John David Powell: Don’t Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President

I just got a hold of this article. It is a gem that contains nuggets of wisdom that will go a long way to helping people see clearly what is happening in the politcal arena right now and what will happen in the years to come.

John David Powell takes a look at a couple of the issues we have been facing in this election and how the Obama campaign responded to them compared to how other campaigns responded in the past.

Let’s start with playing the race card:

[T]oday, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama. Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

I’ve even had some comments left on certain posts of this blog accusing me of racism despite the fact that the issue of race was never brought up in those postings. Just the fact that I am opposed to a socialist candidate was enough justification for commenters to bring out the race card and a braod-brushed, unsubstantiated charge. As Dustin Hoffman said in Hook: “Bad form.”

And we always seem to come back to domestic terrorist William Ayers:

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust. Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today. If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves. That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.

That is a dead-on-target shot that the Obama campaign cannot dodge. If Barack Obama cannot be held accountable for being a friend and business partner to a man who committed terrorist acts when Obama was 8 years old, then neither can white people in general be held accountable for something that occurred long before any of them were even born. To hold such a double standard seems to be standard for the Democrats though. They hold a low standard for themselves and high standard for everyone else.

But what is Obama hiding by not being completely forthcoming with his past? And what is he afraid will happen if his past is brought up and scrutinized by the MSM? He certainly can’t be afraid of losing the election. Powell looks at this too:

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president.

The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know. And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

Yes, we knew more about George Bush in 2000 than we know about Barack Obama in 2008. We also know more about John McCain than we know about Barack Obama because John McCain is not afraid of people looking into his past.

That’s trust.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Don’t Underestimate Race And Trust In Choosing A President
John David Powell
October 21, 2008


5 Responses

  1. What secrets do you think Obama might be hiding? And what has he done to make you think that he’s not being as forthcoming as any other candidate?

    After all, George W. Bush didn’t write a book about his own youthful indiscretions, as Obama did. Investigative journalists had to dig out his drunk driving and other follies.

    And I assume you know that Obama has been neither a friend nor a business partner to Ayers? They served on boards in the Chicago area together, along with other leading citizens (including Republicans).

    Now, I do sympathize with you for the accusations of racism you’ve drawn merely for criticizing Obama’s policies and record. That is, indeed, “bad form.”

    (I can assure you that if you’d told me that you thought Obama was a “socialist,” I wouldn’t have accused you of racism. I would, instead, have offered you a definition of socialism, and then asked you how a 3% difference in the Obama and McCain tax rates makes one a socialist.)

  2. Equal disclosure? Don’t compare apples and oranges.

    If McCain visits a mosque, people see it as reconciliatory.

    If Obama did the same, people suspect him of being a Muslim sympathetic to terrorists.

    America still judges people according to skin color.

    Different standards apply, no matter how truthful our disclosure. It’s not right, but such is life.

    More than ever, a transformational figure as Obama is required.

  3. Aubrey,

    It amazing that you don’t demand full disclosure about Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Raines and all the others they way the left has been demanding full disclosure about Sarah Plain. In that, you are right about comparing apples and oranges. No investigations done on Obama, but over-investigating done on the Republican ticket. (BTW, John McCain also wrote a memoir. You conveniently forgot to mention that in your reply.)

    Obama is neither required nor desired. He is a solcialist who will wreck our economy with the highest tax rates we have have ever experienced.

  4. James,

    I don’t know what tax plans you are looking at. But your 3% figure seems to have no basis in reality. Would you care to provide the data that suports your assertion?

  5. The data that supports my assertion? That would be the candidates’ own tax plans.

    Under Obama’s tax plan, only the highest-paid Americans would pay more taxes than under McCain’s plan.

    How much more would they pay? Roughly 3%.

    The truth is that we have a highly progressive tax code, which redistributes wealth on a massive scale. John McCain doesn’t want to change that in any important way; he simply differs from Obama very slightly in the details.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: