Conservatives are quick to discount racism in this current race.  Claims that Obama is the victim of racism, and that this systemic racism is hurting his poll numbers, are thrown out as conspiracy theories–as though America has somehow moved, en masse, beyond the age of racism.

I beg to differ.

While there may be some truth to the conservative claims that racism is not a part of the campaign–and while the Obama campaign should not use the race card as an excuse of any kind–there is more often than not an emotional, over-the-top quality to these accusations from the Right, as though any mention of racism condemns all conservatives, which is absurd.  Conservatives by and large are not racist, just as Americans by and large are not racist.  That does not mean racism doesn’t exist, however.  Obama may very well be justified in saying that racism, should he lose, played a major part in his defeat.  Similarly, Hillary Clinton was correct in her assertion that sexism played a role in her loss.  Sexism and racism are not remnants of a dark and distant past.  Things have improved, but not so much as we’d like to believe.

For instance, my wife and I, along with our daughter and my in-laws all went to dinner at a small Mexican cafe the other night.  My father-in-law brought along one of his friends, a car mechanic.  They had been working on rebuilding an old VW bug, and showed up late.  My daughter is getting her molars, and as such was in a foul mood.

In any case, we ordered, began eating, and inevitably the conversation turned to the elections.  My wife is a definite Obama supporter.  My in-laws, life-long Republicans who have never voted Democrat, are both leaning toward Obama.  See?  There are, in fact, Republicans for Obama or “Obamacons”.  They feel very disillusioned with the current administration, and, like me, with the McCain campaign and the man himself.  My mother-in-law has been a long-time fan of John McCain, but she says she barely recognizes candidate McCain.  I, too, have been a long-time fan of John McCain.

We’re all Arizonans.  We know McCain.  We’ve all voted for him.  He spoke at our local college graduation.  But this guy campaigning for President is like a stranger to us.  I’ve staunchly supported McCain until the last couple of weeks, when I realized what a foolish, reckless choice Palin was for the GOP ticket.  I feel absolutely slapped in the face by the Palin choice.

And I said as much at dinner when we were discussing the Friday debate and the upcoming VP debate.  Predictions around the table: Palin will tank, but Biden will come across as a sexist ass.  No winners.  Only losers.  Kind of like most of the debates this year.

In any case, my father-in-law’s friend finally spoke up when I said I was disturbed by Palin, and said, basically that Obama also has very little experience.

True, I said, but picking Palin betrays McCain’s commitment to national security.  It puts to lie everything he stands for, because she just isn’t ready to be President.

Well, says he, neither is Obama.

Okay, I say, but he seems to at least understand, to grasp the fundamentals of geopolitics better than Palin, who can barely get her words into coherent sentences.  Whether he’s right is one thing, but at least he seems to understand.

McCain will keep our country safer, my father-in-law’s friend says.  We’ve got nothing without our freedom.

Now this is an old line, commonly brought up when Republicans want to defeat Democrats–with the Dems perceived as weak on defense–so weak, even, that we might lose our very freedom if we should elect them.  Of course, this has never happened though there were times during the late 1970’s that the very embodiment of Democratic foreign policy ineptness came to pass–but it seems to be the perpetual threat associated with electing any and all Democrats.  I personally think Obama will take a Clintonian foreign policy approach–plenty hawkish, though perhaps not right away.  Circumstance, I believe, will force his hand.  My friend, columnist Bill Harrison predicts Obama will throw his base under the bus within two years when, he believes, the GOP will retake the Congress.

But certainly Obama is not as experienced or as knowledgeable as McCain.  McCain has an impressive, encyclopedic understanding of our relationship to other nations.

And up until the Palin pick, he displayed excellent judgment, too.  Now I’m back to undecided.

But not the gentleman at the table, who then launched into a little speech about Obama only ever having worked in the Black community for Black people and how that’s all he’d do as President, only ever doing anything to help them.

Them.

This, to me, is racism.  Plain and simple.  This is before the campaign got really ugly, too, prior to the latest Ayers attack ads.  .Maybe I’m sensitive to it because I have black friends, or because my siblings are adopted from Korea and have been subjected to racism often throughout their lives.  My father-in-law’s friend didn’t complain about any white candidates who have, more than likely, spent most of their careers around white people, helping white people and their agenda.  That’s not an issue.  But Obama having worked in a community that was Black seems to be enough to disqualify him as President.

