From: Travis Subject: South Side Veterans For Truth: Taranto WSJ (this is beautiful) Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2008, 9:14 PM
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122075869303807633.html * [image: The Wall Street Journal] <http://online.wsj.com/home> September 8, 2008 * BEST OF THE WEB TODAY *DOW JONES REPRINTS* This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit: www.djreprints.com. • See a sample reprint in PDF format<http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/Reprint_Samples.pdf> . • Order a reprint of this article now. South Side Veterans for Truth By *JAMES TARANTO* *September 8, 2008* Last week we wrote <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122054121296699899.html> 1 that " 'community organizer' is to Barack Obama what 'war hero' was to John Kerry." We didn't know the half of it. Kerry staked his claim to the presidency on the pretense that he was a war hero, notwithstanding his showy repudiation decades earlier of the war and his fellow veterans. According to a new exposé in the liberal New Republic<http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2e0a7836-b897-4155-864c-25e791ff0f50> 2, Obama, before embarking on a career in politics, similarly, albeit quietly, repudiated "community organizing," only to re-embrace it decades later, apparently out of political expediency. TNR's John Judis tracked down Jerry Kellman, who in 1985 "hired Obama to organize residents of Chicago's South Side." Kellman describes a conversation the two "community organizers" had at a conference on "social justice" in October 1987: "[Obama] wanted to marry and have children, and to have a stable income," Kellman recalls. But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him "to make major changes in poverty or discrimination." To do that, he said, "you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials." In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. . . . And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school. Another way of putting this might be that Obama left community organizing because he wanted a job in which he had actual responsibilities (and, of course, earned more money). But Obama did not decide only that "community organizing" was not for him. Judis reports the future senator took part in a September 1989 symposium in which he "rejected the guiding principles of community organizing: the elevation of self-interest over moral vision; the disdain for charismatic leaders and their movements; and the suspicion of politics itself." Later, Obama "would begin to construct a political identity for himself that was not simply different from his identity as a community organizer--but was, in fact, its very opposite." Judis offers the closest thing we've heard to a job description for "community organizers." What they do, he writes, is "unite people of different backgrounds around common goals and use their collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be." To help illuminate this rather vague description, Judis also enumerates some of the tasks Obama and his colleagues undertook. Before Obama's arrival in Chicago, Kellman and his "partner," Mike Kruglik, set out "to revive the region's manufacturing base--and preserve what remained of its steel industry--by working with unions and church groups to pressure companies and the city; but those hopes were quickly dashed." Apparently the presence of "community organizers" is not a strong selling point for companies making location decisions. Go figure. Obama set his sights lower, but still missed the mark. He "got community members to demand a job center that would provide job referrals, but there were few jobs to distribute." Then "he tried to create what he called a 'second-level consumer economy' . . . consisting of shops, restaurants, and theaters. This, too, went nowhere." These efforts at economic development having failed, Obama "began to focus on providing social services for Altgeld Gardens," a government-owned and -operated apartment complex: "We didn't yet have the power to change state welfare policy, or create local jobs, or bring substantially more money into the schools," [Obama] wrote. "But what we could do was begin to improve basic services at Altgeld--get the toilets fixed, the heaters working, the windows repaired." Obama helped the residents wage a successful campaign to get the Chicago Housing Authority to promise to remove asbestos from the units; but, after an initial burst of activity, the city failed to keep its promise. (As of last year, some residences still had not been cleared of asbestos.) It is both funny and scary that one of America's major political parties would offer this record of sheer futility as its nominee's chief qualification to be president of the United States. Even more striking, though, is how alien the world in which Obama operated was by comparison with the world in which normal Americans live. Reader, when your toilet breaks, do you wait around for some Ivy League hotshot to show up and organize a meeting so that you can use your collective strength to wring concessions from the powers that be? Or do you call a plumber? As a "community organizer," Obama toiled within a subculture of such abject dependency that even home repairs were "social services," provided by government (or, in Obama's