Who is Obama? &c.

[Geee]

National Review:

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.