For many voters, I suspect, the choice next Tuesday comes down to an exercise in risk assessment. Is Barack Obama, despite his dubious connections (William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, et al.) and euro-socialist spread-the-wealth-around rhetoric, is he, when all is said and done, a moderate, centrist character who would govern pragmatically, not ideologically?
Perhaps, but where is the proof of that in deeds… any act in furtherance of such? I hear the rhetoric, witness the calm demeanor, absorb the dulcet tones…and then am jarred back into reality by the fits of pique upon rare inquiry of this ticket and slips of the tongue in unguarded moments that betray the subconscious mind by Obama/Biden.
When they said that he would bring about change that was revolutionary, perhaps I misunderstood what they meant.
Or is he a more radical character who has cultivated suit-and-tie respectability in order to get elected, after which he will pursue radical, redistributionist policies economically, socially, and in foreign affairs?
I don’t know…I can’t know. He has spirited away to a secret vault virtually all of the remnants of his past. What is available has been shuttered from view and vaporized upon discovery. The entrenched media operates as a shill machine, alternately pumping out glorified advertisements posing as “news” coverage, and then clubbing the opposing ticket with everything from faked magazine covers, withhheld tapes, and catty fashion attacks and beyond.
What do we know about Senator Obama? I mean, really know? Facts, evidence…that hasn’t been filtered through a prism, but is just a basic catalogue item about his life until this moment in time?
We do know that his life has been surrounded by people who hold some pretty radical extremist views that are antithetical to mainstream America. This cannot be denied. Frank Marshall Davis, radical professors at college, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Michael Klonsky, William Ayers and his wife, Rashid Khalidi etc…perhaps Khalid al Mansour, maybe others.
To suggest that none of that lifelong pattern of voluntarily seeking and choosing to attach to that very familiar ideology, was because of some reason other </i? than a fatal attraction to it…is to suggest something that has not witnessed one shred of proof or evidence by deed or act. I would be willing to listen to an explanation, perhaps there is one…but nobody seems inclined to even ask. Certainly nobody that the campaign will speak with, anyway.
This is not to say that Senator Obama attaches to the methodology espoused by these folks. Nor does it suggest that he approves of the means. It does, however, suggest a kindred spirit in achieving the ends.
In his own words, talking in a soothing manner…will ratchet back the fears. If that makes Senator Obama’s words more acceptable, it still does not move the goalposts. The end game remains the same.
Barack Obama, Sr. wrote passionately about how he viewed the government’s obligations to distribute wealth. “Frank” spoke and wrote passionately about not selling out and buying into the American Dream. Saul Alinsky wrote a primer on how to achieve radical infiltration. Ayers and Dohrn and Klonsky and Davidson have an exhaustive record of espousing cultural revolution and meeting with sworn enemies. James Cone built a political cover for venom disguised as religion. Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger took Cone’s ball and ran with it. And they did so while lionizing Louis Farrakhan. Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said and Ali Abunimah link the Ayers/Dohrn flag stomping with an Israeli flag stomping.
And upon which road do all these voices intersect? How do we explain that? What does it mean? We don’t know and we can’t know. Because nobody seems to want to ask, at least nobody that the campaign will speak with.
Is this fatal attraction not some “passing youtful fad”, but a glimpse into a worldview that defines a lifetime attachment? Where is there any…any…evidence that his divergence from their worldview is not on substance, but rather on the mechanics of achieving it?
By all outward appearances, he is drawn to radical extremism like a moth to a flame. The blazing heat of that boiling anger, fuels his passions. He seems to want to captain a ship upon a raging sea. In what way has he moved to quiet the rage or bridge the divide?
Ever?
In putting a Mideast pre-cabinet together, the Walt & Mearsheimer bible apparently must be sworn upon to gain admittance. Foreign money may fuel his campaign coffers. Anti-Semitic despots cheer on his ascendancy.
When the truth is held hostage, who pays the ransom?
