When my column next appears in this space, the Fresh Prince of Hyde Park (Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama) will either be president-elect, or he will be schlepping back to Chicago with his tail between his legs.
Were Obama a Bill Clinton Democrat, I seriously doubt that conservative commentators would have rallied to help defeat him in the numbers and with the doggedness we have displayed. For some of us, however, the history and methodology of this patently ill-suited and ideologically dangerous person left no other choice.
There has never been a candidate for office who has enjoyed such favor with the establishment press that they have effectively been an arm of his campaign. Despite the media-driven cult that has grown up around him, there is nothing that suggests he will be the president he asserts he will be. Indeed, though many now see him as being a Marxist-leaning socialist, there are aspects of his modus operandi that suggest he may have some of the qualities of a Stalinist-leaning Marxist.
These charges are hardly exaggerations when one considers felon Tony Rezko, William Ayers, the Woods Fund, Rev. Jeremiah (“God damn America!”) Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, support for Kenyan killer Raila Odinga, Nadhmi Auchi, Rashid Khalidi, the Black Panthers’ support, Louis Farrakhan’s support, mystery college transcripts, mystery college theses, mystery Harvard Law Review documents, birth certificate authenticity, the vote against funding our troops, his being against the surge after admitting it worked, the support of George Soros and MoveOn.org, “pro-abortion after botched abortion” stance, “typical white person” and “guns and religion” remarks, “Dreams From My Father” (a compendium of lies), the support of terrorists (donations pouring in from the Middle East), big bucks from Fannie Mae, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, his stance on sitting down with dictators without preconditions, “The Audacity of Hope” (racism and more lies), the Trinity United Church murders, the dubious authorship of his books, and ACORN, an organization that has been found criminally liable for instances of voter fraud for far-left (Democrat) candidates and causes – and to which the Obama campaign contributed more than $800,000.
Were it revealed that Sen. John McCain’s campaign contributed a large sum of cash to an organization that had been proven to be complicit in voter fraud favoring Republican interests, his bid for the presidency would be over. Yet we hear nary a peep from the establishment press, which has gone so far as to hide information that would be damaging to the candidate.
I could not secure employment at Wal-Mart with such a veritable cemetery in my closet, yet I’d wager that more than half of all Obama supporters have never even heard most of the aforementioned controversial tidbits.
Nor will they hear about certain parties illegally gleaning information on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (aka “Joe the Plumber”) after Wurzelbacher asked Obama on camera if he was going to raise his taxes. This resulted in instant notoriety for Wurzelbacher and renewed fears over Obama’s tax policies. Last week, it was revealed that information on Wurzelbacher was accessed via computers belonging to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the Ohio Attorney General, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.
“That’s just kind of wrong,” Wurzelbacher was quoted as saying vis-à-vis the invasion of his privacy.
Wrong? It’s Stalinist. One wonders what tactics an Obama administration will employ if the man actually becomes president. Several readers have already offered this columnist the use of uncomfy accommodations in root cellars and foreign countries for four to eight years. Postulation that the Obama campaign is the only organization that stood to gain by investigating or discrediting the Ohio plumber is unlikely to be discussed on the airwaves to any significant degree.
The “Joe the Plumber” indiscretions are not the only instances of quasi-Stalinist machinations on the part of the Obama campaign. Obama has sought to quash advertising that has addressed some of the more potentially damaging controversial aspects of his history and policies, from gun control to his association with former terrorist William Ayers. In August, the Obama campaign attempted to bully WGN-AM radio in Chicago into canceling an appearance of conservative writer Stanley Kurtz, a vocal Obama critic. Last week, the campaign cut access for Florida television station WFTV after an interviewer asked Sen. Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate, pointed questions about some of the more challenging criticism the candidate has had to face.
Much of the honest analysis of Obama has generally been regarded by his campaign as something to be neutralized through legal action, activist pressure or accusations of racism.
If John McCain is to win the presidency, he will have to rely upon the conservative base of the Republican Party (which isn’t terribly excited about McCain, but is terrified of Obama and a Democrat lock on the White House and Congress) and informed independent voters. Polls reflected a downturn in McCain’s numbers as a result of the economic crisis that came to light in September and October – but who will Americans choose when they actually envision someone addressing the issue in a competent and equitable manner? Conventional wisdom holds that Americans want out of Iraq – but who will they prefer when it comes down to their painting that mental picture of someone sitting behind a desk in the Oval Office, coping with the nuances of international diplomacy as well as terrorism and hostile foreign powers?
If Obama wins, it will be more so due to the ethical shortcomings of the press and the dismally misinformed voters it has cultivated than the millions he’s raised and spent. There are certainly precedents for this statement, in kind if not scale. Tragically, there are also precedents for the escalation of tyranny in those who evidenced red flags prior to attaining power.