excerpt
What happens when you elect a candidate who runs on a platform
of pious platitudes and meaningless generalities? What happens when
you buy a cat in a bag? What about a candidate like Sen. Barack Obama,
who runs on hope, hype, hypocrisy and hot air? You get a disaster.
There are two examples of candidates who ran and won on this kind of
platform, and they turned out to be disasters. There is every reason
to think that electing Mr. Obama would have the same consequence.
We'll come back to those cat-in-the-bag candidates later, but first
let's look at what we do know about this candidate. We don't know
much, as the mainstream media are working as his cheerleader and
campaign manager, and are not vetting him at all. Instead, despite
damning information that is bubbling to the surface, the mainstream
media are giving him a free pass.
Although we know little about Mr. Obama, we do know this: The reality
of his record is the opposite of his soaring rhetoric.
He claims to be the candidate of the future. In fact, he is the
candidate of the past.
His main campaign point on the war in Iraq, certainly one of the most
im****tant issues of our times, is that he said he would have voted
against going to war. That looks to the past. He has no ideas or plans
on what to do now. Even if, for the sake of argument, we say the war
was a mistake, that's no longer the issue . The issue is what do we do
now. Mr. Obama has this mindset: If he were the pilot of a plane that
might crash, instead of righting the aircraft, he would keep
repeating, "I told you not to take off in the first place." And he
probably would let the plane crash.
This man of unity had trouble denouncing Louis Farrakhan, one of
America's foremost bigots and racists, and only did so reluctantly
after being badgered into it by Tim Russert during a presidential
debate. This man of unity has as a close adviser a pastor of his
church who paid Mr. Farrakhan high honors and who personally sounds
like one of the hate-America crowd. For the great uniter, Mr. Obama
certainly runs in strange company.
Even his wife must have inherited some of this hate-America sentiment.
She said that, until her husband ran for president, she had no
occasion to be proud of America. She recently told students to "move
out of the money-making industry into the helping industry." So she
reflects an anti-business, anti-capitalist sentiment that is a part of
the hard left and seems to reflect the thinking of her husband. Yet
she brings in $300,000 a year from the University of Chicago Medical
Center as vice president of community and external affairs. Hypocrisy,
thy name is Obama. (See Investor's Business Daily [March 3] for an
excellent editorial on Mrs. Obama's anti-business, anti-capitalist
views.)
Mr. Obama claims to be the candidate of sound judgment. Yet look at
his foreign policy in one sentence: Surrender to the terrorists in
Iraq so they can have a base to launch attacks on the U.S., and so
they can disrupt the Middle East and world oil supplies; and negotiate
with the axis of evil without preconditions.
He thinks he can sweet-talk those who have as their No. 1 priority and
commitment the destruction of the U.S. This one-sentence summary of an
insane foreign policy should be enough to have the senator laughed off
the political scene as hopelessly naďve and ignorant of reality. But
that doesn't happen when the media are busy trying to elect him.
What else does this candidate of sound judgment do? He had major
business deals with Tony Rezko, a Chicago developer, whom Mr. Obama
and everyone else knew was under investigation for federal corruption
and fraud. Yet Mr. Obama made business deals with this man, who went
on trial yesterday on corruption charges.
Mr. Obama admitted he was "bone-headed" to deal with this man and says
he exercised bad judgment. This scandal is so smelly that even The New
York Times was forced to do a major story on it on March 2, even
though it buried it on page 25, the last page of its front news
section. Isn't it ironic that the phony McCain story on an "affair"
runs on page one, and a real scandal on Mr. Obama runs on page 25? But
it is clear the Times is willing to violate every journalistic and
moral principle in the books to further its anti-American agenda.
Needless to say, Mr. Rezko raised $150,000 for Obama campaigns, and my
guess is that he got his money's worth; I'd also guess that Mr. Rezko
was not trying to fund an idealist or a new direction in politics. If
Mr. Obama has to make decisions on more im****tant matters, will he be
making the same kind of "bone-headed" and obvious mistakes? If he
can't get something that simple right, why would we trust him with
something more complex?
He also wants change that would seem to take us back to isolationism
from world affairs. He says we could spend the money now spent in Iraq
in building schools, infrastructure and all the rest in the U.S. This
is just part of an isolationist mindset that would have us withdraw
from world affairs and no longer play the central role thrust upon us
since World War II. In retrospect, we could have spent the Marshall
Plan money on building roads and schools in the U.S., but we would not
have built a peaceful Europe and saved the world from further
calamity. We can't have a holiday from history, and if we try to take
one, it will crash in on us and destroy us.
In November 2007, Sen. Obama committed one of his standard acts of
plagiarism, when he told USA Today, "But you see, I am not asking
anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on
your own aspiration."
Gov. Patrick is exhibit one in the case against buying a cat in a bag,
or a politician based on empty words and soaring rhetoric. The Weekly
Standard observes that when Mr. Obama ran against Hillary Clinton in
Massachusetts, he was endorsed by Mr. Patrick, Sen. John Kerry and
Sen. Ted Kennedy. Despite that impressive sup****t, Hillary Clinton won
easily with a double-digit victory. The Weekly Standard observes,
"What is it that Massachusetts Democrats have learned about the
'politics of hope' that the rest of the country hasn't?"
....
Here’s the problem for Obama and the press; that “avail” (shorthand
for an unscheduled press conference or “candidate availability”) was
not with re****ters on the Rezko-Obama beat but with embedded campaign
re****ters. Also, that avail only scratched the surface of the real
estate transaction involving Obama and Rezko and did not address
issues that have come up since then such as Obama’s assistance to
Rezko that got his client a contract to build senior housing - a favor
that gave Rezko a windfall of $855,000 in fees.
Nor has the candidate addressed numerous other issues relating to the
purchase of his house, the possible intervention of the senator with
the State Department to secure a visa for Rezko business partner and
convicted fraudster Nadhmi Auchi, or exactly what kind of legal work
Obama performed for Rezko’s slumlord management company while he was
with a law firm doing business with Rezko.
The modus operandi of the campaign in the past has been to request
written questions that would be submitted by re****ters to the campaign
and answered in due course. Or just as often, the questions are
ignored or dismissed as having been answered already as the candidate
did yesterday.
So it’s not surprising that when Obama was made available to the press
with the Rezko wrecking crew of Chicago re****ters present, fireworks
would ensue. If you asked that contingent of Chicago re****ters where
this story was headed, they would probably tell you that they had yet
to hit bottom and that other issues such as Obama’s relation****ps with
Rezko cronies have yet to be fleshed out and explored. Some of those
cronies also donated monies to his campaigns for state senate and the
US senate and it remains to be seen if there were any favors exchanged
as a result of those contributions.
|
