I am not going to try to defend the McCain campaign for running such an awful campaign, but I am going to condemn the Obama campaign for clearly trying to stifle free speech and free press all in one fell swoop. Recently, Joe Biden was being interviewed by a Fox affiliate in Orlando and he felt attacked by the reporter because she dared to ask such questions as whether Obama's "spread the wealth" ideas are marxist etc. Instead of saying they simply aren't, Biden responded with "are you kidding" and then the Obama campaign responded by saying they would do no more interviews with that station which including cancelling an already scheduled interview with Biden's wife. Now, after her selection, all we heard about was how would Palin respond to being asked the "tough" questions by non-friendly interviewers. She didn't always do such a good job, and the campaign sequestered her for a time because of it. However, all you heard was how this was wrong, that the people deserved to hear from her. Okay, so how is what happened to the Biden's and the Obama campaign any different? He went to an unfriendly interview (perhaps unaware) and wasn't prepared for it and then lashed out at the station rather than saying they had a right to ask their questions. So, now the Senator from Delaware comes out complaining about the interview and basically declares it nothing more than an unfounded attack.
In doing so, he also compared Barack Obama to several famous statesmen and again showed his lack of historical foundation as he did with an earlier FDR statement. So, what did he say? First, he declared that these "attacks" were nothing more than people trying to stifle leaders with new ideas. He's quoted as saying: "The defenders of the status quo have always tried to tear down those who would change our nation for the better," They are being torn down? The question was logical. Marx consistently used terminology like "spread the wealth" in his arguments for communism, so isn't it logical to ask the question at the very least? Of course it is and to suggest otherwise, as Biden has done, threatens the freedom of speech and the press, but there's more. He goes on: "They said Thomas Jefferson wasn't ... a real Christian. That was the essence of the campaign against him. Well, does that sound familiar?" While this does indeed sound familiar, Biden again shows his lack of historical understanding since Thomas Jefferson was a Transcendentalist, not a Christian. So, he was in fact "not a real Christian". In addition, the "essence" of the campaign against him was not about his religion, but instead about his ideas of small government, states rights (he wrote the Virginia resolution for gosh sakes), and the power of individualism. Be careful before you compare someone who believes in larger government, higher taxes, more spending, federal power over states rights and social programs that steal the individual rights from one person in order to provide supposed "opportunity" to another to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson would be appalled at the America of today because it would remind him, not of the country he helped start, but the one he despised, Britain. Okay, so Obama is no Jefferson and Biden proves he didn't study history, but wait, there's more: "Ladies and gentlemen, they said Abraham Lincoln ... wanted to take away individual rights." So, what happened while Lincoln was President. As a disclaimer, I must admit to admiring Lincoln greatly. He did great things under very trying times, but I must take issue with Senator Biden right here. For in fact, as President, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus, suppressed the freedom of the press and wrongfully imprisoned opposition all in the name of winning the war and wiping out rebellion. History has vindicated him since the North won, but I submit he would have been villified had the north lost. Nonetheless, the "individual rights" that Biden is referring to that Lincoln's opposition was so terrified of was the "right" to own slaves. Is this really what Senator Biden wants to defend? In addition, Senator Biden seems to be missing the point when it comes to Lincoln. Lincoln was the first Republican President. The Republican party was founded in the 1850s with the SOLE purpose of abolishing slavery. So, the opposition thought Lincoln would do just that, which they felt would be a violation of their individual rights to own slaves as well as a violation of their states sovereignty rights. They were right, but perhaps only because they rebelled. Nevertheless, Lincoln, Mr. Biden? REALLY?! Okay, so Biden still needs to take some history classes, but there's even more: "Ladies and gentlemen, they said Franklin Roosevelt would destroy the American system of life. Sound familiar?" Franklin Roosevelt did, in fact, dabble with socialist concepts, except at the time, fascism was very popular and do you know what they called what Roosevelt was doing in the 1930s? That's right, they called it fascism, not socialism. It wasn't until Hitler invaded his neighbors and then after the war when we discovered Hitler's atrocities did fascism become a dirty word. Before then, it was very popular, even in America. However, Roosevelt did establish a number of programs that might or might not have directly impacted the great depression. That point is arguable, nonetheless, he did massively grow government size and government spending in the pre-war and post-war period which set a precedent for the bloated, out of touch government we have today. And now Obama wants to grow the government even more. Is it any wonder that people who want the "status quo" as Mr. Biden put it don't like Mr. Obama? And now for the last quote regarding statesmen: "And ladies and gentlemen, they said that John F. Kennedy was, quote, 'a dangerous choice in difficult times.' ... Sound familiar?" I must admit, I don't know about this quote. It sounds plausible. However, Kennedy didn't win because he was popular, in fact, he most likely won because Nixon looked awful on television. Kennedy also turned out to be a fine President, but Mr. Obama is no John Kennedy, in my opinion, even if I am apparently the only person who thinks so.
So, back to stifling freedom of speech and press. Is making untrue and historically inaccurate comparisons while calling a reporter from one city out on ambushing him (which Republicans have to deal with a lot) really the kind of "inclusiveness" and "reaching out" and "representing all people" that the Obama/Biden campaign wishes to project? If they truly want to represent all people, then they need to realize that they actually disagree with almost 50 percent of the country rather than act like they have all the answers while throwing out clear statements that preach "if you don't agree with me, your opinion isn't valid and should be stifled". This is what Obama/Biden wants to project? So, finally, Biden, who has now shown a complete ignorance of U.S. history, says that the attacks on him recently are: "built on lies which are the last resort of those who have nothing new to offer. And that's where we find ourselves." Is it? It seems to me that both campaigns have failed when it comes to lies, so making lies (or at least poor historical statements) while proclaiming the other side is lying is nothing more than an attempt to stifle freedom of speech, opinion, press, whatever. They don't like what was said, so there must be something wrong with the other person, not them. So, it comes down to this, while McCain projects simply that he doesn't know how to respond to the plethora of "new" (I would argue old, since most of the social ideas he's declaring as "new" actually have been tried before somewhere in the world and have almost universally failed) ideas Obama has puts forth, Obama has projected that he cares about everyone, so long as they agree with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment