One of the frustrations of trying to communicate ideas in the highly charged atmosphere of this years election is that neither side even sees the existence of the other side of the argument.  It is actually a good thing that the two major political parties are fielding candidates who represent very different points of view.  But that does sort of require that both sides recognize that there are two points of view.  Otherwise, the discussion runs on emotion and a liberal and I could (to quote the song from The Music Man) stand touching noses for a week at a time and never see eye to eye. 

For the record, I see the talents of Barack Obama.  I see the rhetorical skills, the lawyer's analysis, the disciplined mind and the excellent campaign decisions.  I also see some flaws in the elitist ivy league education, the radical and racially charged community activism and a collection of associates, mentors and partners that are troubling even for a Chicago politician.  The other side cries "Foul" at this point in the dialog, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the facts that Senator Obama is who he is because of who he was.  And the foundations of his life are visible in his grandmother, his college friends, his associations in Chicago and his political party currently in power.  It has been my position in these pages that these influential forces in the life of the candidate can be explained to my satisfaction - but they cannot be denied.  And his attempts to deny them has given rise to a concern that is much darker and sinister than would have existed in an environment of openness and explanation which was available to the candidate if he had been honest and forthcoming with me and millions of my closest friends.

So the ads keep running, and the allegations keep being shouted back and forth across the aisle.  Regardless of which sides wins now, we are all more like losers because the process has been damaged.  Senator Obama will have spent more than a billion dollars to buy this election.  This is unprecedented in our history and will fuel many discussions in the near future to try to limit expenditures -which is counter productive and decidedly unAmerican.  But there are questions as to the legality of some contributions and the identity of Mr Obama's supporters.  The candidate has chosen to ignore these questions, further damaging himself and the process. 

And finally, the watchdog of our society and our election process - a free press with investigative teeth has given Senator Obama big juicey kiss on the mouth and a major league pass on all questions of history, ethics, substance and associations.  The free press with investigative resources and commentators to provide a critical and rational look at each of the candidates has turned a blind eye on all questions Obama.  Such is the power of social and political agenda - and we will never be the same again.  The process is fractured.

So before we get to the point of discussing the differences in core beliefs and opinions that exist between a voter on the right and a candidate on the left, we have a disconnect caused by distrust for the candidates unexplained past and the abdication of the the press from their necessary duty to investigate and fairly present these issues so that an informed electorate could make an intelligent decision. 

In coming articles in these pages this week, I will discuss the policy positions which I believe to be held by Mr Obama that I hope will be carefully considered by people of both political stripes and some of the issues of the current President which are having such an affect on the current race.  This race is unique in a hundred years as no member of the current administration is a candidate for office but the policies, achievements and shortcomings of the present executive team weigh heavily on the current race.  More to come this week - but today I would feature an article by Thomas Sowell, writing for Townhall.com, who captures many of my points in his normal rational concise fashion.

My source: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/10/27/obama_and_the_left?page=full&comments=true

Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama and "The Left"
by Thomas Sowell

 

Although Senator Barack Obama has been allied with a succession of far left individuals over the years, that is only half the story. There are, after all, some honest and decent people on the left. But these have not been the ones that Obama has been allied with-- allied, not merely "associated" with.

ACORN is not just an organization on the left. In addition to the voter frauds that ACORN has been involved in over the years, it is an organization with a history of thuggery, including going to bankers' homes to harass them and their families, in order to force banks to lend to people with low credit ratings.

Nor was Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN just a matter of once being their attorney long ago. More recently, he has directed hundreds of thousands of dollars their way. Money talks-- and what it says is more important than a politician's rhetoric in an election year.

Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are not just people with left-wing opinions. They are reckless demagogues preaching hatred of the lowest sort-- and both are recipients of money from Obama.

Bill Ayers is not just "an education professor" who has some left-wing views. He is a confessed and unrepentant terrorist, who more recently has put his message of resentment into the schools-- an effort using money from a foundation that Obama headed.

Nor has the help all been one way. During the last debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Senator McCain mentioned that Senator Obama's political campaign began in Bill Ayers' home. Obama immediately denied it and McCain had no real follow-up.

It was not this year's political campaign that Obama began in Bill Ayers' home but an earlier campaign for the Illinois state legislature. Barack Obama can match Bill Clinton in slickness at parsing words to evade accusations.

That is one way to get to the White House. But slickness with words is not going to help a president deal with either domestic economic crises or the looming dangers of a nuclear Iran.

People who think that talking points on this or that problem constitute "the real issues" that we should be talking about, instead of Obama's track record, ignore a very fundamental fact about representative government.

Representative government exists, in the first place, because we the voters cannot possibly have all the information necessary to make rational decisions on all the things that the government does. We cannot rule through polls or referendums. We must trust someone to represent us, especially as President of the United States.

Once we recognize this basic fact of representative government, then the question of how trustworthy a candidate is becomes a more urgent question than any of the so-called "real issues."

A candidate who spends two decades promoting polarization and then runs as a healer and uniter, rather than a divider, forfeits all trust by that fact alone.

If Ronald Reagan had attempted to run for President of the United States as a liberal, the media would have been all over him. His support for Barry Goldwater would have been in the headlines and in editorial denunciations across the country.

No way would he have been able to get away with using soothing words to suggest that he and Barry Goldwater were like ships that passed in the night.

If Barack Obama had run as what he has always been, rather than as what he has never been, then we could simply cast our votes based on whether or not we agree with what he has always stood for.

Some people take solace from the fact that Senator Obama has verbally shifted position on some issues, like drilling for oil or gun control, since this is supposed to show that he is "pragmatic" rather than ideological.

But political zig-zags show no such moderation as some seem to assume. Lenin zig-zagged and so did Hitler. Zig-zags may show no more than that someone is playing the public for fools.

Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well.