Thou Shalt Not Criticize

by Nathan Mathews

Listen up, people, we have received word on new topics which are off limits in this presedential race. Get your lists out, now add "Michelle Obama's campaign remarks". These are verboten. Thank you for your continuing support in this matter.


To bring you up to speed, we have the Tennessee GOP, which ran a negative ad about Senator Barack Obama's wife, Michelle. The ad showed her speaking on the campaign trail, saying "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." The remark was troubling to many Americans, even more so when we find out she didn't just say it once, but often, as it was part of her stump speech. However, running the ad seems to have caused more of a dust-up than what she said. Obama condemned the Tennessee GOP, calling them "low class", and saying his wife is off limits.


To be sure, it's never nice to bad mouth someone's wife. But they weren't calling her ugly, or stupid. It wasn't an ad-hominem attack, just for sheer spite. She is campaigning for him. I looked it up in the dictionary to be sure it still means what I thought it means. Yes, she is promoting him, and herself, since she'll be sitting in the White House, too.


Then it suddenly occurred to me what's going on. I didn't realize it before, but the truth seems obvious now. Obama wasn't aware that he was "running" for president. After having everything handed to him and his wife for so long, they naturally believed they were simply being "given" the role of president and first lady. They were not aware that the little people, those "nasty voters" would have any say in the matter.


I, for one, would like to apologize to Obama and his wife for having somehow given them the impression that the presidency and first lady-ship are positions which they are "owed".


I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she becomes first lady, what then? What if she decides to push legislation, a la Hillary when Bill was president. Will she make a speech before Congress, just to be followed by President Obama who says "okay people, you know the rules. My wife has spoken. You will NOT say anything negative about what she said." And does this rule apply to all politician's spouses who are involved in politics? Because she certainly is involved, she's campaigning for him. Her powerful words are used to push him ever closer to the White House. Can those same words be examined? Can they be repeated? Does she have carte blanche to say whatever she wants without reproach? And if so, why? Why her, and not others?


I can remember many times when a politician's spouse was verbally assaulted in ways that made me cringe. I remember John Edwards' wife having to endure remarks about her age when she had a baby. Or Hillary's thighs when Bill was pres. I remember reading a breakdown on the looks of Barbara Bush, and it was not flattering. But, those heartless attacks are different, and the average voter should recognize that. To say attacking Michelle over supposedly anti-American comments she makes while campaigning for her husband is the same thing defies logic.


But this wasn't the first time criticism has been criticized. Last week we watched the scene unfold as President Bush, before the Jewish Knesset, criticized what we thought was Former President Jimmy Carter's feckless attempt to reason with the leaders of the terrorist group Hamas which routinely shoots rockets from Gaza into civilian territory in Israel. While I applaud Carter's ability to finally recognize that Hamas actually IS shooting these rockets, and that perhaps it should stop, I agree with most analysts who predicted the gesture would do no good. I also agree with those who state such gestures can be detrimental, as it gives the terrorists the idea that they're getting the attention of some very powerful people, so keep up the good work!


However, back here at home, Senator Barack Obama and company assumed he was speaking of him, and they went wild! They were seething with righteous indignation. How dare Bush, Bush!! of all people, dare to say anything negative about Obama. There was debate back and forth over whether Bush was refering to Obama or not, and if Bush was refering to Obama, he seems to be automatically guilty of...something. A certain something to which Obama is immune, I suppose. Although Bush never mentioned Obama in his speech, Obama has no compunctions against mentioning Bush in his speech. And McCain as well. Enemies, all!


I have to say, like Bush or hate him, I really admire him for his ability to take a punch. More than any other president I’ve seen, and certainly more than Obama, he has taken the most foul, negative, outright falsification of his statements, not just by left wing zealots, but by members of congress and the media, and he has not thrown in the towel. I for one would have said to hell with it and not run for a second term. Bill Clinton, that wasn’t his style, he usually came back hard at critics. But Bush is able to take it more, he seems much more dignified. I give him due respect for that. But the amount of vitriol, the type of hatred exuded towards him, is staggering, and at the same time numbing. Each time someone calls him Hitler it just makes the next time easier, so that in order to really insult him, you have to go even further. The way our Democratic Congress openly mocks him during his state of the union addresses, the way they openly discourage their side from working with him in any way, because it might give legitimacy to the right, as if Bush were the terrorist! So the result is any “across the aisle” outreach has to be done by the right to the left, and the right will be the ones who have to compromise.


Okay, but back to Obama, the worlds’ most sensitive baby. Bush never mentioned Obama, never said anything negative about Obama in that speech, yet Obama’s rebuttal was far more negative about Bush than the Bush speech he was condemning. It doesn’t even make sense! They say more negative things about Bush on a daily basis. In fact, the whole democratic campaign is almost completely based on Bush bashing. Try to listen to any speech by either candidate, see how many times they bash Bush and say we need to get away from “cowboy diplomacy of the Bush administration” or how Bush as ruined the economy, Bush let New Orleans drown, Bush this and Bush that, yet Bush says one thing and they act like he’s a monster!


