Exhibit 1 At The Supreme Court For The Failures Of Affirmative Action - Elizabeth Warren

One of the great class warriors of the left, Elizabeth Warren, or as she is known by her Indian name, Fauxcohantas, is being cited in multiple briefs before the Supreme Court to illustrate the absurdity of racial preferences. Legal Insurrection has a superb post on this, noting that four separate briefs filed in the case of Fisher v. Univ. of Texas, a case challenging use of race in admissions decisions, cite to Ms. Warren as the poster for the ills of affirmative action. As Prof. Jacobson explainsL

In case you haven’t heard, lily white Elizabeth Warren got herself listed as a Minority Law Teacher and Woman of Color by falsely claiming to be Native American, even though she clearly did not meet the definition used by Harvard and the EEOC.

Warren was reported by both the U. Penn. and Harvard Law Schools as Native American in their federal filings, and also was touted by Harvard as a Native American hire. . . .

Elizabeth Warren has been used as an example of the absurdity of modern racial preferences in at least four of the Amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs filed in the case. . . .

Prof Jacobson goes on to quote from the briefs. Do see his post. As he concludes:

Warren’s ethnic fraud did more to undermine affirmative action than any alleged “right wing” conspiracy.

When someone like Warren can lay claim to being a “woman of color” for diversity purposes, then diversity has lost all meaning.

It will be interesting to see if any of the Justices picks up on the Warren example.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Victor Davis Hanson Makes An Excellent Point

This from Victor Davis Hanson writing at PJM:

Conservatives are put into awkward positions of critiquing liberal ideas on grounds that they are impractical, unworkable, or counterproductive. Yet rarely, at least outside the religious sphere, do they identify the progressive as often immoral. And the unfortunate result is that they have often ceded moral claims to supposedly dreamy, utopian, and well-meaning progressives, when in fact the latter increasingly have little moral ground to stand upon.

Having pondered that for a bit, its clear that VDS has articulated an insightful and important point. VDS goes into detail, explaining how radical environmentalism, multiculturalism, illegal immigration, and affirmative action make his point. Do read his entire article. This is a suggestion that all on the right should take to heart. It is decades beyond time for the right to stop ceding the moral high ground to those on the left who are merely posing atop it.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Protecting The Racial Spoils System

Last month, in an appearance at Columbia University, his alma mater, [Attorney General Eric] Holder made a jarring statement in support of racial preferences, saying he “can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease.” “Affirmative action has been an issue since segregation practices,” he declared. “The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. . . . When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

John Fund, Infinite Affirmative Action, NRO, 6 March 2012

Where did that come from? We've had affirmative action for over sixty years. It has been, as Thomas Sowell points out here, here and here, largely ineffective and unintentionally damaging. It is, in today's America, as pointed out by Victor Davis Hanson, ludicrous as a means of supposedly redressing wrongs. And, as pointed out by former Senator Jim Webb, affirmative action is grossly unfair and wholly repugnant to the proposition of equality. So how and why can Holder possibly make such outrageous remarks?

As a threshold matter, not that Holder's remarks come on the heels of an expose from Breitbart.com showing a young Barry Obama hugging and promoting Dr. Derrick Bell, the creator of "critical race theory." It also comes on the heels of the revelation that Prof. Obama, teaching Constitutional Law at Univ. of Chicago law school, made Derrick Bell required reading for his class.

Promoting the canard of wide spread racism - and racial entitlement - in the U.S. is utterly central to the left's survival. It is a foundational source of votes, money and political patronage for the left. In the fantasy world painted by the left, it is always 1950 - with the important exception to historical reality being that it is the conservative right, not the Democrats, who are the font of the racism. If the edifice created by the left cracks, if they don't get 90% of the black vote in every election, the Democrats are in serious trouble.

In the near total absence of any overt racism today, the left last resort is to the claim that racism, even if not conscious, is none the less inherent and endemic. That is at the heart of the ludicrous theory of "color blind racism" now being expoused by the left. And it is at the heart of Derrick Bell's "critical race theory" (CRT). Both ultimately reject Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.'s call for equality of all races, arguing that because of permanent racism, blacks will always require special treatment. Skin color is not irrelevant to these people, rather it is the defining characteristic.

A description of Critical Race Theory was memorialized by now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in her notes from a 1993 lecture on the topic:

Pervasiveness of racism: First, CRT takes as a given -- as its first premise -- that racism infects every aspect of American law and American life. That racism is deep and pervasive -- some would go so far as to say inevitable and permanent.

"Neutral" law as mechanism of racial subordination: Second, CRT attempts to show that the claims of the legal system to neutrality, to impartiality, and to objectivity are false claims. CRT attempts to show that the law -- even when it seems neutral and even-handed -- in fact works in the interest of dominant groups in American society and particularly in the interest of dominant racial groups. CRT attempts to show that the so-called "logic of the law," that so-called "neutral principles" are a sort of cover for a deeply ingrained system of racial domination.

Critical of civil rights strategies: Third, CRT generally is extremely critical of the activity -- the strategy and even the goals -- of the traditional civil rights movement. The thinking here is that the traditional civil rights movement believed that all that needed to be done was to make the laws neutral-- to end legal segregation in the schools, for example -- in order to achieve racial equality in America. But such reforms, critical race theorists say, were ineffectual, and necessarily so -- because they ignored the way even neutral laws could effect racial subordination. In addition, it might be said that critical race theorists see the civil rights movement as too "reformist," too "gradualist," not sufficiently committed to the broad-scale social transformations necessary to achieve racial equality.

Insistence on incorporation of minority perspectives and use of stories: Fourth, and relatedly, critical race theory insists that the law --legal doctrines of all sorts -- be reformulated, fundamentally altered, to reflect and incorporate the perspectives and experiences of so-called "outsider groups," who have known racism and racial subordination at first hand. Critical race theorists often write not in traditional, lawyerly terms, but with parables, and stories, and dialogues. The thinking is that these techniques can better demonstrate the actual experiences of members of minority group -- experiences which should be accepted by and incorporated in the law. In addition, the decision to spurn traditional techniques of legal argument reflects the belief that these apparently neutral techniques are not neutral at all -- that they have been the means of promoting not some objective system of truth and justice, but instead a system based on racial power.

