“Democrats are in hock to the climate change nut jobs, who believe that producing more oil will induce global warming” 

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona – The honeymoon is over for Barack Obama, Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States, and America’s first black candidate for the presidency.

Even though he’s not black, but more of that later.

Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination by wooing the lefty, faithful, extremist, party base on a tidal wave of emotion, sentimentality, and heroic but empty rhetoric. He caught the imagination of the media too as he triumphed unexpectedly over Hillary Clinton and then received the traditional, positive spike in the polls.

His campaign for “change” without saying what the change would be, and the vacuous chants of “Yes we can!” have now to be replaced by policies. The more policies are revealed makes clear that “change” is merely a call for a return to the failed ideas of the 1960s.

Now he is being caught like a rabbit in the headlights by pocketbook issues including the burgeoning price of petrol at the pump. Also, New York Times columnist David Brooks has questioned Obama’s character, maybe the first time the mainstream U.S. media has had anything negative to say about the man. He is no longer Bambi Obama, as right wing columnist Ann Coulter once called him. Brooks talks about Fast Eddie Obama, saying that his cynical gyrations on the issue of campaign financing would have made even a known, arch snake-oil salesman like Bill Clinton look a bit shamefaced, albeit momentarily.

But it is energy, which looks like derailing the Obama campaign.

Americans are in shock following the huge increase in petrol prices and want action now. The Republicans, orchestrated by former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, came up with the slogan Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less, in a campaign to open up the continental shelf off Florida and California, as well as the ANWR area in Alaska – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Blocked by Democrats
The Democrat controlled Congress has steadfastly blocked any attempt to open up these areas for drilling, even though they are thought to contain huge amounts of oil and gas. They defended this policy in the name of the local environment, but when it became increasingly obvious this didn’t make sense (drilling in Alaska would take up a miniscule amount of territory, drilling in the North Sea shows this can be done without spilling or pollution) the Democrats responded with the risible, “Well it won’t make any difference to the price of gas tomorrow”.

That has become Obama’s mantra whenever he’s asked that question, and he’s asked it a lot. No matter that this was said 10 years ago and if something had been done then, domestic supplies would be flowing today. No matter that energy security would be hugely enhanced by increasing local supplies; no matter that it begs the question, “sure, we know it won’t cut the price of gas tomorrow, but are you saying that we will never drill there, and if not why not?”

And the answer to that question reveals the elephant in the room for the Democrats; the fact that the party is in hock to the climate change nut jobs, who believe that producing more oil will induce global warming.

Save the planet
The fact is that the Democrats actually want higher oil prices but don’t dare say so. This will cut gasoline use and force people out of their cars and save the planet. This is the Democrats’ and Obama’s unstated policy. (Their vocal support of the Kyoto treaty on cutting carbon output always fell short of actually saying what people would have to sacrifice to do this. Now they know). Democrats know that to spell out the implications of their energy policy will destroy them, so they have to act dumb on the oil exploration front.

Meanwhile, Republican nominee John McCain has changed his mind on oil exploration, urging drilling off the east and west coats, and hinting that he might also go for ANWR drilling too. There are also huge deposits of oil shale in the Rockies, which become more economically viable with every oil price increase. McCainiacs point out that their man wants to hugely increase nuclear power, while Obama hedges his bets saying only if it is “safe”.

And there is increasing unease about Obama’s character.

The New York Times’ Brooks said the Republicans are in for a surprise if they continue to talk of Obama’s naivety, saying in reality he’s “Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.”

Flip-flop
This comment was inspired by Obama’s decision to opt out of the public finance system for presidential elections, after the Democrat raised huge amounts of money from small contributions, mainly on the Internet. When it seemed that the Republicans a couple of years ago might raise much more money for the presidential campaign than Democrats, Obama was four-square for limits to spending with federal funding taking up the slack. When the roles were reversed and he was awash with cash, Obama opted out. Unfortunately, Obama had made some high profile claims that he believed in federal funding, not least on the highly rated (in terms of size of audience, not quality) national TV show Larry King Live.

Brooks says he is not sure what to make of this.

If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? 
“On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside,” Brooks said.

Meanwhile, the British media relentlessly misses the point about Obama, or rather it takes him at face value.

The Daily Telegraph’s Peter Culshaw talked ludicrously about the so-called “creative classes” being behind Obama.

(This apparently includes people working in the media, advertising, online, music, film, and other creative workers. The Telegraph story had a picture of prize dimwit Bonio talking to Obama. In a previous era, this creative class might have been called the pointy-headed nattering nabobs of negativism).

When the majority of Americans finally turn their attention to the presidential campaign, say, in the middle of October, they will find this out about Obama. He is a liberal’s liberal. In British parlance, he is a left-wing socialist. His voting record in the U.S. Senate shows he is the most left-wing of all the Democratic Party’s members in the upper house.  He is a tax and spend socialist, with a Little America view of the world. He wants to nationalise health care. No foreign wars for Obama, even if that means the end of projecting power in unpleasant places like the Middle East, where America’s (and the West’s) interests are vital. If there’s another September 11, Obama, who voted against the war in Iraq, is going to look mighty foolish.

Owned by the unions
He constantly talks about how the Bush tax cuts have benefited the rich, but never gets close to defining what he means by “rich”.  Obama is in hock to the labour unions and holds extreme, uncompromising views on abortion. He doesn’t think much of free trade, support of which would offend his union buddies, who have stumped up much money for his campaigns.

 This is what the “creative class” wants? A return to the failed policies of the past. I don’t think so. What’s so creative about that?

And so to Obama, the first “black” candidate. He was born in Hawaii. His mother was white, his father black, so why call him black? His father left home a couple of years after Obama’s birth. His mother married again and moved to Indonesia, as you do. He is a first-term Senator for Illinois, who won his seat in 2004.

Obama is very much like Jimmy Carter, who on the campaign trail never varied from his “On the one hand, on the other hand” sentences, as he tried to avoid hostages to fortune while answering questions. Jimmy Carter was the “Yes, but,” President. (I’ve been waiting since 1979 to use that line). Obama has tried to undermine McCain by saying he is running for George W Bush’s 3^rd term. McCain has countered by saying an Obama presidency would be Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Obama seems charming and likeable (unlike his awful, arrogant wife Michelle, who could lose the election for him all on her own). But when you get past the speeches and into the detail, there’s the outdated left-wing rhetoric and not much else. With a recession looming, this high-tax, fortress-America candidate owned by the unions who has no experience and is weak on defence and foreign policy and refuses to drill for oil at home, will be munched on by McCain.

 Neil Winton – June 20, 2008