Then we come to find out that Obama has stated that he would talk to hostile nations, he even states on his website that he would talk to them “without preconditions”!! So what exactly is Obama mad about? Bush didn’t lie, he didn’t mention Obama, he simply stated that that is bad policy. And in fact, not talking to hostile regimes has been White House policy throughout many administrations. Those on the left seem to be more willing to talk and compromise with terrorists than with Republicans. Obama wasn’t mad at Bush because Bush was wrong, but because he dared question him. And not just that he was questioned, but questioned by Bush, whom Obama thinks everyone knows is a joke, a bad-guy not to be taken seriously. To Obama, it’s as if the clown at the circus were to give him career advise. How dare he!


The political kitchen is very hot at times, and Obama appears to be the most thin-skinned politician we have ever had. I suppose he is a product of our current generation of socialistic leaning left-wingers that have been produced by the average college in America, where conservatives and Republicans aren’t at all taken seriously, but are considered at best an oddity to be studied for amusement, and at worst an anathema to correct thinking people. There is one of the major problems. Obama never expected to be questioned on his beliefs. He, just like many on the left, simply expected that their way of thinking was the norm and the only way of thinking to be tolerated, and any deviation from it was no different that Hitlerian doctrine.


We’ve heard so many times in the last 10-20 years that free speech seems to be reserved for the left, and not for the right. This is simply the result of what Obama and those like him have been taught for many years. Once you come to expect special treatment, you then come to believe that not getting it is a form of harassment and denial or your rights, and not getting that special treatment from a government entity is the same as oppression, and is of course compared to Hitler. Now, Obama’s being faced by the fact that a vast amount of people in this country have remained silent for years, but still cling to those long suppressed beliefs of conservative and traditional values, beliefs that many dare not utter in public, but can express behind a closed curtain in a voting booth.


Unfortunately, the right wing is almost apologetic about their beliefs, while the left is openly hostile towards them!! And for what reason? Well I think one of the problems is that the left actually doesn’t want open debate. They are not at all interested in an open back and forth discussion. I think they would rather push their dogma through legislation, shout down the opposition, and label any contrary beliefs as hate-speech, racism, low class, war-mongers, Bushitlers, etc, with the willing assistance of a left-leaning media that is always eager to hype up so-called offenses by the right while ignoring the same on the left. So those on the right, instead of spending their time debating, have to spend all their time in defending themselves against these accusations, trying to convince the American people that they are not racists, and in the end have to “apologize” for offending anyone, and bend a little more to the left just to maintain some legitimacy. Unfortunately they don’t realize they’ve already lost it, the moment they let the left change the subject.


We are facing new rules, different than we've seen in years past. First off, we have an African-American as the likely Democratic candidate (and I think it's about time, actually). Most white Americans feel awkward when race issues come up and we would rather avoid them. That's a good thing, since race is top of the forbidden subject list.


But there's other things. He's openly used his church affiliation to forward his politics, yet when his pastor came under the microscope, that, too, went on the list. He has had many shady associates, including a known terrorist. Whoops, that's on the list. Hamas is actively campaigning for him! Nope, forget it, that's on the list. He publicly states he will meet with leaders of hostile nations without preconditions. Someone pointed that out, and then it went on the list, too! The problem seems to be that only good things about Obama are allowed topics of conversation. Anything Obama says can only be repeated in a good light. Anything his wife says on the campaign trail can only be repeated in a good light. Same with anyone associated with him. I believe that if people were allowed to criticize Obama, he wouldn't have made it this far. It's only by blindly accepting him as the nominee, without question, that so many issues have been ignored. And if this continues into his possible presidency, what oversight will we have for his policies? All opposition will be shouted down and denounced, the name calling will begin, and people will run in fear of ruining their careers by being labeled racists. This is a Democratic dream come true! Everything they want, they get, all thanks to a new mentality that plays into their hands.


To me, this represents one of the biggest problems in politics today. We have developed a priviledged class of people who have been educated with the idea that certain beliefs and values are exempt from criticism, while others are expected to be criticized. While college professors routinely and openly mock Christianity, Islam has become the sacred stone of religions. And when confronted with this, they don't deny it, they justify it, usually with references to what people did in the Middle Ages. While I think all this is very bad, I don't think there is some widespread conspiracy. I just think these beliefs are reflected in the mindset of people everywhere, mostly on the left. You simply don't criticize some people (Obama) and you simply don't say anything nice about others (Bush). It's just not done. Unfortunately, the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, has no will to oppose this. He routinely agrees with everything that Obama says is off limits. They must look at him and think "that's right, just keep smiling and agreeing old man, or you'll be next. We'll give you the Bush treatment." And they will.


But back to Obama. For someone who can’t take any criticism, he certainly can dish it out. That goes for many on the left, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, etc. They should take a lesson from Bush, the man they despise, are openly hostile to, and openly mock, yet who continues to speak his mind. They should grow themselves a backbone instead of teaching our country that whining about something is the same as leading. It’s easy to be tough when no one dares criticize you. I wish Obama would be as tough on terrorists as he is on Americans who dare to dispute his mighty word. But no, he wants to meet with terrorists, to compromise, to find “common ground”. Terrorists, sure. But a Republican? Forget it!!