Finally, Kagan demonstrated that Derrick Bell is an "examplar" of critical race theory:

Derrick Bell as examplar:

Now Derrick Bell's writing illustrates each of these four aspects of critical race theory. He believes that racism is a pervasive-- and a permanent --aspect of American society. Read 1. He believes that the legal system is a means of promoting a system of racial subordination--even, or perhaps especially, when it makes claims to objectivity and neutrality. Read 2. He is deeply critical of the strategies and goals of the traditional civil rights movement--of which he used to be a part. And he insists that law must take into account the experiences of minorities, which he attempts to explicate through dialogues and stories.

Is anyone in the least surprised that the same man who was BFF with unrepentant anti-American terrorists or who sat in the pews of a vile reverse racist for 20 years would embrace Critical Race Theory and Dr. Bell? And is anyone surprised that no administration in history has been so race-centric? Is anyone surprised that Obama, who campaigned on healing the racial divide, is actually intent on promoting the canard of wide spread racism and protecting, if not actually expanding, the racial spoils system?

Let's conclude with Dr. Thomas Sowell's thoughts on Derrick Bell from 1990:

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Quick Hits

Things I've wanted to blog about but haven't yet gotten to:

The Hill - "House Democrats kicked off their annual retreat here with a vow to improve the flawed messaging that contributed to the loss of their majority last fall." It they think "messaging" rather than their "message" cost them 63 seats, they are have successfully crossed denial and territory known in psychiatric circles as "certifiable." But then, I've been saying for years, in all sincerity, that their leader, Crazy Nancy, really is certifiable.

Village Voice - Tony Bagels, Meatball, Junior Lollipops and Fats heading for the slammer along with more than a hundred other wiseguys.

George Will - "The idea that America's problem of governance is one of inadequate resources misses this lesson of the last half-century: No amount of resources can prevent government from performing poorly when it tries to perform too many tasks, or particular tasks for which it is inherently unsuited."

Volokh Conspiracy - Affirmative action again before the Court. Its expiration date is long past.

NRO - Jim DeMint promises legislation to prevent Congress or the Fed from bailing out profligate states.

Detroit News - Half of the city schools to close without more aid. But tenure and public union salarys remain intact. Just burn down the city, salt the earth and start anew somewhere else.

Jerusalem Post - How does Hamas stay in power. In large measure by skimming off the foreign aid.

Newsweek - The daughter of the Pakistani Governor of Punjab Province, slain for speaking out in defense of a Christian sentenced to die for blasphemy, discusses the dysfunctional stranglehold Islamists have on her nation.

WSJ - Palinoia. James Taranto attempts plumbs the dark, fetid depths of the leftie soul to diagnose what it is about Palin that drives them bat-shit crazy.

PJM - Norway wakes up to find their nation in mortal peril from the Islamicists within. At some point, this Europe-wide problem will reach critical mass and a lot of blood will be spilled.

AIFD - Military's Muslim chaplain vetting system poses significant risk to national security

AIFD - "If 2010 was the year America finally woke up to political Islam's ne farious reach on US soil, with luck 2011 will be the year we launch an offensive against it."

The American - How Fannie, Freddie and government failure caused the great recession.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blood On Their Hands

Imagine if the KKK were acceptable in polite company. Imagine if the KKK made regular appearances on your television, compliments of a press that viewed them uncritically. Imagine if cable carried KKK-TV. Imagine if the message of the KKK was repeated daily to the people of America. What if there were KKK studies at every major university where their message of racism was taught, contemplated, and made the subject of acceptable academic discourse. Do you think that white racism would be endemic today? Of course.

So what would happen if the roles were reversed?

Well, in fact, they are.

The NAACP calls the Tea Party racist. The Congressional Black Caucus claims to have been subject to repeated acts of racism in March by the Tea Party - something that even the NYT now acknowledges is false. Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology, an ideology premised on the belief that whites are the enemy and racism in America is pervaisive. When the worst act of violence on our soil hit home on 9-11, Wright called the violence justified as "America's chickens coming home to roost." Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, has been even more vociferous than Wright in pushing these same canards. Indeed, he preaches a degree of racism and vitriol every bit as toxic as that of the KKK. The Nation of Islam is also a major player in prison ministries. Then there is King Samir Shabazz, the leader of the New Black Panther Party, who, when he isn't trying to intimidate voters at Phillidelphia polling stations is advocating the murder of "cracker babies."

In academia, some of the most brilliant black minds teach Critical Race Theory, a belief system that racism is eternal and pervaisive. Others teach that all white Americans alive today are responsible for slavery and oppression that occurred before they were even born. These same academics teach that whites owe the black community penance for their sins in the form of reparations.

Jesse Jackson, a man who makes his millions throwing the race card with wild abandon, wants a new "black national anthem." Al Sharpton, well, he's a class unto himself. If you have not read the bloody history of this race baiter, do see this now decade old column by Katherine Jean Lopez. (H/T Soccer Dad)

The bottom line, what appears to be at least a substantial minority of blacks are taught to view the world through an entirely racial lens. If something happens that they do not like, than it must be racism. It promotes a lack of personal responsibility, mis-placed anger, simmering hatred and a deep-seated sense of grievance. It is toxic.

At best, this leads to massive and daily distortions in our society. At worst, predictably, it leads to violence. Though the reality of racial grievance as a motivating factor in black violence is studiously ignored by the press, it has shown up in some very high profile cases. The first time I noticed it was in the Virginia sniper case. No one seem concerned that it was The Nation of Islam that inspired the snipers John Muhammed and Lee Malvo. No MSM outlet that I am aware of paid any serious attention to the role of the toxic teaching of the Louis Farrakhan in that incident, though it certainly was not hidden in the testimony at trial. This from a local NBC affiliate reporting on the trial in 2006:

Muhammad trained Malvo in weapons, kept him on a rigorous diet that allowed only one meal each day, and introduced him to the teachings of the Nation of Islam, Malvo said. Muhammad hated America and thought white people were "the devil." . . .

