A Conservative Viewpoint - Can we take the chance?

Article by Bob Steinburg
- Edenton, North Carolina: Cradle of the Colony

With his Democratic Party’s historic nomination for president sewn up, Barack Obama has set his sights on November 4th when Americans will go to the polls to elect their next commander-in-chief.

Obama’s campaign has done a remarkable job of holding things together during recent months, when at times it appeared the wheels were about to come off the “Obama Express.”

First it was the anti-American inflammatory rhetoric spewed by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor and spiritual mentor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. This was followed by an incident at a private campaign fundraiser in San Francisco where Obama made the observation that white working class voters cling to their guns and religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them as a way to explain away their frustrations…”

Wright retired as pastor ( he is currently back at Trinity) and was replaced by the Rev. Otis Moss III ( who is also still there) who promptly invited the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a controversial Catholic priest, to Trinity’s pulpit. His “sermon” contained some of the most racially charged remarks imaginable, including comments suggesting Sen. Hillary Clinton was a racial bigot, which brought cheers of approval from Trinity’s congregation.
Barack Obama finally had the good sense to cut formal ties with Wright and announced that he and his family were leaving Trinity after their 20-year membership.

The Wall Street Journal recently recalled a 2004 Chicago Sun-Times interview with Obama where he mentioned three men as his religious guides. They were Wright, Phleger and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, a Chicago pastor who has generated controversy for mixing pulpit and politics. The Journal also reported that as a state senator, Obama channeled $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina, the Rev. Phleger’s parish where he is currently on temporary suspension as pastor.

Not everyone should automatically conclude that Obama is guilty simply by association, although it certainly does raise questions about his judgment. Now add an association, regardless of how allegedly remote, with William Ayers, a former member of the 1970’s radical Weather Underground organization responsible for the blowing up of government buildings.

Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod sits on the finance committee of a church formally led by Father Pfleger and as TV pundit Dick Morris recently pointed out, Obama has named Eric Holder as one of three people who will be vetting his potential vice-presidential nominees. Holder was instrumental in securing the pardon for fugitive billionaire Mark Rich in the final hours of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

And now you have Tony Rezko, a Chicago businessman and fundraiser who bankrolled the campaign for Senator Obama being convicted of fraud, money laundering and bribery.

There is no question all of this is having a negative impact on the Obama mystique. After impressive early wins in the Democratic primaries, Obama ultimately limped across the finish line with Clinton breathing down his neck. The fact that he prevailed in capturing his party’s nomination is itself remarkable.

The reform in government Obama is calling for is really nothing more than a repackaging of the same type of big socialized government theme we’ve heard before from the likes of George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis – more federal programs paid for with higher taxes. To paraphrase American philosopher Noam Chomsky, “When you hear the word reform you should reach for your wallet and see who’s lifting it.”

Still, Americans are frustrated by the continuation of a seemingly endless and unpopular war, escalating energy and insurance costs, stagnant wages and the loss of jobs. Grocery prices are so high that some of us are actually eating less and not necessarily by choice. High gas prices have most of us traveling less too.

But will a dispirited electorate really be willing to take a chance on a candidate who promises nothing more than another attempt to move this country one step closer to socialism? Well, that depends. If a majority of Americans think government should take care of us from cradle to grave than the answer is yes.

In 2006 Democrats took back the Senate and the House and elected as their leaders Sen. Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi respectively. So much was promised by this Congress and yet so little delivered. Congress has however managed to “earn” lower approval ratings than a beleaguered George W. Bush.

After the Democrats took over Congress two years ago consumer confidence began to plummet, unemployment has since increased by 10 percent, gasoline prices are now up 80 percent. Home foreclosures are up too and Americans have lost in excess $1 trillion in home equity. Do we really need more of this kind of change?

Obama has a lot more work to do before he can truly lay claim to being a uniter. Examine his partisan and liberal voting record since entering the U. S. Senate three plus years ago and its evident Obama is further to the left than any of his colleagues and any Democratic presidential candidate in recent memory.

Obama’s naiveté on foreign policy matters is especially concerning, given this era where even the slightest misstep could result in an unexpected nuclear or terrorist action causing a massive loss of life, and devastation to our financial infrastructure.

Americans spend billions of dollars every year on games of chance – be it bingo, a raffle, the lottery or a day at the track – all for the opportunity to hit the jack-pot. The odds of hitting the jack-pot in this year’s presidential sweepstakes will be vastly improved if we can move beyond simply measuring charm, charisma and lofty oratory and include character, experience, wisdom, resolve and fortitude. If we can honestly do that, the odds of most Americans picking a winner this November improves greatly.

I repeatedly point out the irony of African-Americans belonging to the same party as advocates of Planned Parenthood. The founder of this organization created it to wage genocide against African-Americans and to this day places a hugely disproportionate number of their clinics in black neighborhoods. Does it make sense these two groups are on the same side? Yet they are.

We also have a number of small business people who are Democrats. Yet Democrats are the party of big business, slamming all businesses with the same overwhelming bureaucratic requirements. It is the reason that most corporate executives are also Democrats This love of bureaucracy disproportionately helps big business crush small business. Does it make sense these two groups are on the same side? Yet they are.

About half of Republicans are said to be opposed to the war in Iraq, including most libertarians and traditional conservatives. This means that this year there are more Republicans supporting the socialist Obama than have ever supported a Democrat candidate. Does it make sense that socialists and traditional conservatives are on the same side? Yet they are.

These are all arguments that explain why the the incredible naivete of Obama does not seem to matter. This year the growing bizarre affiliations of the Democrat party are being aided by a war that the American populace does not understand or support. I don't think it matters what consequences you point out. Bob did a very good job in this article exposing the incredible relationships that in any other year would disqualify Obama from serious consideration.

However for the first time in history we are about to turn over our government to someone who does not understand our nation or free enterprise. The press has so demonized Republicans for the last 8 years they have driven mutual enemies of various interests into a party which has nominated a socialist most of their own party does not support.

The next few years are going to be a really rough ride.