Barack’s “New Politics”
March 19th, 2008 at 01:50pm Matt DiBari
Pajamas Media has several columns up today on Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech. They all point out the gaping holes in the speech and Barack Obama’s hypocrisy.
Barack Obama is a different kind of candidate than we are used to. He has very little experience on the national stage. The three years he has in the Senate show him to be a fringe liberal. His time in the Illinois state senate is marked by wishy-washy non-votes and ultra left positions like charging a gun owner with a felony if his gun is stolen and used in a crime. On some of those those occasions when he didn’t vote with the fringe, he declared that he really meant to.
If Barack Obama wanted to run on his actual record, he’d be asking the American people to vote for a far left Democrat with three years in the Senate. Hillary Clinton would have won the nomination in a walk.
So Barack Obama based his entire campaign on speeches, telling us that words matter. He focussed on words and phrases like ‘change’ and ‘hope’ and ‘Yes we can!’ He made every effort to avoid actually citing policy. He told us that he was a new kind of politician. He was a man that did not see red America and blue America, or white America and black America. He was going to be post-racial and post-partisan and lead America to some brave new world where we all got along.
And all this time, and for the last 20 years in fact, he attended a church that preached such hateful, divisive, racist garbage. For 20 years Barack Obama has listened to Jeremiah Wright spew this trash. The post-racial, post-partisan candidate did not confront his pastor. He did not leave the church. He continued to attend, let Wright marry him and baptize his children, and even join his campaign?
And why? Because this hate-mongerer gave Barack Obama political capital. Attending this church and humoring Wright would help his career.
Which, in the world of politics, is acceptable. It is, unfortunately, the norm. Politicians have to, on occasion, swallow their pride, bite their tongue and kiss the ring of someone they might not have otherwise associated with.
But if Barack Obama is going to do this, he cannot brand himself the leader of a new kind of politics. He’s not post-partisan, and he clearly has no problems pandering to racists and their racist agendas. Barack Obama is the same old politician that we have seen for generations. And when you strip him of all the ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and ‘new politics’ he’s little more than an arch liberal with three years on the national stage and a horrifying foreign policy. And that’s not what America needs.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
5 Comments
1. hermie | March 19th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Matt:
I’m from Illinois and I can say from watching Obama, there is nothing in his political history that you could ever use the words like ‘change’ , ‘bi-partisanship’ and ‘leadership’.
I’ve often cited examples in other posts about Obama’s being part of the problem instead of the solution, when it came to corruption, or just the gigantic financial messes that Springfield will not solve.
When the citizens of Illinois needed someone, Obama went along with the rest of the Democrats loyal to Ritchie Daley. While scandal after scandal was exposed, Obama was nowhere to be found among those who wanted to reform the system. He was part of the system…very comfortably ensconced in the system.
His own rise to the Senate seat was not because of his policy positions or his ability to make a speech..It was the fact that the MSM in Illinois went after his primary and GOP opponents, not for their policy positions but because both men had divorces, and the MSM felt that these were ripe to exploit.
The Illinois GOP made things worse by importing Alan Keyes to run against Obama, instead of a real Illinois resident. The primary runners up were dissed and other possible candidates were dismissed out of hand by the feckless party leaders.
Obama didn’t even break a sweat since any real opposition was disposed of.
What did the voters of Illinois get? Someone who instead of devoting himself to the citizens who put him in office, has devoted his efforts towards himself and his further ambitions. Even Hillary waited until her first term was over before attempting to become POTUS.
2. Geoff | March 19th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Sen. Obama brings to the campaign a nasty cocktail: a painfully scant record but a very liberal record. Both of those in isolation are unsettling, let alone in composite.
3. Sarah | March 19th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
John McCain is inspiring to me because he brings out the best in us.
4. forrestal | March 19th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Oh, boy, here we go again. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is behind much of the “Jeremiad” attack on Obama re: Wright. But here’s another story that’s going to come back to bite him: Obama came up through the sewer that is the Chicago Democratic political machine. There’ll be plenty of more skeletons for Sen. Clinton to trot out in the weeks and months ahead. Watch for them: you’ll see them emerge in news cycle after news cycle.
5. NJ McCain | March 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Obama is a big-government liberal who will raise your taxes. I don’t think it gets more simplistic for me, just look at his stump speeches, his record, and his hopes. He’s standing for socialized medicine, big labor, higher minimum wage. All these things won’t come free, and we end up paying for them in one way, shape or form.