|
November 01, 2008, 0:00 p.m.
The Left Has It All Wrong
It’s not McCain who would be Bush’s third term, but Obama.
By Bill Siegel
During the presidential debates, Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden rammed home the notion that a John McCain presidency would be nothing other than four more years of George W. Bush. This equivalence has been the cornerstone of Obama’s entire campaign: Given the public’s displeasure with Bush (and despite its even less-favorable opinion of the Democratic Congress), Obama has successfully established this notion. Without attacking and destroying this proposition before Tuesday, he cannot defeat Obama.
For his part, McCain during the first debate listed the large number of examples of where he differed from Bush, including how to conduct the Iraq war, what to do about the current lending crisis, the Gang of Fourteen, torture, shutting down Guantanamo, campaign finance, climate change, spending cuts to accompany tax cuts, and so forth. (And while Obama repeats the “McCain voted with Bush 90 percent of the time” mantra, he is never called to account for the fact that he votes with the Pelosi-Reid Congress 95 percent of the time.) In the third debate, McCain finally stated directly that he is not George Bush.
The irony here is that Obama actually has much more in common with Bush than McCain does. The second debate centered on the so-called Wall Street bailout. While both candidates supported the ultimate Senate bill, it was McCain who initially reached out to support the House Republicans in their effort to defeat the original Bush-Paulson plan. Obama, on the other hand, expressed his support so long as the plan was adjusted to adopt certain obvious provisions to which no one could object (accountability, upside for the taxpayer, and so forth). Despite a campaign that blames everything on Bush, Obama is quick to follow his Democratic cohorts in supporting Bush on perhaps the biggest issue of the day. Is Bush correct or not?
Bush was always heralded as a business lightweight. The press would repeatedly point to his failures as an oilman or baseball owner; he was caricatured as a one-trick pony on economic issues — cut taxes. Somehow, Obama is believed to be “better on the economy” — whatever that exactly means — without any record whatsoever to justify this conclusion. Obama has no economic training, no business experience, and no examples of voting upon (much less being responsible for) issues with significant economic consequences. Perhaps his only experiences with credit to guide him through these perilous times are his work with ACORN and community organizers to shake down banks for more loans to those who are otherwise unable to meet normal lending standards, and his ability to get Tony Rezko to help him finance his own home. It is only through his skill in both articulating grievances and promising deliverance from economic hardship that he has acquired an unjustifiable reputation for economic wisdom.
Bush is constantly charged with using the “politics of fear” to persuade the public of the necessity of his programs. Little is written about how Henry Paulson, with close ties to many Democrats in Congress, has effectively convinced Bush of the grave — indeed fearsome — consequences of not bailing out Wall Street, and has enabled Bush to go forward and repeat the same fear doctrine. Obama has repeated this same tactic in all of his public statements about the situation.
Obama’s resemblance to Bush is extensive. In his refusal to credit the Iraq War “surge” with success in stabilizing Iraq, Obama has shown the same inability to admit mistakes that the left-wing media relentlessly attribute to Bush. More incredibly, Obama suggests he, not the surge, was responsible for the Iraqi turnaround; his stance, in essence, pressured the Iraqis to conform. Is this his own “Mission Accomplished”? The Left boldly criticized Bush as dangerously limited by his inability to admit his failures and make critical adjustments; so much so as to appear “out of touch.” But that’s exactly what Obama has done.
Bush has been mocked as a pawn of his advisers, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney. Yet Obama is already advised by some 300 foreign-policy “experts,” and his statements — for instance, his response to the Russian invasion of Georgia and his own proposed invasion of Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden — demonstrate his complete reliance on their opinions. There is, in essence, “no there there,” but rather a dependence on others to tell him what is the most appropriate position to take. Unlike John McCain, who displayed a full understanding and core beliefs concerning our responsibilities in the world, Obama has had to ramble publicly through a variety of elite stock phrases, testing feedback, before arriving at a final, most politically appropriate position. Bush has been ridiculed as “stupid” — but Obama’s responses to the Georgian invasion, starting with a call for both sides to show restraint, followed by an absurd push for a U.N. resolution (lacking a rudimentary understanding of Russia’s Security Council veto), followed by a lukewarm attempt at fortitude, demonstrated clearly how unknowledgeable he is — even with an arsenal of advisers.
Bush was criticized before he took office for not having the foreign-policy “experience” necessary to lead the nation. His campaign responded with “process” answers — pointing out how he would address issues. Bush would state that he would surround himself with the best, and solicit different viewpoints — and, from that wide angle, decide upon the best course of action. This is precisely how Obama has dealt with his empty foreign-policy portfolio. Obama has wowed listeners by describing the table, which he intends to populate with (largely ex-Carter administration) names and from which his magically gifted “judgment” will derive the right moves. “Process” is what drives his answers, and fills the Obama foreign-policy deficit.
