We're always sad to see a fellow believer lose the faith. For that reason, we took Obama's resignation from Trinity United pretty hard. But when a supposedly faith-full decision is made for purely political reasons, what can you expect?
All of this raises a larger point that we have pointed out numerous times--mainly that Barack Obama, despite his unified rhetoric, is just like every other politician.
But that doesn't quite do it justice. Beyond choosing his church out of political expedience--Trinity United is a hugely influential church on Chicago's south side--Obama has demonstrated over and over again that the most important consideration in any decision is the political one.
Before anyone gets all in a tizzy over that last point, can anyone cite one example of a bipartisan or post-partisan stand that was politically unpopular? Anyone?
You can't because he hasn't.
Obama isn't post-partisan (whatever that means) post-race or even bipartisan. His voting record in Congress is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's.
John McCain is by far the most moderate candidate in this presidential race. Obama's prop-machine is doing it's darndest to paint him as Bush's 3rd term, a la Bush Senior, but they are so far unable because this country recognizes that McCain's maverick label is a deserved one.
Whatever we true conservatives may think about McCain's campaign finance reform and position on immigration, the independents and moderate Democrats in this country recognize that John McCain is more centrist than either of the two Democratic candidates. This is why he polls so well among those voters. It's why more states are up for grabs this November than might have been in 2004.
One point about McCain and Iraq, before we close. Before "the surge" became The Surge (!), John McCain advocated for a drastic increase in troops on the ground. Heck, he was critical of Rumsfeld's limited footprint policy from day one.
Savvy observers of the Iraq war recognize that McCain was right and that his staunch defense of our presence there and in Afghanistan, while clearly not a politically popular one (contrast again with Obama), has been emphatically affirmed.
The political gains Bush and McCain and others said would come in the wake of the security gains are happening every day. Things are drastically improved. And with that improvement, a lot of the wind has been taken out of the sails of the anti-war left.
The decision between McCain and Obama becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day: want a President willing to make tough decisions that buck partisan politics and, when necessary, popular opinion? The choice is clear: vote for John McCain.
One thing is certain. You cannot say you embrace moderate politics and choose Barack Obama over John McCain.
So, Obama & change you can believe in?
With John McCain you don't have to believe, you can know just by looking at his long record as a reformer.
If you have tips, questions, comments, suggestions, or requests for subscription only articles, email us at lybberty@gmail.com.
5 comments:
Well said, Jake.
There are only two possible reasons Obama left his church: (1) political expediency, as you argue, or (2) because he genuinely disagrees with the ideas discussed there, as he claims. Which is the correct answer? Well, if he really had problems with that church's ideologies, he would have left when the problems first manifested themselves - years ago. The fact that he is just now leaving, just like the fact that he didn't criticize Wright's radical ideas until recently, indicates that this is, as you argue, just more political BS.
Why should this matter? The fact that Obama has been complacent about his numerous radical friends, some of them even known terrorists, for all these years and just now recognizes the problem should be a major issue. It becomes clearer every day that Obama and his wife nurture some very disturbing attitudes towards America and, yes, white people. I read his book and found the chapter on race to be particularly disturbing, as he repeatedly stereotypes white people while criticizing whites for stereotyping black people.
Further, Michelle Obama's (1) admission that she had low SAT scores, (2) complaint that she still has student loans from her time at Princeton, and (3) claims that she somehow represents lower class America are nearly comical due to the fact that (1) low SAT scores + admission to Ivy League schools means that America must not be treating her (and black folks) so bad, after all (I had pretty good SAT scores but didn't dream of going to Princeton), (2) everyone who goes to Princeton has student loans; they also make plenty money to pay them back (as she has), and (3) despite claims to poverty and pleas for charity (at Obama's recent graduation address), the Obama's made over $4 million last year and gave paltry sums to charity. In the words of a real pragmatist, "Give me a break."
I ramble, and I could go on and on, (as I have here and here and here), but the point is: the image that Obama has created, and that his followers dogmatically accept, is, as Billy said, a fairy tale. There is no evidence that Obama can unite across the aisle, neither in his Senate history or his policy platforms. There is no evidence that he is a new kind of politician who rises above political posturing and special interests - as his continued pandering to Unions and populism and posturing relative religion indicate.
Give me a break. This guy is a real joke. I am saddened that the Democrats have given up on the ideals of the Clinton administration: pragmatism and the Third Way.
What does post partisan mean? Imagine if we could actually shift our paradigms away from dogmatically believing everything our party tells us on the entire spectrum of issues and instead think for ourselves. We could actually seek solutions to problems without worrying about the next election cycle. We could take sides on issues based on real analysis instead of automatically siding with a party sounds great. What if we could be willing to examine our own assumptions about politics and make necessary changes when we learn that we're wrong? We could trust solid science and pragmatism to solve problems instead of being spoon fed by Hannity and Beck and and Gingrich and Franken and Moore and the rest of the ridiculous talking heads. The idea that we could give up on the false religions of left and right sounds nice. Just because you believe in free markets doesn't mean you have to subscribe to every Right wing doctrine about climate change, taxes and spending, foreign policy, and social policy. Just because you are against the War doesn't mean you have to agree with every Left wing doctrine about trade, entitlements, taxes and spending, and social policy.
However, Obama comes nowhere close to meeting the post partisan ideal. He pays lip service to it, and benefits from the fact that his supporters don't examine his claims.
I agree with what morgan said in his comment on another post. I mean, I really appreciate your comments RD.
There is definitely a degree of opportunism to his decision, but I feel like you would ride him just as hard if he stuck with the church.
Personally, I feel like this church issue is silly and superficial on all fronts. Although not on nearly as deep a level as religion, I felt like Bush's decision to "quit golf" was used with just as much venom by the left. In reality, I feel like politicians do stupid, surface stuff like this sometimes and they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I don't think the church issue is "silly and superficial" - it matters if you've been listening to "God D*** the USA" (or its equivalent) for 20 years. At least, I'd prefer that our leader (and his leader, even if he's a recently-disowned leader) doesn't see the country as his enemy or want to see it punished ;-).
On McCain as a reformer... I'm not so fond of how he's reformed things. Limiting free speech and trying to surrender national sovereignty isn't quite what I'm looking for ;-).
Post a Comment