So of course what ends up happening is my wife and the mechanic get into a big debate.  To my wife, Obama has been the more honorable of the two.  To the mechanic, Obama is a liar and a cheat.  To him Fox News is the only honest news station.  CNN, he says, which my wife and I watch, lies.

As a professed moderate, a defense conservative, a social liberal, I have to say this: All politicians lie, and all media is biased.  Including CNN and Fox.  Including McCain and Obama.  I mean, I’m an environmentalist but I don’t believe in global warming.  I’m a free-market guy, but I believe in smart oversight.  I prefer low taxes when and if possible, but I think some brand of universal health care is ethically and morally essential.  With this many conflicting beliefs and ideologies, I find very few pols or media outlets that reflect MY worldview.  It’s pretty easy for most of us to see that these people and organizations have agendas.  It’s harder when they reflect our own agenda so perfectly.

Now, my wife is no fool politically.  She’s sick and tired of the Daily Show because she thinks it’s far too liberally biased.  Then again, she can’t stand most of what she watches on Fox because it’s too conservative.  So the mechanic claiming that she was naive and that he subscribed not to any ideology but to “the truth” was laughable at best.  When anyone claims ownership of “the truth” you can bet that the debate has little distance left in it, little breath.

So here we are with a guy who claims Obama’s entire agenda is based on helping Black people and only Black people; who thinks Palin is perfectly ready to step in and take over; and who thinks Fox News is speaking the Truth.

If I were talking to an Obama supporter who believed McCain was an evil neocon, that MSNBC was the Truth and Keith Olbermann the harbinger of said truth, and who thought that Global Warming was the number one issue in the race (and that war could be solved through loving more and dancing in the streets) I would be just as perturbed.

These extremists do nothing for us.  I want more passion to come from the center.  I believe in using logic to determine what’s best for this country.  Not scripture, not unwavering ideology, not racism or homophobia, not emotive hatred of war or the unreasonable anti-logic of the hardcore green-movement and their scare tactics.  When you peel back the agenda, the fear-mongering, the irrationale of one ideology or the other, you start to see that there are reasons for everything.

There are legitimate reasons to worry over an Obama presidency and legitimate reasons to worry over a McCain presidency.  It has become less and less clear which is more worrisome after the VP’s were chosen.  At this point I feel like neither candidate brings much to the table.

One thing that will most certainly play a role in this election is racism.  That’s just a fact, and it’s obvious when you begin talking with people.  Agism will also factor in.  It does for me.  I think McCain could die in office.  The likelihood is higher due to his age.

For me, that means a Palin presidency, and I’m not sure I can vote for that possibility.  I’m not sure conservatism benefits from that possibility.

For some time now–and increasingly over the past week or two–my discomfort with Palin has been increasing.  I know that by writing this, some conservatives will think me treacherous, but I have to say it: Palin is not ready to be Vice President, let alone President, and the McCain camp was wrong to pick her.

I was wrong.  From my very light vetting of her, I came away with the belief that she was an extremely savvy politician–must have been, given her meteoric rise in Alaska.  I liked her reformist image.  I liked that she’d given her own party hell in Alaska.  I liked her because she seemed smart, witty, charming, and she was (let’s face it) an attractive candidate in more ways than one.  Her portfolio was greatly assisted by her beauty.  The GOP, it seemed, needed someone like Palin.

On that front, I was right.  The GOP did need someone like Palin.  Just not Palin.  Not someone this naive about global affairs.

(more…)

Glass ceilings notwithstanding, Gov. Sarah Palin is being accepted by America and other progressive nations as the new high-spirited Republican melody maker.  Her in-tune communications, slowly but surely, are drowning out Obama’s bizarre ventriloquism, Joe Biden’s howlers (although I now must thank Sen. Biden for his public criticism of Obama), and the mainstream media’s pops and pings of their low-register gothic operas.

I admit I knew nothing about the lady, so when Sen. John McCain torpedoed the long-awaiting GOP with his announcement that he’d chosen Mrs. Palin as his running mate, I blurted (literally), “Who? But-but… what about Romney? Where’s Pawlenty?”

Once the conservative world had caught its breath, we scrambled like ants with road rage to bring ourselves up to speed and be informed about her as much as possible.  What we learned was surprisingly uplifting, and encouraging.  But encouraging and uplifting would not be enough for wary and weary Republicans.  Our faith – our votes for John McCain – quite suddenly depended enormously on Mrs. Palin’s presentation of herself at the Republican convention, her message and delivery.

