Beyond Obama's Beauty

[pensacola tiger 0]

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for 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 l ost.

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.

Your link is below:

http://www.nysun.com/article/71278

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Ken Blackwell - Columnist for 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 l ost.

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.

Your link is below:

http://www.nysun.com/article/71278

Omigod! He's a radical!

[RunInRed 16,489]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

[lukeduke 8]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

Yeah yeah yeah, we get the fact that you tape Obama's speeches and move in front of the tv so he looks right at you. After that, you crack wood, stain your drawers and post some teenage gushing love fest post about him. Repeat 6 times a day and you have the typical day of runinred.

[pensacola tiger 0]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

The point of these posts is the same as you have when you post your Obama and Democratic essays, etc. To put something I agree with here. I have that right just as you do. The last time I checked there was no disclaimer anywhere that said only liberal opinions are welcome here. And when you say "we get it" I believe that you are speaking for far less than 50% of the people on this forum. So there are quite a few "we's" who either agree with what was posted or are at least willing to read it and consider whether to agree or not. In addition, I am no more closed minded than you are. In fact I would argue that I am less closed minded than you. I read your posts and I comment on some of them. But I am not rude to you as a person or discount your opinion. If you don't want to read articles, etc. with which you disagree, then don't. But I and my fellow non-Obamaphiles will continue to post, just as I'm sure you will. Also, believe it or not, you are not the only intelligent, well educated, well read, well informed person who posts here. And not all of the above agree with you. And if you can't accept the fact that not everyone has the same political beliefs as you then just go to boards where you only get one opinion, that being the same as yours.

[autigeremt 6,715]

There, again, will not be another George Bush running in 2008. You guys have to get over the fact that you are running against an Independent, and not a far right radical. .

I know it makes it harder for you to win, but hey.....that's the way it is.

[au2004ece 30]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

You are correct, us "far righties" are not going to vote for Obama because of what he stands for. We wish to educate the rest of the country that there has to be something behind the rhetoric and all that he has is old liberal/socialist tricks. Of course he is an empty suit (just like George Bush). But combine the incompetence of Bush with a liberal/socialist agenda (that has been proven not to work and destroys the foundation of nations) and you can see why people are scared of Obama becoming president and wish to educate others on what it would really mean.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

I don't understand why these posts come up, and you never refute the specific points within them...you just go off on some hyperbolic tangent about "another George Bush"...That's not a counter point. That's dodging the issue at hand.

In your mind ANY republican is "another George Bush"...and that is a reflection of ignorance.

[RunInRed 16,489]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

The point of these posts is the same as you have when you post your Obama and Democratic essays, etc. To put something I agree with here. I have that right just as you do. The last time I checked there was no disclaimer anywhere that said only liberal opinions are welcome here. And when you say "we get it" I believe that you are speaking for far less than 50% of the people on this forum. So there are quite a few "we's" who either agree with what was posted or are at least willing to read it and consider whether to agree or not. In addition, I am no more closed minded than you are. In fact I would argue that I am less closed minded than you. I read your posts and I comment on some of them. But I am not rude to you as a person or discount your opinion. If you don't want to read articles, etc. with which you disagree, then don't. But I and my fellow non-Obamaphiles will continue to post, just as I'm sure you will. Also, believe it or not, you are not the only intelligent, well educated, well read, well informed person who posts here. And not all of the above agree with you. And if you can't accept the fact that not everyone has the same political beliefs as you then just go to boards where you only get one opinion, that being the same as yours.

If it weren't for a handful of posters...we would only get 1 opinion on this board. With that said, there are only 2 posters on this board who I generally ignore the stupidity they spew...and you are not one of them. But this article is a summary at best and we have discussed every point made in this article before - there was nothing new in it and that was my point.

Post away...didn't mean to ruffle your skirt.

[pensacola tiger 0]

I don't understand the point of these posts. I think we get that all you far righties are not going to vote for Obama, Clinton, or any other Democrat regardless what they say. You have a philosophical difference in opinion - we get it. You think Obama is an "empty-suit," hope monger, etc. Yada yada...collective yawn...let's elect another george bush, yeah that's the answer.

The point of these posts is the same as you have when you post your Obama and Democratic essays, etc. To put something I agree with here. I have that right just as you do. The last time I checked there was no disclaimer anywhere that said only liberal opinions are welcome here. And when you say "we get it" I believe that you are speaking for far less than 50% of the people on this forum. So there are quite a few "we's" who either agree with what was posted or are at least willing to read it and consider whether to agree or not. In addition, I am no more closed minded than you are. In fact I would argue that I am less closed minded than you. I read your posts and I comment on some of them. But I am not rude to you as a person or discount your opinion. If you don't want to read articles, etc. with which you disagree, then don't. But I and my fellow non-Obamaphiles will continue to post, just as I'm sure you will. Also, believe it or not, you are not the only intelligent, well educated, well read, well informed person who posts here. And not all of the above agree with you. And if you can't accept the fact that not everyone has the same political beliefs as you then just go to boards where you only get one opinion, that being the same as yours.

If it weren't for a handful of posters...we would only get 1 opinion on this board. With that said, there are only 2 posters on this board who I generally ignore the stupidity they spew...and you are not one of them. But this article is a summary at best and we have discussed every point made in this article before - there was nothing new in it and that was my point.

Post away...didn't mean to ruffle your skirt.

Now that was a much more intelligent way to respond.

[RunInRed 16,489]

I do what I can

[lukeduke 8]

If it weren't for a handful of posters...we would only get 1 opinion on this board. With that said, there are only 2 posters on this board who I generally ignore the stupidity they spew...and you are not one of them. But this article is a summary at best and we have discussed every point made in this article before - there was nothing new in it and that was my point.

Post away...didn't mean to ruffle your skirt.

Please tell me I am one. If you think what I spew is stupidity, that would be the highest compliment you could ever pay me.

[CCTAU 3,348]

If it weren't for a handful of posters...we would only get 1 opinion on this board. With that said, there are only 2 posters on this board who I generally ignore the stupidity they spew...and you are not one of them. But this article is a summary at best and we have discussed every point made in this article before - there was nothing new in it and that was my point.

Post away...didn't mean to ruffle your skirt.

Please tell me I am one. If you think what I spew is stupidity, that would be the highest compliment you could ever pay me.

Sorry dude. I think There's a couple of us he can't stand because we can't stand achmed the closet muslim.

And we know that RiR has a hard time posting with his achmed doll all in the way.

Us far righties feel sadness for any fellow American that votes for achmed. We feel that as an American, they have lost what it means to be a strong proud American. Maybe they never knew.