Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Mar. 23, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Obama condemns quotas -- or does he?

He sympathizes -- but says capitalists are the real culprits

The current president, George W. Bush, is not a gifted orator.

Oratory seems to be one of those things no one thinks matters much in a president -- until it goes missing.

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
  • LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
  • LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
  • EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
  • J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
  • EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes
  • LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?
  • EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Letting the looters vote on who's for lunch




    • Those who dislike the current president may cite any of a dozen policy issues. But they rarely fail to mention how they cringe when that marble-mouth begins to speak.

    Freshman Sen. Barack Obama is campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president on a platform of "change." One big change under an Obama presidency, make no mistake, would be the fact that the senator is a gifted orator, as he proved again Tuesday in his speech on America's racial divide.

    But skilled oratory can help reveal and explain the concrete steps a candidate would take to confront an issue, or it can be used the way a fan dancer uses her fans, to tantalize, to lead us on, while never quite delivering the goods.

    Take just one section of that much-discussed speech in Philadelphia, which Sen. Obama titled "A More Perfect Union."

    After discussing the grievances of black Americans, Sen. Obama, who was raised in an all-white family, said "A similar anger exists within segments of the white community. ... They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. ... In an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero-sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed ... resentment builds over time. ...

    "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive," the senator continued, "so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle-class squeeze -- a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns -- this, too, widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding."

    That's impressive. A black politician has just acknowledged that the resentment of some whites over affirmative action -- legalized discrimination against whites designed to give black Americans "a good job or a spot in a good college" for which a white or Asian person was actually better qualified -- should not be "wished away" or "labeled as misguided or even racist," because such resentments are "grounded in legitimate concerns."

    Well, hallelujah. Whereupon the candidate proceeded to shock some of his black supporters by saying he will propose legislation to end such legal discrimination against whites and Asians during the first year of his presidency, and -- should Congress fail to enact it -- simply order his Cabinet officers to suspend such programs as blatant violations of the Constitution. Right?

    Wrong. Candidate Obama said nothing of the sort.

    Here we see the genius with which Sen. Obama uses our current cultural fixation -- promoted through two generations in the public schools, reinforced through all those shelves of "self-help" books and magazines, characterized by the self-referential "And how did that make you feel?"; "This is how it makes me feel when you say that"; "I hear what you're saying"; "I feel your pain," etc.

    It sure sounded like he said he was going to do something about the injustice of reverse discrimination. But he didn't.

    In fact, what he said was that such white resentments merely "distract attention from the real culprits" -- greedy businessmen who exercise their right to petition him in Washington, and "economic policies that favor the few over the many."

    Presumably Candidate Obama -- who has the furthest-left voting record of anyone currently serving in the U.S. Senate -- refers to an income tax that currently requires the top 10 percent of American wage-earners to pay 68 percent of all income taxes (according to Stephen Moore, a senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial board, November 2007), while the bottom 50 percent -- those below the median income level -- now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

    But to Sen. Obama, a politically correct socialist who has never stood up against a significant "affirmative action" quota or set-aside in his life, that system "favors the few over the many."

    It would be interesting to know how much more would have to be looted from the productive and given to the shiftless to please Sen. Obama -- and how on earth he thinks that's going to stop anyone with any money left from investing it in less overregulated "job creation" overseas.

    But Sen. Obama is much too smart for that. He's not saying.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 15 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    ron wrote on March 23, 2008 08:32 PM: Excellent editorial! B. Hussein Obamination is all smooth-talk', but no 'solutions'. He certainly failed to say he would correct the blatant, legal, systematic discrimination that occurs frequently against people of successful races when they try for jobs, promotions, contracts... This is an outrage and it is sad to read the liberal posts here that try to downplay it, or spin the story towards President Bush. Yes, wait and see the exodus of jobs from the US if Obama punishes successful people even more for earning money or trying to get jobs and promotions! Don't liberals understand this?? are they all on drugs??


    Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on March 23, 2008 04:19 PM: Whoever wrote this piece of trash must be stuck in some sort of perverted time-warp?

    We will never forget how the phrase "compassionate capitalism" was distorted beyond recognition - and only exposed the LACK of compassion the Republican Party has for the people.

    When the rotten Republicans sacrificed compassion our capitalistic system became predatory to the point of cannibalism!

    As never, ever before the rich got much, much richer and the poor got poorer as did the shrinking middle class - you knoow those shirkers (like our lower enlisted military personnel who have to get food stamps just to feed their kids)!