Bush has also been bludgeoned for constructing a foreign policy based on man’s universal desire for freedom. Such an aspiration was deemed sophomorically fanciful (and devilishly “neocon”) by the Left. Yet Obama’s Berlin “sermon” referred repeatedly to that “yearning” as what overwhelmingly unites us all.
In one of the debates, Obama made clear that his plans for utilizing diplomacy with Iran are what the Bush administration is, in large part, currently implementing. And Obama’s statements concerning attacking Pakistan embody the abusive “bluster” for which “cowboy” Bush has been derided.
Bush was endlessly mocked as a babbling fool. While he was often brilliant in delivering critical speeches, his impromptu responses left much to be desired, including his inability to properly pronounce “nuclear.” Enter Obama — who, while able to deliver messianic oratory when assisted with an elevated teleprompter, is often caught bumbling, stuttering, searching, and struggling when unassisted by prepared remarks. Obama’s pronunciation of “Tollybahn” and “Pockeestahn” (even if it is the way General Petraeus says it) are fast becoming legendary.
Bush was branded as “incompetent” and unsuited for the presidency. He was derided for being a business lightweight prior to his decision to run for political office. Obama’s résumé similarly evidences no core competency for presidential skills. The Harvard Law Review presidency sounds impressive, but Obama seems only to have written a short, unsigned article arguing against any limits on abortion and against government “ensuring that any particular fetus is born.” His years as a Saul Alinsky “community organizer” largely focused upon a failed attempt to remove asbestos from a housing project. Community organizing is excellent training for accumulating votes and getting elected, not for what to do following the election.
“Bush Lied, People Died” was the Left’s battle cry for years, even without any proof that Bush intentionally deceived the public concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Utilizing the same threshold for ascribing deception, however, Obama can only be deemed to have lied when explaining his “Born Alive” Illinois state-senate votes. Perhaps the Left will adopt “Obama Lied, Born Alive Infants Died” as their replacement motto. Obama also broke his word with McCain over accepting public campaign finance. His waffling positions on an undivided Jerusalem, wiretapping, Social Security, and so forth have been clear examples of why “Obama” truly does stand for “change.” And in the second debate, Obama clearly changed his tune on what to do with Russia and Pakistan, while disingenuously deflecting attention with the preamble “As I’ve always said . . . ” Additionally, Obama’s constantly evolving responses to allegations concerning his relationships with Bill Ayers, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Tony Rezko suggest something quite short of full truth-telling. During the first debate, he substituted the concept of “preparations” for “preconditions,” in discussing what he would require for a meeting with Ahmadinejad: clearly a dishonest attempt to change an earlier position. So much of Obama’s history lacks any clear and independent verification that it may take years to assess the deception that has gone into creating his image.
Bush has also been castigated (by all sides) for allowing government spending to reach record levels. (The Left accepts no responsibility, even though the Pelosi-Reid Congress has been in control the past two years and severely disrupted Bush prior to that.) Obama’s robust plans will expand government spending far past the levels Bush has overseen. During the first debate, he was unable to announce a single spending program he would cut to make room for the bailout expenditure he was supporting.
The Left has excoriated Bush for infringing on individual rights, whether through spying on us all, utilizing torture, or holding captives at Guantanamo. While Obama has yet to be in a position to exercise any similar power, his responses to negative campaign ads give some clue as to how much he respects individual rights. From having pressured cable channels not to run certain ads to trying to stir up Justice Department investigations into those involved in creating the ads, Obama seems to indicate that free speech is not a value he holds dear.
Bush has also been teased for the many photo-ops that he has utilized. But rumor has it that Obama’s Germany speech was engineered between two rock concerts serving free beer. The crowds may well have come for something other than the message of deliverance.
Comics and other critics have lambasted Bush for calling himself “The Decider.” Bush has described his management style as surrounding himself with a variety of points of view that afford him the opportunity to listen, challenge, and, ultimately, to choose what he believes is best. This is precisely the approach Obama promotes as his unique strength. Obama sells a picture of himself as one will solicit various views so that he can unite all sides, stop the divisiveness, and somehow alchemically derive the perfect synthesis. (History, however, shows his ultimate decisions to be only radically liberal, not gold.)
Bush has been tagged with subordinating his work schedule to his exercise requirements at all costs. Obama is sometimes said to be exercising three times a day, and he has referred to his exceptionally long workouts. As a first-term senator who has spent most of his time running for president, Obama has had limited workdays in the U.S. Senate. He has never called one meeting of the subcommittee he chairs. As an Illinois state senator, he was known for voting “present” or “abstain” for many of the votes he actually did attend.
