Obama’s Campaign for Dummies

button-simpleton-vote.jpgLast week the Senator Obama again reached out to potential voters who are poorly informed and disinclined to think critically. But he didn’t try to educate or inform. Instead he tried to gain an advantage with a direct appeal to ignorance

On Thursday President Bush was invited to speak before the Israeli Parliament in honor of that nation’s 60th anniversary. Typically, the national media paid little attention to a speech by this President whom they despise until Barrack Obama arose in sanctimonious indignation, claiming that the last paragraph of the this portion of the speech was an “appalling attack” on him:

“The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a great ideological struggle…This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil.

“The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers….

“There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Are these thoughts controversial? Hitler was indeed encouraged by British appeasement. The lesson of history seems abundantly clear. Yet Senator Obama lashed out as if The President had criticized him, directly, as if Obama disagreed with the notion that the false comfort of appeasement had been discredited by history. 

“That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world,” Obama stormed.

Appalling attack? President Bush didn’t mention any names but Obama apparently thinks the shoe fits him.

The subject of Presidential meetings with unfriendly foreign leaders and sponsors of terror has come up in several Democratic debates. Obama has steadfastly insisted that as President he would indeed meet and talk with the leaders of governments who sponsor terrorism. Obama’s website says:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Later Obama told an audience at a campaign event:

“That’s the Bush-McCain record on protecting this country. Those are the failed policies that John McCain wants to double down on, because he still hasn’t spelled out one substantial way he’d be different from George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.”

Obama certainly begs some questions.

  • Can Obama identify and describe these “policies” that are so bad? Apparently, he cannot.
  • How does he conclude that unidentified Bush policies failed to protect the country? There have been no follow-up terrorist attacks since 9-11, even though terrorist experts said there would be. Several terrorist plots have been discovered and derailed.
  • What should the agenda be for a meeting between an American President and a sponsor of terror like the leaders of Syria or Iran? What American positions or principles would be negotiable? Obama doesn’t say.
  • What would be the expected outcome of a meeting? Does Obama believe his own campaign hype, that he soars above mere politics, that he’s a Messianic figure who can persuade these thugs to abandon their 60 year old determination to destroy the state of Israel? Does Obama believe he has, in the President’s words, “an ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along”? Obama apparently doesn’t seem to know what he would hope to achieve.

Obama’s absurdly simplistic campaign position is that we should vote for him because:

  1. Bush policies are “bad,” because they are Bush’s policies.
  2. McCain is Bush, and will thus continue those unidentified “bad policies”
  3. Therefore squandering the prestige of The Presidency on meetings with thugs and sponsors of terror will be “good.”

A President is the temporary steward of The Presidency, the most powerful office in history. A president must be prudent in investing the capital of The Presidency. Wise Presidents have used the prestige of the office to honor and reward America’s friends and allies. Wise Presidents have withheld direct Presidential recognition from enemies and leaders of rogue governments.

A direct meeting with a maniacal thug like Ahmadinejad of Iran would diminish the world’s perception of the prestige and weight of The Presidency. Abaminijad would boast to the Arab world that he was important and powerful enough to force the American President to ask for a meeting with him.

One has to wonder if Obama is really as naive as he has appeared to be this week, or if this was just cynical campaign stunt to capture a few seconds of TV coverage and deceive people who don’t have the time or inclination to look behind the headlines.

No Comments

Comments are closed.