Chicago, not provided). It was an utterly bizarre intersection between the cultural elite and the underclass. By Judis's account, Obama's Columbia degree was useless. He would have been more helpful if he'd gone to vocational school instead. Judis quotes an Altgeld resident as telling Obama, "Ain't nothing gonna change. . . . We just gonna concentrate on saving our money so we can move outta here as fast as we can." Certainly no one can fault Obama for doing the same thing. But what did Obama move outta there to do? To become a politician--specifically, an "idealistic" politician who wants "to make major changes in poverty." Guys like that created this mess in the first place. In his political career, has Obama done or even said anything to suggest that he has a different approach to "poverty," one that would reduce dependency rather than promote it? His recent rediscovery of the glories of "community organizing" certainly isn't an encouraging sign. *Hating Sarah Palin<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/07/uselections2008.republicans2008> 3* In early 2005, we wrote a short piece for The Wall Street Journal<http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010727> 4 in which we argued that Hillary Clinton had a very strong advantage in a prospective 2008 presidential campaign: Republicans loathed her. This, we suggested, would make her appealing to the Democratic Party's Angry Left base; and hatred would blind Republicans, causing them to make mistakes in a general election campaign. It's fair to say that article was subsequently overtaken by events. In fact, until 10 days ago, it looked as if there wouldn't be much hatred at all in this year's campaign. Some people find John McCain irritating; others find Barack Obama scary or contemptible. But neither man has aroused much true hatred. McCain's vice presidential nominee, however, is arousing a lot of it. Columnist Nick Cohen of London's left-wing Observer has noticed--and he makes essentially the same argument we did about Mrs. Clinton 3½ years ago: My colleagues in the American liberal press had little to fear at the start of the week. . . . But instead of protecting their precious advantage, they succumbed to a spasm of hatred and threw the vase, the crockery, the cutlery and the kitchen sink at an obscure politician from Alaska. For once, the postmodern theories so many of them were taught at university are a help to the rest of us. As a Christian, conservative anti-abortionist who proved her support for the Iraq War by sending her son to fight in it, Sarah Palin was "the other"--the threatening alien presence they defined themselves against. . . . Hatred is the most powerful emotion in politics. . . . Hate can sell better than hope. When a hate campaign goes wrong, however, disaster follows. One liberal Democrat who sees things similarly is Willie Brown<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/06/BALU12OCMV.DTL> 5, the former California Assembly speaker and San Francisco mayor. "The Democrats are in trouble," Brown writes in a column for the San Francisco Chronicle. "Sarah Palin has totally changed the dynamics of this campaign. . . . She didn't have to prove she was 'of the people.' She really is the people." It was in Willie Brown's San Francisco that Obama made his infamous April remark <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120805672535010747.html>6 about small-town voters: "It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion . . ." Obama's contempt is unattractive enough. His supporters' hatred for a bitter clinger with the effrontery to think she is qualified for federal office is downright ugly. We don't think Obama is a hater, but his campaign may suffer because of his supporters' emotions, which are beyond his control. *The Rookie <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/07/bb.01.html>7* There's no evidence that Barack Obama hates Sarah Palin, but there's ample evidence that her presence on the ticket has him rattled. On our flight back to New York yesterday, we caught an Obama speech on CNN and were astonished at this passage: We need change. But let's be absolutely clear about what change is and is not. Change is not continuing the same tax policies of George Bush . . . He then went on in the moreofthesame vein. The important thing, though, is how he begins: "We need change. But . . ." When a politician says something followed by "but," he is making a concession before asserting the opposite. These John Kerry examples from our analysis <http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005704>8 of a 2004 presidential debate illustrate the point: • "I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ." • "I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . " • "I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ." When Obama says, "We need change, but . . .," he casts himself in the role of defender of the status quo. That is quite a turnaround. Then there's this, from Politico<http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080906/pl_politico/13205> 9: Obama took his first direct swipe at Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Saturday, criticizing her for supporting congressional earmarks before opposing them. "I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change," Obama said at a town hall meeting