The Obama Policy Challenge

It is very possible that the current economic crisis will lead to Barack Obama winning the presidency. Ironically, Obama's policies, if enacted, will further damage the economy. When I ask Obama supporters why they think he is the best candidate to lead our country, I invariably hear that Obama has superior judgment, is thoughtful, and is eloquent. But here is the problem. Whenever I ask for an example of Obama’s superior judgment other than the fact he opposed the Iraq war from the safe confines of the Illinois statehouse I draw a blank.

Likewise, it is hard to get specifics from supporters on actual policy proposals that they think are better than McCain's. Or they'll say something like, "Obama will provide health care to every American". Well, McCain's plan will too. Can they tell me why Obama's heath care plan is superior to McCain's in any factual sense? They cannot.

To take the Obama Policy Challenge you have to come up with several Obama policies that are materially different from McCain’s position on the same subject. For example, both Obama and McCain agree that we need a few more troops in Afghanistan. Both agree we need to concentrate our efforts on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. Both agree that torture is unacceptable. Both agree (finally) that the surge “succeeded beyond our wildest expectations”. They both support the wiretapping FISA program. Both support campaign finance reform (as soon as Obama is done with his campaign). In fact, I think Obama hurt himself in the first debate by starting off many of his rebuttals by agreeing with McCain on many of the issues.

Speaking of judgement, Governor Palin is making a strong case on the campaign trail that Obama’s long relationship with Bill Ayers is a problem. It is interesting that the 5 years Obama spent on Ayres’ board, which is really the only executive experience he has, is the one period Obama will not talk about. Ayers’ Annenberg Challenge raised and distributed money to leftist groups with the goal of supporting Ayers’ educational philosophy – the radicalization of young students. Obama was in charge of distributing the money each year to groups like Acorn in order to turn school children in to little Bill Ayres. This is the man who would be president.

The explanations from the Obama campaign regarding the Ayres relationship have been a dog’s breakfast of shifting spin. Bill Ayers was “just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood”. When Obama met Ayers he was a respectable professor – Obama did not know about his radical background as a terrorist. Obama was only 8 when Ayers was bombing the Pentagon (I have no idea why this excuses Ayers’ actions and makes it OK to be his pal). At one point Obama’s campaign manager said their kids went to the same school. That may be the best one, as Ayers’ kids are 20 years older than Obama’s. I think it was just last year when a Chicago magazine featured Bill Ayers and published a picture of him proudly grinding an American flag into the ground in a back alley.

The Obama campaign believes the Ayers issue is damaging, because they have counterattacked hard by misrepresenting McCain’s days with the “Keating 5”. McCain did show some bad judgment getting anywhere near this guy, and was investigated by the Democrat-led Senate. But he was cleared 100%. In addition, the attorney hired by the Democrats to investigate McCain said that the senator was the most squeaky clean politician he’d ever seen. In a battle of associations, Keating is of course a legitimate topic, but only if you don’t lie about it.

I frankly don’t understand why the McCain campaign is so reluctant to make a big issue out of the other ghosts of Obama’s past. He sat in the church pew of America hater and racist Reverend Wright for 20 years, but claims to have never heard anything divisive. I get the sense that McCain thinks Wright is off-limits because of the racial overtones of attacking him. But since the only black votes McCain will probably get are Thomas Sowell and Condi Rice I’m not sure why that matters.

Obama’s mentor getting started in the Illinois senate was state legislator Alice Palmer, who prior to the fall of the Soviet Union travelled frequently to communist party meetings there. She was a vocal proponent that everything the Soviet Union was did was good and everything the U.S. did was bad (sound familiar?). I haven’t heard a peep out of the McCain campaign about her.

I think that if the great uninformed majority who are going to vote for Obama might be given pause if they truly knew how comfortable he is with these radical America haters – and how he sought them out as mentors and advocates for his political gain. What if the reciprocal was true and McCain had maintained a 20 year relationship with a white supremacist, distributed millions of dollars to radical fascist activist groups, and been pals with someone who had bombed abortion clinics and black churches back in the day and said he “didn’t do enough” and was “unrepentant”, all along claiming to usher in post-partisan politics? McCain wouldn’t even be able to run for county commissioner. Can anyone explain perhaps the most extreme double standard in the history of politics in our country? Please post a response and let me know. It truly eludes me.

Remember, to play the Obama Policy Challenge you have to be able to come up with several examples of Obama’s superior judgment, and several policy proposals that are materially different from McCain that you agree with. I’d really like to know. You can’t claim superior judgment without evidence of such, and thoughtfulness without policy as a lone credential for the presidency is insufficient.