Recently, in Knoxville during one of the trials for the subhuman acts of rape, torture and murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, two white UT students, perpetrated by a gang of four black men, one of the witnesses testified that one of the defendants was "Muslim and hated white people." Whether that hatred was a motivating factor in this crime - a crime itself studiously ignored by the MSM - I do not know. But it would seem likely based on the above testimony.

And now today, there is the following on the motivations of the black man who, the other day, killed eight people where he worked until being terminated for theft:

A black man who went on a shooting rampage at a beer distributor calmly told a 911 operator that it was "a racist place" and that he "handled the problem" but wished he had shot more people.

Omar Thornton called 911 after shooting 10 co-workers - eight fatally - on Tuesday morning at Hartford Distributors Inc. He introduced himself as "the shooter over in Manchester" and said he was hiding in the building, but he would not say where.

"You probably want to know the reason why I shot this place up," he said, his voice steady. "This place is a racist place. They're treating me bad over here. And treat all other black employees bad over here, too. So I took it to my own hands and handled the problem. I wish I could have got more of the people."

Connecticut State Police released the audio of the four-minute 911 call on Thursday, the day company and union officials rebutted suggestions that the company had ignored Thornton's complaints of racism.

Thornton, 34, went on his rampage moments after he was forced to resign when confronted with video evidence that he had been stealing and reselling beer.

The 911 call confirmed suggestions from his relatives and girlfriend that he believed he was avenging racist treatment in the workplace.

Hartford Distributors president Ross Hollander said there was no record to support claims of "racial insensitivity" made through the company's anti-harassment policy, the union grievance process or state and federal agencies.

"Nonetheless, these ugly allegations have been raised and the company will cooperate with any investigation," Hollander said.

The union said 14 of 69 dock workers, or 20 percent, were racial minorities - four black, nine Hispanic, one Asian.

The idea that Thornton's motive may not have been retaliation for losing his job has not sat well with many of the people who knew the victims and have firsthand knowledge of the environment inside the enormous distribution center in Manchester.

"Everybody just thinks this race card is such a wrong thing," said Michael Cirigliano, whose slain brother, Bryan, was Thornton's union representative at the disciplinary meeting and the president of the local union.

Michael Cirigliano also spent three decades working at the warehouse before he retired two years ago.

"The Hispanics and the blacks were telling me they've never seen anything they're accusing the company of in the bathrooms or anywhere else at HDI," he said. "It's never been separated white, black, Asian. It's never been like that."

He said the company had increased its hiring of minorities in recent years.

"They've been bringing in more and more minority people to fill the positions," Cirigliano said. "You could almost go as far as that's reverse discrimination. They were hiring the groups to balance the workplace, because that's what we are in America, there's a balance."

Anthony Napolitano, the son-in-law of victim Victor James, 60, of Windsor, said James treated everyone equally, regardless of race or religion.

Truck driver David Zylberman, a 34-year employee of the company, said that the racism claims "pissed me off because they were good people."

Thornton's ex-girlfriend, Jessica Anne Brocuglio, told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had a history of racial problems with co-workers at other jobs and believed he was denied pay raises because of his race. . . .

Nine people dead because of a black man who saw everything bad that happened to him through the prism of race. That act, like the Virginia snipers and possibly the Newsom-Christian murders noted above, are the extreme but wholly foreseeable results of those who preach racism as their meal ticket.

So this is where I think we are . . .

It is long past time that we on the right start demanding an end to the hatred and reverse racism that pervades and is accepted by so many on the left.

It is long past time for we on the right to stop accepting uncritically the teaching of Critical Race theory and similar canards in our colleges and universities.

It is long past time that we allow people like Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan to exist in America without demanding that everyone, blacks and whites alike, denounce them utterly and fully to the point that they are not tolerated on the left or the right.

It is long past time for the MSM be held to account for reporting unsubstantiated claims of racism.

And, I think, it is now time for an end to affirmative action and the use of disparate impact to persecute companies and people for racism where none actually exists.

Bernard Chapin wrote a few days ago, "racial blindness is a conservative thing." It is true. But it is not enough. Conservatives need to demand equality for minorities and condemn racism whenever and whereever it is found. But equally, it is time to vociferously demand the same from the press and from minorities. The current situation is untennable and immoral.

Read More...

Summary only...

Senator Webb Calls For An End To Most Affirmative Action Programs

This is surprising - a Democratic Senator calling for an end to most affirmative action programs. Even more surpising - he does so on the grounds that the programs have ceased to be a remedial measure to help minorities injured by discrimination in America and have morphed into a means to discriminate against white males.

Sen. Webb has picked a popular cause, at least among the nation's electorate. Polls last year found that the nation's electorate, by a wide margin, supported the end of affirmative action programs. That support was very strong among Republicans and Independents, but only at 33% among Democrats.

While race based affirmative action programs made sense in the 1960's as a means to assisst those who had suffered from years of discrimination, that justification is absent today in an America where equality is the norm and minorities and women can be found in every occupation and position of power, from the Office of President on down. While race based affirmative action programs are no longer justified, that still does not answer the question of what programs would be effective in breaking the cycle of poverty in which 25% of blacks are still mired.

This from Sen. Webb, writing in the WSJ:

. . . Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future.

I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white.

In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived.

How so?

.Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy. . . .

Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes.

Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away.

Senator Webb is certainly correct in all that he opines - but he is also going against the very center of the far left's base. As I wrote below, in An Overdrawn Race Card:

Either Webb is a lone wolf in the Dem. Party on this matter, or he is part of a larger strategy to stem Obama's loss of support by throwing out a red herring to Middle America that the left has no intention of acting upon. To the contrary, the far left has been busy over the past eighteen months legislating ever more affirmative action type policies. Indeed, it is beyond any doubt that the far left, whose very existence is centered on special treatment of victim classes, would defend affirmative action with all the furor of the Nazis defending Berlin in the last days of WWII.

But as I pointed out in that post, the left's use of the race card is rapidly losing effectiveness. When the race card finally loses its last vestige of legitimacy, then we will see the end of affirmative action programs. It will also mark the end of our far left's hold on power. That will be a major step forward for America - and all of its citizens.

Read More...

Summary only...

