Making Sense: Governing is Above Obama’s Pay Grade

kpaul.mallasch — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:29:01 -0700

By Michael Reagan

Anybody who watched Barack Obama’s sorry performance during Saturday Night’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency with Pastor Rick Warren had to come away with the question, “What is this guy doing running for president of the United States?”

The worshipping media described his comments as “nuanced,” the word they use to describe “wishy-washy.” It was full of those “on the other hand” answers to Pastor Warren’s probing questions.

Obama was anything but wishy-washy, however, when he said that knowing when human life begins was “above his pay grade.” He was just plain evasive, obviously seeking to play down his extremist view that abortion at any time, in any circumstance, is perfectly acceptable to him.

This isn’t surprising since he took the lead in the Illinois Senate in fighting a bill that would outlaw the barbarous murder of newborn infants who survive being killed in a partial-birth abortion.

During the forum, his struggle to please everybody by straddling the issues was plain for all to see. He showed he was willing to say and do what he believed everybody wanted to hear. When you try to find any real depth in his beliefs you quickly discover he is utterly shallow and soulless, a sloganeer instead of a missionary.

He’s just a politician on the make, trying to be all things to all people -- an empty suit proclaiming empty promises.

Being without real depth, his platform merely floats on a surface of promises categorized as “Hope” and “Change,” neither of which is clearly defined.

He assures us that he wants to change Washington and sweep away all that this city represents. Yet one has only to look at next week’s Democratic National Convention to understand that it’s not change, but lots more of the same.

Just look at the roster of speakers lined up and try to find a single new face. It’s the same old lineup, the same old roll call of familiar Democrat politicians who have constituted the leadership of the national Democratic Party for eons.

Change? Does inviting Jimmy Carter (arguably the worst president in our long history and a dedicated foe of Israel) constitute meaningful change?

Is John Kerry a new face, or simply a retread of a failed presidential candidate who represents his party’s recent past as well as its immediate future?

How about putting Al Gore on the speaker’s dais? Al Gore, the high priest of the phony climate-change religion who to this day can’t accept the fact that he lost to George Bush in 2000 and never stops whining about it. That’s change?

Just what changes the old Democratic order when you have Bill Clinton speaking one night and Hillary Clinton the next night?

Is Mayor Daley, Obama’s strongest backer and the boss of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine, a symbol of change?

You look at this upcoming convention and you have to ask yourself, “Have I not seen this show before?”

We saw it in 2004 and 2000 and 1996 and 1992, and every other Democratic convention going back to Harry S. Truman. And by the way, if Truman were alive today he would be the one familiar face who wouldn’t be invited to speak.

Plain-spoken Harry would take one look at Obama and we’d be hearing some of his patented obscenities. Truman had no tolerance for politicians who tried to pass themselves off as messiahs, above the give and take of everyday politics.

Change? It’s simply more of the same old thing: power-hungry politicians lusting after the authority to impose the decades-old Democrat, socialist, big-brother programs on the American people. An authority the people wisely continue to deny them.

Barack Obama hasn’t demonstrated that by virtue of any past experience that he possesses the capacity to be president of the United States, a job far above his pay grade.

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s newest book, “Twice Adopted” and other info at www.Reagan.com. E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.

©2008 Mike Reagan.

Making Sense: Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain

kpaul.mallasch — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:45:25 -0800

By Michael Reagan

In 1976 the Ford vs. Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination got so heated it looked as if my father and Jerry Ford would never again talk to one another.

When it was over and Ford had won, what did Ronald Reagan do? He simply went all-out to help Ford win his re-election, as did I and as did my sister Maureen. My dad simply followed his rule of backing the Republican candidate no matter who he was.

Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.

Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long lines at the gas pumps. And don’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.

By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald Reagan’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.

We were still in the middle of the Cold War in those days, and by staying home conservatives risked losing that war by allowing an incompetent leader to become commander in chief.

Four years later Ronald Reagan took over, the hostages were immediately released, and he went on to win the Cold War. Now we have another world-wide war going on with a hidden enemy sworn to kill us all, and the policy of the Democrats running for the presidency is to throw up their hands and withdraw from the battlefield, leaving it to the enemy -- and our fate in the hands of Osama bin Laden.

Is that what the let’s-stay-home-on-election-day conservatives want? Do they want the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, as their president? Do they want the pseudo-Marist Barack Obama -- who reportedly has a photo of the murderous Castroite thug Che Guevara hanging in his Houston, Texas campaign headquarters -- hanging that photo in the Oval Office?

Do they want Hillary Clinton, the duplicitous former first lady, back in the White House enjoying all those furnishings she and her husband tried to swipe from the mansion?

Do they want a Democrat spending even more money that the government doesn’t have on scores of programs right out of Karl Marx’s playbook?

That’s exactly what they’ll get if they sit out the election and stay home on Election Day. That’s called biting off your nose to spite your face. Or even more to the point, political suicide.

Let me say this. There has been plenty of battling in the primaries, and I’ve been in the middle of the battle, but until now haven’t committed myself to any candidate, waiting until we had a nominee.

That’s over.

If John McCain is the nominee of the party, this Reagan will happily campaign with him. The alternative is unthinkable to anyone who loves this nation.

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network, see www.Reagan.com for info. Look for Mike’s newest book, “Twice Adopted.” E-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.