Making Stalin Proud

"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate—look to his character." — Noah Webster

Naturally partisans will vote for a chimp. But for a good part of the electorate (independents, moderates) we are amazed that they apparently do not see the fraud in what Obama is saying. The Hoover Institute economist Thomas Sowell is right when he says that, "Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe." Obama has so far accomplished that brilliantly.

We have highlighted in earlier sketches the obvious disparity between what Obama pretends to be and what he has been. For example we all know about Obama’s patron saint in Chicago - Bill Ayers, the guy who forty years ago was in favor of blowing up public buildings until he figured out it was easier to get inside and undermine them from within. For anyone who can read, it’s all there. But we have also highlighted just why Obama’s sordid background does not stick - white liberal guilt. Obama, the empty suit, gets a pass. If Obama wins, all of Marin County will be unburdened of its sins.

We have been told by a friend from the left (now deceased) that Obama, "..is the better candidate with better solutions to today’s issues." OK Fair enough. What issues? Let’s take matters of the world first, as few would argue that these are most senior on the list. "People of the world," declared Senator Obama at his self-worship service in Germany, "look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one." Mark Steyn heard that bit and responded, "No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people — the Barack Obamas of the day — were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity." The wall came down not because "the world stood as one" but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire would have survived and the wall would still be standing. Senator Obama’s feeble passivity will get you a big round of applause precisely because it’s the easy option: Do nothing but hold hands and sing Kumbyya.

Sorry Obama fans, you are being taken for a ride. You would make Stalin proud. To govern is to be able to make choices, hard ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he went along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving "fetuses" of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely "present"?

Too much.

Robert Craven