Time For An End to Affirmative Action

A bit of late blogging. Victor Davis Hanson wrote the other day on the need to bring an end to affirmative action as the justification for establishing it half a century ago no longer exists and, as currently perpetuated, and as VDS documents with numerous examples, affirmative action creates gross distortions in society. His conclusion:

. . . [C]reating, recreating, and emphasizing racial identity, especially among elites, currently involves so many contortions that it has descended from the absurd to the outright pernicious-and is becoming a sort of racism itself. One gets the uncomfortable feeling that the perpetuators of the present system-mostly elite whites-find some sort of psychological absolution in such a system that allows them to alleviate guilt without living among poorer people of color, or sending their own children to the “diverse” public schools-two concrete steps that might quickly indeed ensure better neighborhoods and better education for the “other.” In any case, most white elites count on their own connections, wealth, and education, to find exemptions from the unfairness of racial identification. A Ted Kennedy, after all, had affirmative action well before it was based on race.

Unfortunately, unlike a Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Alberto Gonzales, President Obama has embraced identity politics in unprecedented fashion-and we are reaping what he has sown. In these first days of the Sotomayor nomination, we are not discussing Justice Sotomayor’s judicial competence as much as her Latina identification-and the political ramifications of such tribalism.

But then only in these race-conscious times could a Barack Obama have entered the racial labyrinth as a well-educated youth of mixed and foreign ancestry, and middle-class prep school lineage, and exited as a representative totem of the African-American underclass.

By virtue of that metamorphosis it matters not at all that he once subsidized the racial hatred of Rev. Wright’s Church, carelessly tossed out the epithet ‘typical white person’, stereotyped the white working class as ‘clingers,’ had his privileged Attorney General call Americans “cowards” on matters of race, and nominated a candidate for the Supreme Court who, despite all the tortured exegeses of exculpation, declared that white males could not possess the judicial wisdom and temperament of someone of her own race and gender.

You see, in matters of racial politics, we deal now only in fantasies rather than reality.

Do read the whole essay. Indeed, it is no more than Thomas Sowell has been screaming from the rooftops for years. For example, see:

The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action For Blacks, Capitalism Magazine, April, 2003

Affirmative Action Around The World, Hoover Digest, 2004

The problem, of course, is that the politics of race defines Obama and the far left. As I've written before, it is their raison d'etre. Not until they screw us up so badly that we are nearly beyond recovery (which should take no longer than another year or two) will it be possible to use the backlash against Obama and his base to end this bit of incredibly pernicious grievance politics.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sally Quinn Spins Palin & Ignores the Obamaphant In The Room

Sally Quinn’s column in the Washington Post today, "Palin's Preganancy Problem," is hypocrisy of the left gone mad. Ms. Quinn is in full scale righteous “anger.” She is “shocked.” She is “insulted.” McCain has chosen a failed mother who needs to be attending to her children. She reminds us that we on the right are supposed to by misogynists. And, she tells us, Gov. Palin is too inexperienced for vice president, studiously ignoring the Obamaphant in the middle of her office.

I said in the post below, Palendimonium, that the left just won’t be able to stop themselves from sliming Gov. Palin and attempting to claim she is too inexperienced for the job of Vice President. Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn’s steps into the left wing breach today with an effort to do just that. And it is an outrageous effort indeed.

You can find Ms. Quinn’s column here. Quinn’s most outrageous arguments surround Gov. Palin as a mother. First, pointing to Gov. Palin’s teenage daughter’s out of wedlock pregnancy, Quinn asserts that this “must certainly raise the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.”

It would be hard to imagine a more insulting or fatuous argument. What teenager does not rebel and try to distinguish themselves as a person? And in doing so, what teenager does not make mistakes? How many children are born in this country to parents whose wedding dates are less than nine months from the birth date, let alone how many are born out of wedlock? Quinn just painted the parents of all of these people as intinsically failed people in order to slime Gov. Palin. That ought to play well amongst the fly over crowd.

Two, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of those on the right who espouse morals and try to live by them. We see human failings all the time – in ourselves and all around us. That does not mean that a person who fails is a failed person, as Quinn would paint Gov. Palin. The evangelical Rev. Dobson's response to Bristol Palin’s pregnancy could have been written in response directly to Sally Quinn:

. . . ”Being a Christian does not mean you’re perfect. Nor does it mean your children are perfect. But it does mean there is forgiveness and restoration when we confess our imperfections to the Lord. I’ve been the beneficiary of that forgiveness and restoration in my own life countless times, as I’m sure the Palins have.

“The media are already trying to spin this as evidence Gov. Palin is a ‘hypocrite,’ but all it really means is that she and her family are human. They are in my prayers and those of millions of Americans.”

Second, Quinn takes a century of feminist efforts to end misogyny and have women treated as the equals of men and she tosses it out the window. She explicitly argues that Palin, as the mother of five, has no business being the V.P. She should be at home taking care of these children as her primary responsibility.

Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil. . . . [W]omen also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy. . . . [H]er family situation [is a] valid and vital considerations here.

If there is any intellectually honest feminist out there, they should be spewing their coffee across the keyboard while they read that one. And one wonders about how Ms. Quinn feels about women in other high powered jobs. How does she feel about Michelle Obama holding down a job with two young children? What about fathers of young children? How about Bill Clinton in the White House while his daughter was a teenager? So according to Ms. Quinn, we should vote against Republicans to save motherhood and to demand that mothers stay in the home. Could this get any more hypocritical?

Quinn spends much of the rest of her piece trying to de-legitimize Gov. Palin by labeling her, in essence, an affirmative action pick. This is aimed at the general electorate and, more narrowly, at the Hillary voters. Quinn makes her argument while ignoring Gov. Palin’s accomplishments, her success in office, her background, and the affinity McCain has for a “kindered spirit.” I addressed this argument at length in a post below, Palendemonium. Suffice it to say, Gov. Palin’s plumbing may be a plus, but McCain’s justifications for choosing her neither start nor end at Gov. Palin’s gonads. One finds no hint of that in Quinn’s piece.

