2008 February 10 Sunday
Americans Fooled By Obama's Charm?
Writing for the Washington Post Peter Wehner presents reasons Why Republicans Like Obama.
What is at the core of Obama's appeal?
Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity.
A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt.
A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one."
Note to Republicans: The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.
Steve Sailer points to the evidence that Obama's primary allegiance is toward blacks and not toward Americans as a whole and that Obama is quite radical in a leftist way.
As of the writing of his 1995 book, Obama appears to have been further to the left than about 95% of the public. For example, his concerns in the late 1980s (and repeated with a straight face in his autobiography) about the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.'s church was whether it was not radical enough. Similarly, in Obama's book, there's virtually no criticism of welfare. Indeed, Obama's mission in life when he was a racial activist and then when he became a discrimination lawyer was to get more money out of whites for blacks.
Many people assume that because Obama likes to show that he understands their arguments by paraphrasing them back to them, often better than they made them themselves, that he therefore must agree with them. But it's just conservative egomania to assume that the problem with people who disagree with you is that they don't understand your arguments, and therefore anybody who is smart enough to understand you, like Obama is, must agree with you and have your best interests at heart.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
For example, when Charles De Gaulle visited embattled French Algeria in 1958, the first thing he told a vast crowd of worried pied noirs was, "I have understood you." The French-speakers cried in relief because, finally, France had a leader who understood their plight. De Gaulle then proceeded to give their country to their mortal enemies. He understood the French Algerians just fine, as well as they understood themselves. He just didn't care about them as much as they cared about themselves.
Sen. Obama has written a 442 page autobiography in which he took great pains to indicate that A. He cares about his own feelings a vast amount. B. He cares about one segment of the population far more than he cares about the rest.
I do not want a President whose ethnic loyalties put me on the outside. Feminist loyalties toward women are less deep than racial loyalties.
We've reached a point where the possibility of an Obama Presidency has become quite high. If you haven't yet taken a hard look at Obama now is the time. Read Steve Sailer's articles and blog posts for some excellent analysis of Obama's ethnic identity problem: Obamaís Identity Crisis, MainStream Media Wonít Ask Obama Those Nasty Paul-Type Questions. But Shelby Steele Could!, Winter Kills: Obama Exposed As Race Racketeer, Why Obama's church matters, and Obama misspeaks (to put it mildly)
"Feminist loyalties toward women are less deep than racial loyalties."
And they stand at least to benefit close blood relatives like mothers, daughters, sisters and nieces. That might even be enough to offset the damage from benefiting wives.
This is likely true. However, the real question is what he can actually as president to help blacks. I think there is actually very little he can do (congress must approve of anything he wants to do) and that he will give up and spend most of his time making state visits to try to patch up our relations with the rest of the world. He is likely to be Carter II in the sense that he simply will not be able to do much. He resembles JFK in the respect that JFK actually did very little and was made into a martyr as a result of his assassination.
The best outcome would be for a republican president and a democratic congress, or a democratic president and a republican congress. I prefer a deadlocked government to anything else.
"The best outcome would be for a republican president and a democratic congress, or a democratic president and a republican congress. I prefer a deadlocked government to anything else."
That's the truth. The best period in recent memory was Clinton's second term. Slick Willy was preoccupied with impeachment and other scandals and couldn't cause any more damage, and the Republicans who controlled Congress hated him and wouldn't approve any new programs for him. The result? Spending plateaued, tax revenue soared, the budget went into surplus, the deficit shrank and there was great prosperity. Then we got a "conservative" Republican president, who abandoned fiscal restraint, opened the borders and began some wonderful neocon "wars of national liberation." This year, the Democrats are likely to gain Senate seats, while the House may be more up for grabs, especially if the Dragon Lady is the nominee, because of her high negatives. So some sort of split government is much to be desired. In fact, I think we should raise the pay of our congresscritters to $365,000 per year and then dock them a day's pay for every day the spend in session. It would be a great bargain....
Barack Obama's primary loyalty is to blacks....RIGHT.
Well, fortunately, most of the voters, especially the voters of tomorrow, think this is complete lies.
I'd say a fourth reason is that Republicans too can be susceptible to wanting to feel good by voting for a nice black guy.
There are Obama's own words in his first book which you are ignoring when you say this is lies.
It seems that the most important issue is WHICH presidential candidate is more likely to take the coming shortage of oil seriously, and decide to start a Bronx Project for new energy sources (like France which has 80 % nuclear electricity), by allocating $100 billion per year in emergency for energy... If I knew the answer to this question, then I would vote accordingly...
