Who is Obama? &c.

Barack Obama in March 2000, when he was an Illinois state senator


For the past five years, I’ve asked many people a question: What do you think Obama is? Do you think he’s a liberal, a McGovernite, a social democrat, a socialist — what? The commonest answer, from people I respect, has been “social democrat.”

In one of those recently unearthed videos, Obama says, “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but rich people are all for nonviolence. Why wouldn’t they be? They’ve got what they want. They want to make sure nobody’s going to take their stuff.”

I’m sorry, but this is not social democratic, or liberal, or McGovernite. I can’t imagine those words out of McGovern’s mouth. Or out of Tip O’Neill’s. Or out of Walter Mondale’s. I didn’t like those politicians, but they didn’t think or talk that way.

Those are the words of an extremist. You can imagine Bill Ayers or Bernardine Dohrn saying them. Your basic liberal Democrat, no.

The above-quoted speech, by the way, was given in 2002. Not when Obama belonged to the Choom Gang, gettin’ stoned. Not when he was at college, drinking in Marxism. When he was a state legislator, soon to be a U.S. senator. Six years before he was elected president of the United States.

He’s been in that office for four years, but really: Who the hell is he?

Gonna lay something really, really partisan on you. Ready? In campaign season, Republicans need debates more than Democrats do. They need them because they need opportunities to appear before the public unfiltered — uninterpreted, uncaricatured. Democrats have the support of the media-academia-entertainment establishment. We have NASCAR, talk radio, and country music. Anything else?

We need more juice.

I’ve said for months: If people can see that they can leave the presidency in a safe, able pair of hands, they’ll fire Obama. There are three more debates, including the vice-presidential one. May Romney and Ryan shine. Or actually, just show up. They’re shiny enough, day in and day out.

If you listened to the dread “MSM” — the mainstream media — you would never know that Romney was impressive. He is, very.

Here’s a statement I wish Romney or Ryan would make, in one of the debates:

President Obama, Vice President Biden, and their allies are always talking about fairness and compassion. There’s nothing fair or compassionate about economic collapse. We are headed for it. We’re broke. We’re $16 trillion in debt. The budget deficit is over a trillion. And they will do nothing about it. They will do absolutely nothing. They will just sit and call us a bunch of plutocrats and ogres.

There is one ticket that will do something about this problem, and only one: the Romney-Ryan ticket. We’ll get the job done. Our opponents will say — again — we’re a bunch of heartless SOBs, running over urchins in our Rolls-Royces. Let them. We’re trying to save the country.

You think economic collapse is fair or compassionate? Ask the Greeks. It’s brutal. It’s miserable. It’s cruel. Men in business suits are pawing through garbage, looking for something to eat. We’ve got to prevent this.

Who is willing to do this job, and not just holler about fairness and compassion?

I read something in an Associated Press report that surprised me a little: “Thanks in part to congressional Republicans’ no-compromise stands on key issues, and an unpopular past president in George W. Bush, the GOP’s image is at one of its lowest points in modern times.”

Is that true? Forgetting the part about the Republicans’ “no-compromise stands” — what’s the state of play? What’s the score? The GOP did fairly well in the last elections: They picked up 63 seats in the House. This was one of the most impressive showings ever.

The Republicans have a majority of the governorships, and a majority of the state legislative seats. And the House, of course. The Democrats have the presidency and the Senate. We’ll see, come January.

Anyway, if the GOP is down, it has certainly been downer. And, by the way, President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are pretty good at “no-compromise stands,” if you ask me.

Obama is a little funny with his lapel pin — the American flag. Once, it was on. Then Obama took it off. He said he didn’t want any of that phony patriotism. He wouldn’t wear his patriotism on his sleeve, or his lapel. Others who did so were phony-baloneys. Then he put the flag pin back on. It can be so confusing, keeping track of Obama’s moods and principles.

First he’s for gay marriage. Then he’s not. “The union of a man and a woman, only.” Then he’s back on again.

Anyway, my question: If Obama loses the election this year, will he ever wear an American-flag pin again? Or will he be free of it? Is the pin just “boob bait for Bubbas,” to use a once-famous phrase of Senator Moynihan?