And lastly, there is the inexperience argument. The fact that, as mayor and governor, she has more executive experience than the combined Democratic ticket is studiously ignored – as is the fact that Gov. Palin’s foreign policy experience is the equal of the Obamaphant in the room. Instead, we get:

How can McCain call Barack Obama unqualified, inexperienced, not ready from Day One, not able to be commander in chief, and then put someone like Palin in a position that is a heartbeat away from the pesidency?

All one needs to do is turn that argument on its head to see how dangerous it is for Democrats. How can Obama be President if he has less qualifications and relevant experience than even the Repulican’s VP pick? That is the real question.

Quinn’s piece is a disgraceful attempt to smear Gov. Palin. Quinn is making an ill disguised reach across the aisle to evangelicals to telling them that they should just follow their misogynist instincts. And it is an explicit warning to Hillary backers not to vote for McCain-Palin. While Gov. Palin may share their plumbing, she is obviously not of their cut. The snobbery and identity politics emanating from Ms. Quinn’s keyboard is palpable.

As I wrote in Palindemonium, the left will just be unable to stop themselves from smearing Gov. Palin because of what she represents – a woman who does not accept victim status and who has made it on her own. That is so antithetical to the left’s belief system and their identity politics that Gov. Palin’s mere presence on the ticket has opened up the gates that held back the sewer water. Ms. Quinn's piece just happens to be one of the first bits of excreta that has floated out. But if America starts to like this most amazing woman, Gov. Palin, and finds her competent, their revulsion at the tactics employed by people such as Ms. Quinn will be reflected in November - and hopefully in the bottom line of Ms. Quinn's MSM employers.

Read More...

Summary only...

Palindemonium

Naming Gov. Sarah Palin as the V.P. pick was a masterstroke by McCain. It has energized his base and opened up a multi-level trap for the left that they are powerless to avoid. Her resume is sufficiently thin that the left cannot resist attacking her on grounds of experience – drawing a very unfavorable comparison to Obama who has based his candidacy on the propositoin that experience doesn't matter. Two, character assassination and misogynistic attacks just are not going to work against this woman. In fact, it will very likely backfire. But precisely because of who she is and what she represents, the left is just powerless to stop themselves from going down that road.

A panic choice for VP? That is the first knock on Gov. Palin from the left in an effort to delegitimize her. But all indications are that Gov. Palin was anything but a panic pick. For one, at this point in the game, McCain is far ahead in the polls of where he could expect to be in historical terms. There was no reason to panic. But beyond that, it is coming out now that McCain had Gov. Palin at the top of his list for months because of her character and background. As the LA Times said today

It is easy to see why McCain was drawn to her; their political resumes have much in common. The 44-year-old Republican has sold herself as a political maverick willing to buck her party over principle, an ethics reformer who quit a lucrative job rather than play ball with the old boys' network and a pragmatist who will reach across the aisle to get her agenda enacted. Like McCain, she has at times been a black sheep in her own party. . . .

According to WaPo, McCain was taken by Palin from the first time he heard her speak in February at a Governor's Association meeting. He saw her as a "kindered spirit" from the start. As Newsweek calls her in a surprisingly flattering article, she is McCain's Mrs. Right.

And given her conservative credentials, she has energized the base like no other pick could have. Gov. Palin hits all the social conservative hot buttons, including that she is herself an evangelical. Add to that her strengths on the Second Amendment, her fiscal conservativism and her incredible political bravery in standing on ethics issues, and Evangelicals along with the rest of the base couldn't be more excited. Even Hillbilly Whitetrash, as committed against McCain as any conservative could be, is now going to be pulling the lever for the PALIN-McCain ticket. Donations to the McCain campaign have skyrocketed. McCain and Palin just drew record crowds – Obama numbers – to their campaign stop in Missouri.

The meme that Governor Palin was a panic pick – or even that she was an affirmative action pick – just cannot survive on the above facts. Clearly, her plumbing is secondary to her appeal to the base, regardless that said plumbing happens to likely be an asset in the current race.

And that, really, is why the far left just will not be able to help themselves in going after Gov. Palin with all sorts of ad hominem attacks doomed to backfire. Gov. Palin is a woman. As such, she is a victim and is expected to embrace her victimhood. But Gov. Palin doesn’t fit that bill. I dare say you are not likely to see tears coming from her during a campaign stop. You’ve seen the left attack others like her who have refused to embrace their victimhood. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell – all are classed as victims by the left but all failed to embrace their victimhood. Thus all have regularly been savaged by the far left. The far left can’t help themselves on this. (Update: The Daily Standard perfectly captures this is in the NOW reaction to Gov. Palin. She may be a woman, but she is not acting the victim and thus is to be fought against and denigrated)

Outside of an election, it does not matter so much. But in this case, the nation is watching and waiting to pull the levers in a referendum in November.

Thus you have most on the left doing all they can to denigrate Palin. Andrea Mitchell, appearing on NBC the other day, called Palin "Annie Oakley" and said that she would only appeal to the undeducated among Hillary voters. Then there are the attacks on Palin for her competence as a mother. This bizarre argument is predicated on her decision to fly back to Alaska to give birth after her water broke.

The Kos kids have been pushing the rather incredible rumor that Gov. Palin's son Trig, her four month old child with Downs Syndrome, is actually her grandson. That one goes beyond bizarre. Rightwing Nuthouse addresses this one in some detail, and Ann Althouse comments today

Stop prying into other people's vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?" The insane obsession with Sarah Palin's pregnancy rages on. This will all go down in the annals of feminism, people. So think before you write. Andrew? [AND.]

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Protein Wisdom has an entire round-up of all the ad hominem attacks on Palin. They run the gambit from incredible snobbery to charges of witchcraft and labels of trailer trash. And there is the half true but completely false rumor that Palin is a convicted felon. Ben Smith has the whole story on that one. At any rate, the floodgates have been opened. The far left are powerless. And if the other 90% of America – those not in the MSM, not members of Kos, or not drawing Soros paychecks – end up liking this incredible woman, then the blowback will be severe.