LOL @ this entire paranoid post, sorry. It sounds like Obama is some covert black infiltrator just waiting to get in the White House and overnight Reverse Jim Crow will go into effect and whites will be serfs. LOL
Have any of you actually read his book are you just going by selective excerpts from Steve Sailer, who is always known to be so impartial on these issues? LOL Actually buy the book on amazon.com used for like $10 and read it instead of going by second hand informatoin. Do you think Kennedy cared about Irish people more than Italians? I bet Robert, Ted, and JFK all did.
This is realpolitik not about who cries more tears. Obama will likely be more limited in what he does specifically for minorities than Hillary Clinton would, because he is black and will be under a microscope on any issue involving race. Second, Obama is not going to go to the Congress and mesmerize them and get the goody bag and then go out to ghettos handing out "treats"...I get the picture that you guys imagine this happening, which is nonsense. Obama is not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton (and they know that which is why they are lukewarm to him and some black politicians have been outright hostile).
Obama is part of a new generation of political leaders like Gov. Patrick, Fenty, Booker, Ford, Nagin typically enjoy black and white support because they have found a middle group of win-win solutions that do not tend to alienate whites or the black mainstream.
This can be shown by the Pew Poll that came out last year:
Some black leftist are not happy about this, but the reality is the center of gravity of the black community has shifted to the right.
"67 percent of black men and 74 percent of black women think rap music is a bad influence on black America. In fact, 59 percent of black men and 63 percent of black women think the whole hip-hop industry is equally detrimental to black America."
"A 53% majority of African Americans say that blacks who donít get ahead are mainly responsible for their situation, while just three-in-ten say discrimination is mainly to blame. As recently as the mid-1990s, black opinion on this question tilted in the opposite direction, with a majority of African Americans saying then that discrimination is the main reason for a lack of black progress."
These post civil rights leaders reflect the shift. Sharpton and Jackson are not elected officials, they have no constituency, therefore they are free actors and in no way represent the black mainstream in 2008. No one elected them to lead anything.
Typically in the last 20 years, Jesse and Sharpton speak for the 20% of blacks that live in the ghetto, not the 80% who do not.
"I marched with King" does not carry a lot of clouts with middle class blacks under 40 anymore...sorry but your fixation with these type of people is your issue, don't try to extrapolate whatever man-man erotic fixations you have with aged civil rights leaders on 40 million black Americans who did not appoint them to lead anything.
As far as Obama's church, what is "Afrocentric to you"? It sounds like you here "black empowerment or Afrocentric" and fear runs down your spine. LOL Does the church focus on issues in the black community? Yep.
Is that bad? Conservatives usually point the finger and say blacks should be responsible, blacks need to do this more, blacks need to do that more. Obama's church teaches black social and financial self empowerment. It teaches that blacks should start business, stay out of jail, have strong families, etc. They minister to blacks in jail (I don't see Pat Robertson going to prisons and trying to turn people around). I don't see Pat Robertson down there trying to save lost souls.
So now that these blacks take responsibility it is bad? Is it racist? His minister does not teach "hate whitey" he teaches "don't hate yourself" and respect your community. Isn't that what should be the message in the urban ghetto black community like the Southside of Chicago? His minister did praise Louis Farrakahn at one time, but if you read what he praised him on it was the same thing..."community upliftment" he didn't praise him on "hate whitey, hate jews, etc" He praised him for his work in starting business, keeping black males out of jail, support for strong family units in the black community, support for educational achievement.
These are negative things to you?
IF you are a black man in America and you live in Chicago and your focus is on helping the disadvantaged who can you most help if you don't speak Spanish and who needs the most help?
To me to criticize Obama for doing that is odd as his approach is quite conservative. If his church was teaching white people were cave men (actually some GXP people hope that is true in the way of Neanderthals) and that whites were created by evil scientist and were naturally evil, or "mud races" (as white nationalist like to say) or that blacks should separate from whites I would be concerned. That is far from the case. It would seem in the benefit of all Americans in society that middle and upper-class blacks did community work and support work through religious and non-religious situations in black poor urban areas. Maybe one of those black men they reach out to might not steal your car, break in your home, rob you, rape your sister, etc.
But that is bad...? Okay.