here. "And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person. "That is not change, come on," Obama continued. "I mean, words mean something. You can't just make stuff up. You can't just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear." The comments were his harshest attack yet on Palin . . . Doesn't the vice presidential candidate traditionally act as the "attack dog" against the opposing presidential candidate, the way Palin did in her convention speech last week? The Democrats seem to have reversed this: Obama's role as the presidential candidate is to attack the GOP's vice presidential nominee. This elevates Palin and diminishes Obama, making him look less important than her. Earlier, the Associated Press<http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/bon.jovi.obama.2.811125.html> 10 reported that Obama, speaking at a fund-raiser hosted by fellow rock star Jon Bon Jovi, "vowed to fight Republican attacks on his character and background more fiercely than John Kerry did in his losing campaign four years ago." More fiercely than John Kerry? Wow, McCain might as well just throw in the towel right now! But the actual quote is even more lame: "We're not going to be bullied, we're not going to be smeared, we're not going to be lied about," Obama said. "I don't believe in coming in second." "We're not going to be bullied" is one of those negative statements, like "I am not a crook" or "Don't question my patriotism," that actually convey the opposite of the intended message--in this case, weakness rather than strength. And what weakness! As West Virginia journalist Don Surber<http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/09/06/unforced-error/> 11 points out, "McCain was very respectful of Obama at the Republican convention," in contrast with Palin. Tom Maguire<http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/09/the-smell-of-fe.html> 12 has fun with this: What is Obama saying, he won't be bullied by a 44 year old hockey mom? Stand Tall, Barack--you won't be bullied by Sarah Palin! OMG, is this a secret plan to assassinate Putin by making him laugh so hard he gets an aneurysm? Hey, isn't someone missing in this discussion? Oh yeah, Joe Biden. He appeared in the same CNN broadcast, delivering a speech in Sarasota, Fla.: I had two cranial aneurysms, a total of 59 days in ICU. I was like many of you in the hospital recovering and recovering for seven months from those things. . . . Let me tell you something, I had insurance. I had insurance. We're glad he had insurance, but a cranial aneurysm is, in a phrase Biden used later in the speech, "real serious stuff, man." The Obama Web site<http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_joe.php> 13 says Biden "nearly died" after suffering his aneurysm 20 years ago. He "has enjoyed good health since then," the Web site says. May he live long--but given this history, isn't it awfully risky to have a rookie like Barack Obama a heartbeat away? *Swift Boat Redux<http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/anti-mccain-ad-a-nightmare-2008-09-04.html> 14* The Hill reports that Brave New PAC, a liberal political action committee, is airing an ad reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: In the ad, Philip Butler says he would not like to see McCain in the White House because of the POW experience and the Arizona senator's temperament. Butler served alongside Sen. McCain (Ariz.) at the U.S. Naval Academy and later was imprisoned alongside the presumptive GOP nominee in Vietnam. "I think I can say with authority that the prisoner-of-war experience is not a good prerequisite for president of the United States," Butler says in the ad, which was produced by Brave New PAC, a political action committee associated with the liberal film company Brave New Films. In 2004, of course, defenders of John Kerry denounced the Swift Boat Veterans. Wake us up if any of them do the same with Butler. As for us, we shall be consistent. We defended the Swift Boat guys, and we defend Butler. He has every right to speak his mind, and voters will decide for themselves how much weight to give his views. *Obama Imitates 'Alice's Restaurant'* • "And I went up there, I said, 'Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, *kill, kill.'* And I started jumpin' up and down yelling,* 'Kill, kill,'* and he started jumpin' up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, *'Kill, kill.' *And the sergeant came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, 'You're our boy.' "--from "Alice's Restaurant<http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml> 15" by Arlo Guthrie, 1966 • "I had to sign up for Selective Service when I graduated from high school. And I was growing up in Hawaii. And I have friends whose parents were in the military. There are a lot of Army, military bases there. And I actually always thought of the military as an ennobling and, you know, honorable option. But keep in mind that I graduated in 1979. The Vietnam War had come to an end. We weren't engaged in an active military conflict at that point. And so, it's not an option that I ever decided to pursue."--Barack Obama<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13217.html> 16, "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," Sept. 7, 2008 -- *~@):~{> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