But that is just one level of the trap posed by Gov. Palin. While I would argue her experience is sufficient to be named Vice President, there is room there for argument. But there is a rule of thumb – you don’t attack an enemy - even a potentially weak one - when you’re weaker than they are. That just has not dawned on the left yet. They see weakness and they are going to go for the kill – not realizing that crossing that field is as suicidal as Pickett’s charge.

But charge they will – and thus the argument that Gov. Palin is too inexperienced to be VP is now front and center. You have to love all the irony in this question put to Obama in a 60 Minutes interview Sunday:

Does the fact that he chose as his Vice President someone who has less experience than you take that weapon out of his arsenal?

Wow. Think of just how that question is going to play when it is asked everyday between now and November. Pushing the inexperience meme against Palin in relation to Obama is a minefield of titanic proportions for the left. As McCain has noted, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden together, and she was serving in elected office when Obama was "still a community organizer." But far more importantly, that is an apples to oranges comparison. The real comparison is McCain to Obama. Obama has gotten this far on the argument that experience does not matter. If all of a sudden it does matter, Obama’s huge problems just grew exponentially.

The one thing I’ve been moderately concerned about is the ethics complaint made against Gov. Palin by a man she fired for cause, former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. I could not see McCain tapping Palin for V.P. without thoroughly investigating this and satisfying himself that this a charge with no validity. That said, I've been waiting for someone to explain the whole story. Joshuapundit has performed that service for us. You can read about it as his site, but it appears that, while there are a lot of moving parts to the story, none of them splash mud onto Gov. Palin.

All of this said, Gov. Palin is going to sink or swim over the next two months. She has her work cut out for her because, given that few really know her and given the short decision time, she has precious little room for mistakes. She needs to live up to her resume and she needs to show enough grasp of the issues to make people comfortable with her. That is very much borne out by a Frank Lunze focus group you can find at Hot Air. Probably never before has so much ridden on two months of campaigning and one VP debate.

But it does now. For the next two months, its going to be pure Palindemonium.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 4 August 2008

I am making an effort to provide a short daily link to some of the blogs around the web that hold my interest. Some of the linkfests will be themed – the anglosphere, milbloggers, jihad, psych and crime, history and culture. The rest will be just a review of some good blogs that I unfortunately only get a chance to hit about once every ten days. So, at any rate, here is today’s general linkfest.
__________________________________________________________

Art: The Lady of Shalott, John Waterhouse, circa 1900

In the Mel Brooks movie, Blazing Saddles, there is a hilarious scene where the black Sheriff, played perfectly by Cleavon Little, draws in a couple of hooded clansmen by jumping from behind a rock and asking them "Where ‘de white women at?" Baseball Crank has a similarly themed – and satirical - post in his Racist Campaign Ad Watch.

At American Digest, it’s Obama Panties and the Adoration of the Magi.

Blonde Sagacity, who just runs a great blog up in Philly, is having a caption contest for the following photo:


My own caption – ". . . and I hope that I can count on both your votes in November."

Simply Jews responds with appropriate sarcasm to a question in the Guardian from a British Parlimentarian, to wit: "Are the Israelis who demand an attack on Iran, which - repulsive though its government undoubtedly is - has never invaded another country and possesses no nuclear weapons, the same Israelis who have launched successive invasions of Lebanon, with much slaughter and huge damage, and possess 200 nuclear warheads?

Dave Freddoso’s book, The Case Against Barack Obama, has just been released. More on it here.

At Betsy’s Page, a very good post on Obama and his "rather condescending attitude towards average Americans. They're always getting fooled by some nefarious "they" who causes them to do or think things against their best interests." And at Blue Crab Boulevard, its Obama’s ego out of control.

A brilliant post from Confederate Yankee commenting upon the Pelosi interview that I blogged on here: "But then, Pelosi isn't trying to save the planet, she's trying to drive up prices. She and other liberal democrats are hoping to force us to concede to their desire for funding more R&D into alternative energy sources that do not yet exist. In effect, she wants us to put a substantial amount of our eggs in a basket that hasn't been built yet, and starve for years to come while it is being constructed, and hope that it works. And they say Democrats don't support faith-based initiatives."

In a similar vein of religion and oil, the Glittering Eye speaks to Obama about the idiocy of tapping the strategic petroleum reserves, urging him to "avoid the snares of the Demon Rum, Demagoguery! Put down that bottle! Get thee behind me, Satan!"

Stop the ACLU blogs on Obama’s "tire gauge" energy policy: "Barry is suggesting that properly inflated tires will almost completely solve our automobile energy crisis. Now THAT is funny. The delusional "WTF are you talking about?" type. The kind of laugh you get when your bud knocks the cooler over into the pond, or barfs onto the floorboard of your classic Corvette."

Deleware Curmudgeon looks back to Nixon’s plan for energy independence and asks, what the hell happened?

At Discriminations, a jaundiced view of Obama as anything but a "post-racial" candidate.

Conservative Beach Girl makes the argument for an end to 44 years of reverse discrimination in affirmative action plans.

A real laugher at the Daily Kos – a video comparing Reagan to Obama, making the mindless argument that Reagan was an "inexperienced celebrity" who challenged a person – Jimmy Carter – with military experience. Just as a reminder, Reagan’s experience before becoming President was two terms as California governor and he had enlisted in the Army Reserves in 1937 but was prevented from overseas deployment in WWII because of his vision. That is a bit more experience than "The One."

At Vocal Minority, a post on how homelessness has declined under Bush and how the MSM is at pains to limit his credit.

Callimachus at Done With Mirrors runs a good post on the death of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. More on his passing from a personal acquaintance at the Brussels Journal. And Ron Coleman writes on how Solzhenitsyn impacted on him personally.

Colleen at Facing The Sharks waxes poetic on her pro se law suit.

At the Gay Patriot, Obama is living truth of Lincoln’s adage that you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Some very sage thoughts on guns and self defense from Rough Diamond.

At Grandpa John’s, a review of a handful of Americans in the 1930’s "who understood the evils of American culture and capitalism to follow their ideals of hope and change by emigrating to the Soviet Union during the depression." There’s that hope and change theme again.

Dutch Concerns has the latest Pat Condell video – topic, Islam is not a victim.

At Pirates, Man Your Women, the candidate for change changes his mind yet again, this time on the separation between church and state.