Now if black people and white people were reversed if blacks were 66% of the U.S. population and whites were 12% and the power dynamics were reversed in the same way with blacks controlling the vast majority of political and economic power, as well as social institutions then if I were you I would worry about any form of black racialism, positive or negative. Obviously that is not the case. Reality is besides physically assaulting you the average black person has no power over you and Obama's church is no threat to you or any other white person. In fact their positive work is a social positive for you as it keeps crime down.
Also keep in mind, Obama is 46, in his books, his main flirtation with black "radicalism" and hardcore Afrocentrism was when he was in his late teens and very early 20's by the time he was in his mid-20's that all seemed to diminish...this is normal for young people to be radical and for young blacks of his time flirting with leftist idea and black nationalist ideas are normal. This is like me saying well Hillary was a Gold Water girl who was opposed to Civil Rights so she still is at 62 years old. LOL
I found your post too long to bother reading -- especially given the lack of references.
As for the Kennedys, I believe Ted has put riders on bills to increase the number of immigrants from Ireland. (Or was that Moynihan? I forget.) I just remember the way it was worded to double the quota from the largest group of the previous year, which just happened to be the Irish.
Randall, show me the page. Show me EXACTLY where in the book it says this.
Because given the 'Obama is a Muslim' nonsense floating around, the burden of proof is on YOU.
"Does the church focus on issues in the black community? Yep."
Central issues like handing out the "Louis Farrakhan lifetime achievement award", etc. etc.?
"Reality is besides physically assaulting you the average black person has no power over you and Obama's church is no threat to you or any other white person. In fact their positive work is a social positive for you as it keeps crime down."
It is quite a bit of power if you think about it. There are certain places whites can't go, live, be around after certain hours, people carry pepper spray or handguns, if they are fortunate wnough to live in a area that doesn't make protecting one's life illegal. Of course, sometimes the savages come to you. Like in Kirkwood, MO. And blacks do plenty of physical assaulting, not to mention shooting, stealing, rape, etc... And our liberals, multi-culti stooges, "academics'" Pee Cee gov't types and other assholes enable it and celebrate it every step of the way(while carefully living in nice, safe white areas and sending their children to private schools). If anyone dares to mention race and crime, well, it is better to just not do so.
WTF, keeps crime down? Bullshit. There are plenty of churches in black area, doesn't seem to do much good. This afrocentric church that Obama was tied up with, that I guess is OK. I can only imagine if a white guy running for president was invloved with a Christian identity congregation.
Hey, when it comes to foreign policy vs US interests, McCain's first loyalty is to Israel, and I DO NOT say that about all politicians, but for McCAin and Guiliani it is/was true.
No matter what obama does he is not going to spend 1 trillon dollars of our money for nothing and he is not going to kill 4000 mostly white males and separate huge numbers of other families.
As far as I am concerned, the presidency is already lost. At this point the whole discussion seems pointless and boring.
What do folks plan to do to keep congressional and senatorial feet to the fire?
I agree with Bob about your overlong comment. I've told you this before several times. I'm not saying this to disagree. You simply lose people. Your points get lost in a really wordy response. Few if any will read it.
You will be far more effective if you figure out how to make your points with more brevity. That takes more effort. Your approach is lazy. It is also annoying and counterproductive to your desire to persuade.
Excellent. So if I can get someone else to tell incredibly tall tales about Hillary I can up the burden of proof for all criticisms against her too. Then I can do the same for McCain.
I figure I ought to get into the business of orchestrating lies and exaggerations against political candidates as a way to raise the burden of proof for criticisms against them.
I thought Dragon Horse's post was good and made the best case possible for Obama. It might even be true.
Obama might be the Tom Bradley of the 2000s. He might not. The problem is that we don't know much about Obama. For example, other than his giant 1995 autobiography that almost nobody besides Shelby Steele, who also has a black father and white mother, has paid much attention to, Obama left almost no paper trail in the 1980s and 1990s. He talked incessantly about politics but put almost nothing down in writing where it could come back and haunt him.
And, because he's black, we're not allowed to ask him much about these crucial questions. My suggestion is that he submit to a 90 minute TV interview with Shelby Steele about his racial attitudes. But I don't expect anything like that to ever happen.
I realize that, once in a long while, a long post with no apparent references may turn out interesting or informative. Given the amount of chaff one has to sift through to get that wheat, I can accept missing a grain or two.
The cost benefit analysis still favours skipping such posts, and the vast majority of readers do skip them.
Just why is Steve Sailer running a 'one man vendetta' against Obama?
One man Vendetta,
Anyone who is running for the most powerful position in the world should get looked at very critically. Steve is performing a public service that the rest of the press should be doing.