Last month, an interesting "Letter to the Editor" was printed here in the main Richmond newspaper (the Times-Dispatch). The writer had a unique perspective, and a warning to all those who are voting for change this year just for the sake of change.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
The author finally escaped Cuba and the promised "change" in 1968, and his letter is brief but extremely powerful and quite relevant. Read the whole thing here (skip down to the heading, "Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'").
More and more people – including left-leaning libs like the leaders of La Raza and the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle – seem to be grumbling about Sen. Obama's willingness to talk to the people of this great nation:
Presidential candidate Barack Obama addressed the nation's largest Latino civil rights group here Sunday, but the appearance before the National Council of La Raza raised questions about whether the Democrat - who declined a town hall appearance here with GOP rival John McCain - is too shielded from off-the-cuff grilling from voters and the press.
Obama told [La Raza] he is "not taking a single Latino vote for granted," adding, "I know how powerful this community is - and by the way, so does John McCain."
But in making the La Raza appearance, Obama rejected McCain's challenge for a joint town hall appearance before the organization, which gathered 15,000 people in San Diego this weekend - and represented the capstone of a week in which both candidates addressed Latino issues in several major venues across the country.
Obama delivered his 30-minute remarks Sunday without accepting questions from the audience, or later from the state and local media - a contrast with the Arizona senator, who has generally held a town hall meeting weekly as part of his campaign events, and whose "Straight Talk Express" bus rides with reporters have been a hallmark of his campaign.
McCain will address the La Raza group today and has scheduled a town hall session for the public Tuesday in Albuquerque, expected to draw a largely Latino audience.
Apparently, this is the closest Obama came to mixing and meeting with actual voters during his San Diego stay:
Of course, this is not the first "town hall" question and answer opportunity that Obama has refused, nor I am sure will it be his last. As radio host Laura Ingraham reported in her latest daily e-blast, Obama has as yet refused to take part in a similar town hall meeting and debate with McCain in front of the military servicemen he hopes to soon lead (or abandon, as the case may be):
POTENTIAL COMMANDER-"OF"-CHIEF AVOIDS MILITARY: We'd like to know what incredibly important event Barack Obama has scheduled on August 11 that prevents him from participating in a debate at Texas' Fort Hood. The townhall event, sponsored by an array of military support groups, hopes to offer the 6,000-strong audience (predominantly veterans and military families) an opportunity to directly question their next commander-in-chief. John McCain is ready and willing, but so far the Obama just can't find an opening. We wonder what scares him most -- a face-to-face matchup with McCain, potential heckles, or simply not being in front of his customary mass gathering of zombies. Whatever the explanation, Obama looks weak in front an audience that needs to respect him as their commander. Not a good start.
I wonder if the San Francisco Chronicle will push the good senator on this missed opportunity as well...
I have been asked quite often in the last year by friends, co-workers and even family members how I can reconcile not supporting the first black man to have a legitimate chance of becoming president of the United States. I always answer that I do not vote for the color of a person's skin, or their hair color, gender, height, weight or other physical attributes. I try instead to always vote for the candidate who most closely resembles and represents my own beliefs, morals and politics, and who I believe will best represent, protect and lead our great nation. Barack Obama does not fit anywhere in that definition.
But I must say, I like the answer put forth recently by Ms. Barbra Howard, the Florida state chair for Congress of Racial Equality, and another strong black conservative Republican:
"Therefore, when [Sen. Barack Obama] says he wants to tax the windfall profits of the 'evil' oil companies, I do the math and see that instead of hurting them, it will ultimately be the consumers who will end up paying the price. And when he talks about bringing Republicans and Democrats together for the good of the country, I look at the fact that he is the most liberal of Democrats with no evidence of being bipartisan. But when he promises to make America the leader of the free world like it 'used to be,' I can't help but look at his friends who don't even like America -- like domestic terrorists Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers, who were sorry they didn't bomb enough buildings on American soil. He opposes vouchers, which comprise one of the single most effective strategies that helped low income black mothers provide the same quality education for their children as middle class mothers do. He said Iran and Venezuela were 'little countries' that didn't pose a threat to America. It is of no consequence to him that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promotes 'Death to America' or that his friend, Venezuelan dictator President Hugo Chavez, stood in Harlem ranting against President Bush, calling him 'El Diablo.' Funny you can't go to Venezuela and call Chavez anything but El Presidente and not disappear. But let's not let facts get in the way of our euphoric, hypnotic trance. We must bask in the glory that only 40 years ago, Democrats were beating blacks who just wanted to vote. If Obama wins, we can pop the champagne, and when our taxes go up, we can just blame Bush again and pay the piper."
