Obama vs. the Rednecks

Jack Murtha, along with many pundits and Obama supporters have suggested that, should Barack Obama lose the presidential election, it will be because racist whites—who would vote for a white candidate with Obama’s record and policy stances—won’t support a black man.  However, the truth of the matter that Obama is the nominee, in part, because he is black, and should he be the next president, his race would be an asset.

To be sure, there are some voters who will never vote for a black candidate—but the election will hardly hinge on these voters. Ryan Shafik effectively debunked the idea that Pennsylvania "racist white conservatives" will offer a big election swing he noted that Lynn Swann (a black Republican challenger) outperformed Rick Santorum (a white Republican incumbent) in the supposedly redneck, cracker parts of the state. 

Rather, the question is whether Obama can attract enough voters (including new voters) to support him because of his race, in spite of his record, rather than vice versa. During the primary election season, exits polls indicate that while splitting the white vote with Hillary Clinton, Obama captured 90% or more of the Black vote in key states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and over 75% in South Carolina (when John Edwards, from neighboring NC, was still running), California, and Georgia. Political analysts would be hard pressed to point to the policy differences with Sen. Clinton that made Obama more appealing to black voters.

But his appeal to non-black voters, which he will need to win the general election, also stems from his race.  Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” is largely based on the color of his skin.

The message is not entirely without merit.  As the first African American nominee of a major party for President, an Obama election would be every bit as significant as Jackie Robinson’s first game and Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court.  Such an election would send a message to the rest of the world and to African-Americans who feel their government doesn’t respect them.

However, Obama’s message of “change” does not jive with his record.

While corruption in Chicago and Cook County government abounded, Obama never spoke up; instead, he frequently sided with the political machines.  When there was a strong push to reform Cook County government, Obama instead supported the crooked party bosses—even endorsing the son of the corrupt county president as his replacement.

Obama won his first election when he won legal challenges to have all his challengers disqualified from the ballot. This type of political maneuver should be familiar to Pennsylvanians, but neither something we are proud of, nor the mark of a true reformer.

Obama denounces special interests, but panders to his own. Largely, he has been hand-in-hand with the teacher’s union agenda—including opposition to school choice.  While African-American parents in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and across the county demand school choice to save their children from failing and dangerous public schools, Obama—who sends his own daughter to private school—repeats the tired rhetoric of the unions in opposing choice.  In return, the NEA has poured millions of union dues into helping Obama’s election.

Obama decries not taxing "Big Oil" enough, but supports mandates, taxpayer subsidies, and tax breaks for Big Ethanol.  Why?  Ethanol is bad for air quality, increases the cost of food and gasoline, increases water shortages, won't make us energy independent, and is a bad deal for taxpayers. But, as the New York Times reported this summer, Obama’s campaign has numerous ties to the ethanol lobby.

Obama claims to be the candidate to clean up Washington, notably highlighting his refusal to take money from lobbyists.  But USA Today found this was a complete deception, writing:

His fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government, records show.

Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million.

Obama has shown that much of his campaign promises were merely rhetoric—changing his position on NAFTA after the primary season (even with reports he told the Canadian government to ignore his demagoguery) and voting against his own platform, when Senator Allard of Colorado introduced $300 billion worth of Obama's promises in legislation.

This laundry list of examples doesn’t make Obama out to be the devil, but simply a typical politician.  Yet he is cast as a change agent.  This may be, as Obama himself says, he “looks different” than other politicians.  One has to wonder what percentage of voters will vote for Obama—or turn out to vote when they otherwise would not—because he is black?