(more…)

The liberal media has done their best to smear Gov. Palin

Rumor after rumor after rumor has been spread about Sarah Palin–about her youngest child not really being hers; about her support for Creationism; about her support for abstinence only programs–all three claims, of course, were outright lies.

Regarding creationism, Palin said that it should be debated in class should the topic arise, but not be part of the curriculum.

She actually put more money into sex-ed programs than her predecessors.

And you know, that baby was hers. She had to prove it by revealing that her seventeen year old daughter was pregnant, thrusting that very personal, family affair into the public spotlight. Of course I would say he who is without sin cast the first stone. After all, isn’t teenage pregnancy a very real American problem? Palin is part of Feminists for Life, a pro-Life, pro-contraception group, so the flimsy attack–that if only she’d taught her daughter about contraception–is just that: flimsy. Nobody here has ever had sex without a condom?

Ever?

My wife and I weren’t planning on having a baby daughter. She was a beautiful accident. The fact that this happened in our twenties rather than our teens was good fortune. That we were married was also good fortune. But it could have happened sooner. And it does, to countless people across the country.

(more…)

I’m going to have to agree with Huckabee for once, when he said:

What I am saying is that we need to challenge Obama on the basis that his ideas are the wrong ones—not attacking him personally. If people spend their time repeating a bunch of internet driven drivel about his middle name (he didn’t choose his anymore than I chose mine), or his race (I do sincerely celebrate that our country has moved to a place where a person’s race doesn’t limit him from aspiring to the highest office in our land, but I just believe that due to his proposals and lack of substantive experience, he’s gone far enough—not because of his race, but because of his sincere, but misguided proposals), or his church (there are far more important reasons for us to elect Senator McCain than where Obama went to church).

Politics ought to be VERTICAL and Obama’s ideas will not take this country UP, but DOWN. I think he is a sincere and obviously a very intelligent and charismatic person. For us to deny that is foolish. Our focus should be to logically and systematically explain why ideas really do matter and why some are bad for those struggling as it is to pay the rent.

Elections ought to be about elevating the best ideas and exposing the worst ones—not engaging in character assassination with half truths, innuendoes, and disputable “internet facts.”

New Yorker Obama Cover Art

Indeed, the ideas that Obama is presenting to America should be attacked, because therein lies the real problem with his politics.  There’s nothing wrong with drawing lines between his advisors and what they’ve said regarding Israel, and to draw up conclusions about Obama’s support for Israel.  This is conjecture–and it’s easy to say that if Obama’s idiot advisers have said they don’t support Israel, or that the Jewish lobby is too powerful in America, or anything along those lines, well than you can bet they’re the ones whispering the same drivel in Obama’s ear.

But to question Obama’s sincerity or his devotion to America is absurd.  It honestly, to the moderate majority, simply makes the attacker look bad.  It’s ad hominem extraordinaire.  Far better to lay waste to his desire for a supreme Nanny State; far better to show how he’s naive in terms of foreign policy; far better to focus on the flaws of his approach than to focus on the flaws he can’t change–such as middle name, or that he has Muslim relatives.  We can’t change those things.

So the new New Yorker cover that’s all abuzz everywhere is revealing in that it really is satirical of the virulent attacks on Obama.  Yet, the one group that should be most impressed by this satire and yet is denouncing it left and right is, ironically, Senator Obama and his entourage!

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in the statement.

McCain’s campaign also issued a statement saying the cartoon is “tasteless and offensive.”

Once again, a complete and utter mistake by Obama.  He has just allowed the cartoon to be used against him, instead of using it as a weapon of his own.  It’s really pretty unbelievably foolish.  Obama, you really do need some new advisers!

Looks like the buzz over the Obama for America seal has generated some legitimate uproar, and the Obama campaign is poised to retire it altogether.

The LA Times writes:

Widely mocked (here, here and here, to cite but a few of the items that wryly took note it), the intrepid Marc Ambinder of TheAtlantic.com reports that the insignia will be consigned to some closet to gather dust.

He writes: “I’m told that Obama recognizes that it was a silly mistake, that the universal reaction at (his Chicago headquarters) was, “Boy, was that dumb.’ “

Some things, I guess, were just never meant to be.

(more…)