It has been a rather topsy-turvy week for the two (viable) remaining presidential candidates. First, the John McCain camp seemingly spit in the eyes of Christian conservatives in their total disinterest and somewhat brusque refusal to meet with the ailing evangelist Rev. Billy Graham (and then apparently tried to cover their tracks with what appears to be, at best, half-truths).
Then today a rather outspoken Democratic Congressman came out against his party's candidate for being too liberal:
Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.
And as for Obama's promises to forge a less partisan Washington?
Boren ... said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."
Record? Who needs to look at his record? This is the Black Messiah we're talking about!
I took some time off work a couple of weeks ago to, among other things, help move Darrell back home from the dorm. (Man, it is good to have that young man back home, if only for the summer.)
Today I finally got around to catching up on all the non-critical (i.e., non-work-related) email from that week, and I came across this jewel from the McCain campaign:
Our Party needs to pull together, and we need to do it now.
Never in memory have the Democrats, liberal special interests groups, labor unions and unregulated "527" soft-money groups come together with so much money and so much determination toward one purpose: Defeating Republicans.
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it somewhat ironic that the man who helped empower these 527 groups (via the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002) is now complaining that the Democrats are using it against him?
To make this plea for money even more interesting, clicking on any of the numerous "Donate Now!" links in the email takes you to this web site, which begins:
Grassroots Republicans like you will play a crucial role in the 2008 presidential election. Our Party leaders and candidates are counting on your active support of Victory 2008 to make sure our Party has the resources to reach out to voters and promote our positive, conservative agenda.
Although I don't always agree with former Congressman Tom DeLay, he points out quite effectively that Senator McCain's agenda is not necessarily known for being all that conservative:
Vice President Dick Cheney did a whirlwind tour through Richmond last week, flying in to stump (and raise a little money) for John McCain and heading back out again in a matter of hours. His speech reportedly focused on the traditional Republican issues of national security, lower taxes and limiting government.
One might wish he had stuck to those talking points at the National Press Club yesterday, where an ill-advised joke about West Virginian inbreeding turned into a media firestorm. The quote? "So I had Cheneys on both sides of the family -- and we don't even live in West Virginia." I've heard worse in almost every Aggie joke that has been thrown my way in the past thirty years.
Yes, the comment was in poor taste, especially coming from a sitting vice president. And sure, you would expect West Virginians to be grumbling about it, and even to hear the requisite wailing and gnashing of teeth from their representatives in Washington.
But nothing could have prepared me for this ironic response from West Virginia's own pride and joy, Senator Robert Byrd:
"That a man who has ascended to the seat of vice president of the United States would openly display such contempt and astounding ignorance toward his own countrymen is an insult to all Americans," Byrd says in a statement.
This, coming from a one-time Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan? And considering the Democratic Party's years of exploitation of the black voters who have unexplainably continued to support them, Byrd's next statement is even more incongruous:
"This pitiful comment is not entirely surprising when you consider the source," Byrd adds. "Vice President Cheney's words reflect the attitude of an administration and a party that says what they must to get elected and then turns their backs on those they promised to represent."
In a speech in Philadelphia today, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, compared herself to Philly icon Rocky Balboa.
"Well, could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten half way up those Art Museum steps and said, 'Well, I guess that’s about far enough?'" Clinton asked.
"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common," she [told] the Pennsylvania A.F.L.-C.I.O. audience.
I can actually say that for once, I agree with Hillary Clinton. At first glance, they do have a lot in common.
Hillary Clinton is so obviously Apollo Creed, not Rocky Balboa. It was Creed who had it all, let himself grow deluded with entitlement, surrounded himself with an entourage of yes-men who never thought for even a second that their fighter might actually have to fight.
Ouch!
And, as ABC gently reminds the good Senator from New York...
Um….Senator? Rocky lost.
It was a split decision, but the judges (superdelegates?) awarded the fight to Rocky's black opponent, Apollo Creed.
Meanwhile, Rocky's lovely sidekick Adrian sits forlorn at the ringside, anxious and distraught over the beating her lover is taking.
Hmmm. Perhaps that analogy can only play so far...
