but repealed the existing laws. And, then, passed a simple bill allowing any candidate to take any amount of money from anyone, provided the candidate publishes, within two days of the donation, in two venues- online and in print- the name, address, phone contact number of the donor and amount of the donation.

That's all you really need. If the Chinese army wanted to fund Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign, so be it. I'd rather just know it, than know that Slick Willie lied about it and covered up the contributions.

So now McCain is caught in his own web of complex, silly campaign finance regulations. It serves him right.

Too bad the Times didn't print that story. Easily sourced, important, and relevant.

Guess that disqualified it from a Times cover piece, eh?