The Bush narratives were constantly shaped in relationship to his father. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and many others tossed around a variety of psychological issues they fancied influenced Bush’s executive decision-making. Bush’s supposed quest to get his father’s approval and struggle to carve out his own identity were part of the Left’s common parlance. Needless to say, Obama’s memoirs flesh out a background that includes an abandoning-father/abandoned-son relationship likely to influence Obama’s action for many years to come. Interestingly, during the primaries, when he needed to take the black vote away from Hillary Clinton, Obama’s family tales focused on his black father and Kenyan family. As soon as the general election came around, where he had locked up the black vote and needed to float to the center, he resurrected his white mother and grandparents, and his father — other than one mention — was left in the dust. Doesn’t this echo the “43 ignores 41” trope?
Much of the Left zealously focused on Bush’s faith, and how it influences his actions. Many feared he’d place too much “in God’s hands,” and felt his faith was too radically Christian Right. With Obama, the Left obsesses over any focus on Obama’s faith. Obama says he is a Christian and denies ever being a Muslim. To the Left, that says it all. But little attention is paid to the fact that Obama spent 20 years in a church whose pastor is a devoted follower of Black Liberation Theology — a radically left-wing ideology.
Meanwhile — and having nothing to do with any objectionable allegation that Obama is secretly a Muslim — it is clear that Obama was born to a Muslim father, which, to Muslims, inarguably means he was a Muslim. In many jurisdictions within the Muslim world, it is a capital offense to leave the religion — apostasy. Under some schools of Islamic law, there is an exception when one leaves Islam before puberty. Obama’s entrance into Christianity, however, did not occur until his twenties, so it is unclear whether Obama should be punished under Islam as an apostate or not. How we are viewed by others often seems to be the top priority among the Left’s foreign-policy concerns. Could we perhaps have another president who will turn out to be as much a target of the Islamic world as Bush has been?
Bush is repeatedly charged with cronyism and labeled as a pawn for oil companies. The implication is that Bush, an oilman, abused his power to assist his presumed big-oil buddies. The same charge, with more than a hint of corruption, is leveled at Cheney and his Halliburton chums for having received no-bid contracts in Iraq. Obama seems to have interesting relationships with his pals as well. His record is replete with bills he facilitated to grant government money to real-estate developers, particularly recently convicted slumlord Tony Rezko, who, in turn, helped finance Obama’s campaigns and assisted his home purchase.
A central part of the Left’s attack on Bush’s Iraq policy was his supposed gross negligence in drawing down troops in Afghanistan to fight a war of choice in Iraq. This charge is, actually, false — but central to Obama’s Iraq policy is the very same maneuver in reverse. To leave Iraq before it is able to secure itself sufficiently would turn all of America’s gains and sufferings there into failure. Worse still would be the consequence to millions of Iraqis who desire the freedom Obama understands to be universally desired. And, as pointed out by many, his plan to move those troops to Afghanistan could have ramifications Obama has not begun to explore; simply adding more troops without the proper strategy will likely encourage other NATO countries to withdraw their forces. He would truly be “taking his eye off the ball.”
While Bush has often been cast as a front for the likes of Karl Rove, the evil genius, we have never seen such a well-manufactured specimen as Obama. David Axelrod, a pro trained with Chicago’s Daley machine, engages all of the “mischievous” attributes commonly projected upon Rove. While Rove is accused of employing “the politics of fear,” Axelrod has pulled Obama’s strings in an effort to make the electorate afraid of Bush. He incessantly and viciously berates Bush and then equates McCain with Bush, as if this were not an attack on McCain himself. Then, whenever his candidate is assaulted, Axelrod and crew are programmed to whine about how “divisive” the opposition is. Axelrod has criticized the “victim” tactics of Hillary Clinton while fully exploiting being a victim of some nebulous “divisiveness.” The attacks on Sarah Palin (and the false rumors about her baby) would have been identified as classic “Rove” maneuvers had they emanated from a Republican campaign. Just as the Left has created terms such as a “Rovian” campaign, expect to hear in the future about a candidate having been “Axelrodded.”
Axelrod’s ceaseless refrain of “McCain is a third Bush term” has been Obama’s “go to” attack. Democrats have been led to believe that after this election, no longer will we Americans (much less our highly valued allies who have had to suffer right along with us) have to put up with a president who came into office without relevant experience. One who had used drugs and alcohol more than experimentally and who only came to find God later in life. One who spends an inordinate amount of time exercising and vacationing. One who has had lifelong psychological issues concerning his father. One who is so stubborn and inflexible that he is unwilling to admit his mistakes. Nor will we have to live with a president so naïve about the world. One forced to select an aged and “experienced” running mate to lend his ticket gravitas. Worse yet, one who believes people worldwide yearn for liberty and would foolishly make that yearning a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Nor will we have to put up with a leader who would take his eye off the ball in one war to go fight another one of choice elsewhere. We won’t have to put up with a president who is choreographed by a behind-the-scenes wizard of presumed “evil” intent — one who measures what the public can be sold and how to play on their fears for maximum advantage. No more propping up an obviously unqualified candidate to serve the agenda of the powerful.
Unless, of course, Obama wins.
— Bill Siegel lives in New York City. |
