Obama's Issues

Ben Shapiro posts this article at townhall.com. He pretty succinctly states part of the reasoning why I would never vote for Obama.

The political embodiment of that post-modernism -- that nihilistic resignation -- is the modern Democratic Party. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democrats' bright new star, is no more capable of global leadership than Jacques Chirac. Obama's politics of "understanding" dictates that evil cannot be fought -- it must be placated with psychobabble.

In his new forward to "Dreams From My Father," Obama writes, "I know, I have seen, the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi how easily they slip into violence and despair. I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder -- alternating as it does between a dull complacency and, when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines, a stead unthinking application of force, of more sophisticated military hardware -- is inadequate to the task." This sounds like boilerplate rhetoric. It is not. It is the theory of appeasement, stated clearly and succinctly.

Obama's adolescent insistence that everything can be talked out is matched in its idiocy only by his adolescent scorn for military sacrifice in general. In a speech in Iowa on February 11, Obama stated, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged -- and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Wasted. This is the language of MoveOn.org, the language of Democratic Underground, the language of the 1960s radicals Obama claims to deplore.

This was no isolated incident. It reflects what Obama believes. After Obama sponsored legislation mandating a full troop withdrawal from Iraq by March 2008, Australian Prime Minister John Howard lashed out. Al Qaeda, Howard said, would be "praying as many times as possible" for Obama's election in 2008. Obama's response was breathtakingly ignorant and immature: If Howard is "ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq," spat Obama, "I would suggest that he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."

The Howard argument is also humorous. Wretchard did a little number crunching and decided the Obama really needs a clue.

First the facts. In 2006, the population of Australia was estimated to be about 20.26 million people, according to the CIA factbook; the population of the US was calculated at 298.44 million. There are therefore approximately 298.44/20.26=14.77 more Americans than there are Australians. On a per capita basis, Australia has the equivalent of 1,400x14.77=20,670 troops currently in Iraq -- not inconsiderable, but fewer than America on a that basis. But Mr. Obama's request to send another 20,000 Australian troops would be run the calculation the other way -- the equivalent of asking John Howard to send 295,400 in per capita terms. The correct matching per capita contribution would be about another 1,400 for Australia to send "another 20,000 Australians".

Obama is still to ephemeral a character for me, and unfortunately, I think he's more sound than substance. But, as JFK proved, the US public likes a good looking President more than they like one with ability.