Blackwell on Obama

Knowing that I support Obama, my Dad (a conservative Republican) sent me a hit piece thoughtful critique of him by crook Ken Blackwell. Here is my emailed response:

Dad,

I did my HW on your article, and my analysis follows below (I'll have to post this to my blog!)

Re: Blackwell's comments

To summarize what Blackwell said:

1. We should judge people by the content of their character
2. Obama is really liberal
3. The press has taken it easy on Obama
4. Obama is bad for foreign policy
5. Obama is bad for the economy
6. Obama is bad for Jesus...uh, I mean social issues

On #1 & 2, I agree.

On #3, I disagree. See the constantly-running loops of Jeremiah Wright, for example. The press gives a free pass to Evangelical white Christian preachers who say that 9/11 or Katrina are "God's wrath on America" for our sin, and who smile as John McCain panders to them and says he's "honored" for their endorsement. For some reason, Rev. Wright is different. For example, look at how people like Sean Hannity and Ralph Reed defended Falwell's comments:

Fundamentally, Falwell and Robertson and Dobson and Parsley and their ilk all say "God Damn America" every day multiple times, just in different language. Rod Parsley, whom McCain calls a "spiritual guide", has called the government's support of Planned Parenthood a plan for "Black Genocide" -- why is there such a double standard? The media gives ZERO TV time to that issue.

Also, it is really important to see the full sermon in context -- for example, the "chickens coming home to roost" comment was echoed by Wright from a Reagan administration official. Here is part of the transcript of the sermon, which you won't ever see on Faux News, which makes it clear he is QUOTING from Ambassador Peck during one of the endlessly-looped quotes meant to shock and disgust viewers:

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him, he was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arrowak (phonetic) the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo. Terrorism--we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working father. [fullest voice] We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks.

[fullest voice] We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard working people --mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.

America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

[lower voice] A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism, an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and whose trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said that the people we have wounded don't have the military capability we have, but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them, and we need to come to grips with that.

Isn't it neat how you can cut and clip and spin someone's words to make them look worse than they are? Do you see the media correcting this spin? Nope.

So that whole argument from Blackwell is a load of crap.

In addition, as Steve Chapman said in the Chicago Tribune, quote,

When Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California in 1966, liberals attacked him for getting support from members of the ultraconservative John Birch Society, which regarded Dwight Eisenhower as a communist agent. Reagan responded: "If anyone chooses to vote for me, they are buying my views. I am not buying theirs."

His career illustrates that political shrewdness often requires attracting not only savory but unsavory people to a cause. When he ran for president, he was criticized for tossing the occasional bone to racist white Southerners by endorsing "states' rights." But by appealing to many of those who had once supported the venomous white supremacist George Wallace, Reagan helped defang those forces, while advancing his own political agenda.

George W. Bush followed a similar route in 2000 by speaking at Bob Jones University, which had lost its federal tax exemption for banning interracial dating and whose president once called Bush's father a "devil." Being politicians, Reagan and Bush found ways to lure in bigots at little cost, while rejecting their most cherished beliefs.

Everyone knows that Obama joined the church originally because it was large and politically-connected. What we've been shown in clips on the news is but a snippet of what the church is about -- AIDS ministry, inner-city youth programs, &c...

Anyway, the NY Times editors took a look at their own coverage of Obama v. Clinton, and here's what they found in their analysis: they've been harder on him than her.

Conservatives make a strong case for Obama on the merit of his policies, so I think it is hardly an issue of "he's just a media darling": Andrew J. Bacevich and Douglas W. Kmiec.

As for #4, McCain will continue Bush's failed policies in the Middle East...Obama won't. Clear (superior) choice in that latter one there. McCain claims he'll follow Bin Laden to the "gates of hell" and everyone claps and cheers. Obama says he'll order the strike even if the Pakistanis don't like it and everyone hisses and boos. Taking nuclear weapons off the table is prudent for "targeted strikes" in other countries for one simple reason: nuclear weapons are not precise (they cause widespread devastation), and striking another country with a nuke should not be done except in retaliation for that country's own usage of WMDs. Consider collateral damage. We've already caused at least (verified numbers) 10x more deaths in Iraq than we suffered on 9/11. Nobody cares. Whatever.

Also, the two things that Petraeus cited as responsible for the "fragile" progress of the surge have been: 1) al-Sadr's ceasfire & 2) the Sunni "awakening". #1 is looking like it's about to dissolve as of this morning. #2 is basically a massive buy-off where we're now bribing and arming our former enemies in order to maintain the semblance of peace. The Rolling Stone has an excellent investigative report on this latter issue.

As for #5, we're now spending $9500 / second in Iraq, using conservative figures based only on what has already been approved for the spending there. (Don't believe me? Take $300 billion and divide it by 365, then by 24, then by 60, then by 60 again.) Some economists have projected that the long-term costs of the war, including especially health care for wounded vets, will top $3 TRILLION. Obama has promised to take that money that we're pissing down the drain in Vietnam II and spend it here at home on infrastructure and new energy projects. For details, see here.

Obama saw the mortgage crisis looming and addressed it long before free market laissez-faire conservatives even saw a problem.

Obama will move the country away from foreign oil, which keeps us locked in a cycle of violence: our billions of $ go to Iran and Venezuela and end up funding terrorists and drug traders. Then, we have to fight drug traders and terrorists with billions more. The cycle is stupid. It's time to get someone in office who can see that and will change it. I'd love to contrast/compare Barack's plans for the economy with McCain's.

As for #6, I don't really care about that. I'm tired of people looking to the federal government to subsidize their religion. I love how Blackwell pulls the classic non sequitur by saying Barack's views are like those of a radical. I'm sure your views on something -- say, gardening or diet -- are like those of Hitler...but how is that relevant? It's a simple (stupid ploy) bait-and-switch.

Re: Ken Blackwell personally

I know he works for the ironically-named "American Family Association" (ironic in the sense that they exist in order to limit and control who can make/have a family), which gives him a veneer of respectability...but, the fact is, he's a crook -- he has been indicted in bribery charges in Ohio and was a part of a voter fraud scheme there in 2004 that may have tipped the election.

So, I did my HW and I come away very unimpressed.

Dan, Something to think about, an article by a black columnist written for a NY newspaper.

Love, Dad

"Beyond Obama's Beauty"
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun

Hope he likes my reply!