If your tastes run to the Libertarian, the Whited Sepulchre a list up of the top Libertarian sites and blogs.

Red Alerts asks whether Britain can survive multiculturalism? I do believe that the answer is no, with the only question being whether Britain will put an end to the socialist madness or whether it will end Britain.

Robert at Seraphic Secret has some advice for would-be writers. But apparently, I had best reverse my plans to send him my screen play for collaboration.

I am amazed and utterly disgusted at the tolerance that the West shows for what is occurring in Gaza, particularly as to how the cult of death and hatred is being taught to children. It is fundamentally intolerable. Yet it passes by without condemnation. Soccer Dad has the story of Hamas summer camp.

One of the themes you will see discussed at my blog is the failure of our government to be forthcoming with our nation as to what exactly it is we are fighting in the "War On Terror." Faultline has their own take on that issue this week. I do not agree with the conclusion, because what we are at war with are some very specific strains of Islam, but the post itself is very thoughtful.

Political Insecurity has the latest video on the new First Lady of France. In support of international relations, I highly recommend it.

A sage question from Soob: Was George Orwell writing fiction or phrophecy?

At the American Jingoist, a very good post on the Axis of Idiots.

Villagers With Torches is one of the most intelligent blogs on the net. The most recent post looks at Pakistan’s snakepit of an intelligence service, the ISI, and our alternatives in dealing with Pakistan.

Woman Honor Thyself has a very good tribute to two of our fallen, Army Spec. Alex Jimenez and Pvt. Byron Fouty. Do visit this one.

The Common Room posts a list of books read in July along with short blurbs on each. It is an interesting mix.

Read More...

Summary only...

Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 21 April 2008

The interesting posts from around the web, all below the fold:

Art: The Martyrdom of St. Maurice, El Greco, 1581

Stanley Kurtz is on the trail of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons. "[T]he texts already uncovered raise serious questions about what Barack Obama heard, what he thought of it, and why he remained so close to Reverend Wright." Confederate Yankee paraphrases another bigoted Obama supporter asking "Hey Cracker, who do you hate most?" From the Truth, in Oregon, a twist on the few weeks old story of the locals taking classes in "how to talk to black people."

Q&O asks a prescient question, do you want a third term of George Bush or a second term of Jimmy Carter?

Seraphic Secret blogs that Hamas is "all out for Obama." Stop the ACLU looks at how CNN is trying to spin the Hamas endorsement of Obama into a negative story about McCain. As Redstate notes, CNN is having a real problem with agenda journalism.

From Jammie Wearing Fools, the number of Palestinians who support attacks against Israelis continues to rise and more than half of them favor suicide bombings, according to a poll published this weekend. The Midnight Sun has a post on the utter barbarity of Taliban supporters. The Velevet Hammer has a video on "Islam, why they hate." At Dinah Lord, video of a woman’s rights activist in Bahrain criticizing clerics for issuing fatwas that support the sexual abuse of children. And Sheik Yer’mami has an exceptional post on London’s Mayoral election and the march towards a British mini-caliphate. The Fulham Reactionary believes that whomever wins the London election, the Brits will lose.

Villagers with Torches finds some disturbing news. China is in the process of vastly increasing its stockpile of nuclear warheads. From Barking Moonbat, a massive Chinese arms shipment headed for Zimbawbwe cannot offload in South Africa, so it heads towards Mozambique.

From MK, blogging on the death penalty, recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year.

Heh: From American Digest, see if you can spot the second person in this photo. I admit it took me awhile . . . .

At Five Feet of Fury, Ezra Levant discusses the incredible extra-judicial powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Omar Fadhil analyzes al Qaeda’s desperate attempts to regain ground in Iraq. They have turned from exhortation to threats and their actions are not likely to make any headway, though much blood is likely yet to be spilled. At 4RightWingWackos, an apache eye view of the last moments of some al Qaeda types. And from Consul at Arms, al Qaeda’s desperation translates into attempting to cause indiscriminate casualties on a grand scale.

A look at TIZA, the Islamic school, funded by Minnesota taxpayers, from Blonde Sagacity, reporting from the bitter hinterlands. While in London, the Saudi school acts as if it is not a part of Britain. From Political Insecurity, the local Saudi school is teaching their kids "we are pigs and monkeys."

From Ankle Biting Pundits, the intersection of greedy unions and populist politicians.

From This Ain’t Hell, attempts by a Wahhabi organization in America to have John McCain stop making the connection between Islam and terrorism – like his Democratic opponents have.

Debbie at Right Truth discusses Time’s desecration of an American icon – the raising of the flag after the incredibly brutal battle to take Iwo Jima.

From the Jawa Report, give a British CNN reporter enough rope, and apparently he will hang himself.

The frozen north, where men are men and the sheep are scared. (H/T Transterrestrial Musings)

A great weekend roundup of world news from milblogger The Shield of Achilles. And Soob has an equally good post, rolling up his own "suggested wisdom."

From KG at Crusader Rabbit a Goracle acolytes lament. "Anti-greens . . . appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed." At Red Alerts, survivalists are closely watching the world food crisis being created by green policies. And at Englishman’s Castle, pondering Britain’s own "environmental madness" and its effect on the local environment.

A short and poignant post on Patriot’s Day at the Irish Elk.

I completely concur with Discriminations in their post on affirmative action and how to combat discrimination.

TNOY has an exclusive on Keith Olbermann’s interview with former President Carter about his multiple meetings with "with some moderate Arab groups including the leadership of Hamas."

Scott Ott reports on his conversation with an Obama spokesman who told him that they viewed Hamas’s decision to endorse Obama as "tantamount to picking up a superdelegate vote. But with Hamas, Sen. Obama didn’t have to compromise his principles or positions, or make any commitments beyond what he has already promised."

The Deleware Curumdgeon observes that the phrase "do whatever you want" should not always be taken literally.

On Sunday, the NYT published a massive piece of pseudo-investigative journalism suggesting that the Pentagon was unduly influencing military analysts. Having spent two hours of my life dissecting it, I came to find others, including Max Boot and Bruce Kessler, had already done it more expertly. Powerline, for their part, says that it reminds them of the "illegal acts of genuine subversion committed by the Times in the course of the war.’ Dave in Boca has taken stock of the NYT's agenda journalism and there stock prices. He is taking enjoyment in watching the Sulzberger family jewels ever shrink.

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama Takes A Nose Dive In Philly

Finally, at a debate, Obama gets asked some difficult questions - though with minimal follow-up - and he stumbles badly. He was on the defensive most of the night and not only was his performance weak, but some of his answers will very likely come back to haunt him.

__________________________________________________________

The far left is screaming this morn that the questions asked of Obama in last night’s debate were grossly unfair. You can find the high decibel round-up at Instapundit. They absolutely do not want a spotlight shown on Obama’s history from which we can infer the measure of the man. To ABC’s credit, they did ask questions about some of the major issues surrounding Obama’s character. That said, they did so without the follow-up questions to Obama’s facile attempts to sweep them away. Nonetheless, Obama looked bad and on the defensive throughout the night.

The lowest of the low points for Obama during last night’s debate came on the issues of “bittergate” and gun rights. Almost right out of the gate, Charles Gibson asked Obama about bittergate:

[You said] small town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years. And you said they get bitter and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them. . . . Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

Obama seems to have really fumbled his answer. He claims he misspoke, but then went on to say:

. . . when people [are] like promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change and it doesn't, then, politically, they end up focusing on those things that are constant like religion. They end up feeling this is a place where I can find some refuge. This is something I can count on. They end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns, where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them. And, yes, what is also true is that wedge issues, hot-button issues, end up taking prominence in our politics.

Didn’t he just repeat the bittergate remarks, substituting the word “focusing” for the word cling? That is certainly what it seems to me. Just as it seems that he is saying is that its economic concerns that drive concerns about Second Amendment rights and moral issues. So if we only had enough money in our pockets, we would be unconcerned with such things as efforts to restrict gun ownership and moral issues such as gay marriage, abortion and the role religion should play in society. Its pretty clear Obama said exactly what he meant in the “bittergate” remarks to San Francisco’s elite left.

Then on gun rights issues, Obama sidestepped a question about where he stood on the highly restrictive D.C. gun laws, stating that he had not read the legal briefs before the Supreme Court. How that keeps him from forming his own opinion on the matter is beyond me – and his refusal to answer this question appeared very weak. Indeed, he has sponsored incredibly restrictive gun legislation while in the Illinois State Senate (see here), though Gibson did not ask him about that legislation.

Obama did give an answer that could have real long-term problems for him. He stated that he had “never favored a total ban on hand-guns.” Asked about a 1996 survey filled out by his campaign that clearly stated the opposite, Obama disclaimed any knowledge of the survey in the debate, stating “No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire . . .” I blogged in detail about this questionnaire here. Obama was quizzed on the questionnaire the day after his campaign submitted it. The day after that, he submitted an amended questionnaire with both the answer about a ban on hand guns unedited and with what, until yesterday, his campaign acknowledged were Obama's own handwritten comments in the margins. This is not the last we have heard of this issue, by any means.

On his association with Rev. Wright, Obama claimed that he had already fully addressed this issue and again trotted out the frankly unbelievable assertion that he never heard Rev. Wright’s racist screed throughout his entire twenty year attendance at the church. The truth is we have yet to hear a Rev. Wright sermon that is not racist. I am waiting for someone to request copies of the Rev. Wright’s sermons over the past twenty years – and to ask Obama whether he will demand Rev. Wright make them available. And Gibson did not ask Obama about his reference to “white greed” in his book Audacity of Hope – an inclusion that clearly shows Obama not only heard such vile screed over his twenty year association, but that he adopted it. Be that as it may, Clinton had the right take on this:

I think in addition to the questions about Reverend Wright and what he said and when he said it, and for whatever reason he might have said these things, there were so many different variations on the explanations that we heard.

And it is something that I think deserves further exploration because clearly, what we've got to figure out is how we're going to bring people together in a way that overcomes the anger, overcomes the divisiveness and whatever bitterness there may be out there. You know?

It is clear that, as leaders, we have a choice who we associate with and who we apparently give some kind of seal of approval to. And I think that it wasn't only the specific remarks but some of the relationships with Reverend Farrakhan, with giving the church bulletin over to the leader of Hamas, to put a message in.
You know, these are problems. And they raise questions in people's minds. And, so, this is a legitimate area, as everything is, when we run for office, for people to be exploring and trying to find answers.

And on his long association with the unrepentent terrorist bomber William Ayers, Obama had the audacity to liken Ayers to conservative Senator Tom Colburn, a man who is virulently anti-abortion but who has certainly never advocated violence against the pro-abortion crowd, let alone carried out such an act. Gateway Pundit has more on this.

Both Obama and Clinton were allowed to repeat their ‘out of Iraq now' canard to softball questioning. Both said they would ignore the advice of Petraeus and Crocker, but neither were questioned on the explicit premise articulated by Petraeus and Crocker that such a precipitous drawdown would be a disaster that would open Iraq to being dominated by Iran and reinfiltrated by al Qaeda.

On the issue of a nuclear armed Iran, when asked whether the U.S. should put Israel under its umbrella of nuclear protection, while Clinton answered forcefully, Obama danced around the answer, never answering with a clear “yes.”

Obama was asked about his plans to nearly double the capital gains tax rate. When he was told that each time the capital gains tax rate has been cut, it has brought in more revenue, Obama responded by justifying his sophmoric class warfare on the grounds of “fairness.”

Obama continues to favor affirmative action and considerations of race in college admissions to overcome “current discrimination.” I was floored by that. The group most being discriminated against in college admissions today, according to the most recent surveys, are white male gentiles. How Obama’s support for affirmative action in regards to that reality portends to unite America across the vast racial divide we hear exists from the far left and from race baiters such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton – and you can add Rev. Wright to the list – is an issue that Obama needs to explain in detail.

You can find the entire debate transcript here. This was not only a poor performance by Obama, it is likely one that will - and very much should - resurface often between now and November. The more I see of Obama, the less I trust this man's judgment to hold any elected office.

Read More...

Summary only...