    Even our military retirees, and especially our disabled veterans, can't even afford to buy a humble condo in Las Vegas now-a-days!

    The "conservative" movement has become demented into a "consumer" movement - and the corporations have forced a feeding frenzy on themselves - at the expense of everday middle-class Americans!

    The American Dream has turned into the American Nightmare for far too many good, hard-working, honest Americans - of all colors.

    I agree with "John F" this editorial is trash. It reminds me of the old joke about the difference between poor white trash, middle-class white trash and wealthy white trash...the only reall difference is the amount of money they have - they're still racist white trash (and being white I can repeat that joke)!

    OBAMA/EDWARDS '08!


    grumpy wrote on March 23, 2008 04:11 PM: John F,
    We are not in debt because of "tax cuts for the rich" We are in debt because the government spends too much.

    How many times must the lesson be taught over and over? The income tax cuts enacted in 2001-2003 resulted in increased revenue from income tax that grew faster than both inflation and population combined. Thus, one can hardly blame the tax cuts--which freed up captital to produce more taxable wealth for the deficits. Congress spending like drunken sailors, aided and abetted by a rubber stamping president is what resulted in deficits.

    Mark my words friend: When your leftist idealogues gain more power and taxes rise, you can rest absolutely assured that deficits will rise further. Remember where you heard this first.


    John F wrote on March 23, 2008 01:15 PM: I don't even know where to begin, this editorial is such a piece of trash.

    We're indebt to the tune of $5 trillion dollars in large part as a result of massive tax cuts given to the wealthiest portion of our population and the editors' solution is to tax the least wealthy portion of our population more.

    The last eight years have seen a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich on a scale unprecedented in American history and the editors suggest that the solution is to accelerate that transfer.

    There's a reason why people in the lower half of income earners in this country don't pay a lot of taxes: THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. According to the Census Bureau, over 12% of the American population is currently living in poverty. The editors believe these people should pay the same portion of their incomes in taxes as the wealthy. The average American household (not individual, but household) brings in about $40 - 45,000 in annual pretax income; that's under $4,000 a month, probably under $3,000 after taxes. Good luck raising your 2 kids on that. And those of you who say don't have kids if you can't afford to, remember you're telling the average American family they can't afford to have kids.

    Yes, I've called for a flat tax on these very pages, but a flat tax that exempts the first $25,000 or so of income so that people don't pay taxes on the income they need just to survive.

    Did you hear that, average American family? The editors of the RJ think you're shiftless. Good Lord, the sanctimony of these people is overwhelming.


    br wrote on March 23, 2008 12:26 PM: Let me made a few of points.

    Bush is not running for president.

    Our military WON the Iraq war in record time.

    Our goverment managed to lose the nation building concept.

    Our military is winning the war on terror in spite of everything the left wing idiots in this country can do to deny it.

    Obama's slick talking and support of the msm is coming unraveled. His real nature as a racist-socialist is being exposed.

    Hillary's past is catching up to her. The public is realizing just how power mad and dangerous she is.

    McCain is only slightly better. If I have to chose the lesser of three evils, I still wind up with evil.

    America is in for a rough ride no matter which of these people win.


    Nuevo Americano wrote on March 23, 2008 11:29 AM: Yes fausto it all abour me me me Everything should be free. New roads should be free. New School should be paid with monopoly money. Fausto you got to work on roads build by us and your work job is protected by OUR fire department. Your eat at resturants inspect by OUR health department at least for now until the republicans convince dumbies that inspections are excesssive regulation that reduce their profits then maybe you will enjoy your horse or dog burger It is OUR goverment


    Nuevo Americano wrote on March 23, 2008 11:20 AM: Bush is the worst president we have ever had. He starts a war because he wants to have a quick win over a non existent army. This war is costing trillions yet we are not paying any burden just borrowing from China to pay for it. Yet the RJ continues to ignore Bush not one bad word aginst him.

    We will let the Republicans continue to debate whether we should use the St James bible ot the mormon bible or to believe in the virgin mary.

    the real issues of the war, health cost and the economy, stupid, is what americans will focus on. As for affirmative action we will let white men hire their white neghbors and call it the good old boy network. Good try RJ to bring up non issues to divide us


    Fausto wrote on March 23, 2008 11:07 AM: "After seven years of GOP disasters Obama is giving Americans a reason to feel good again. No wonder that's driving the right crazy."

    Feel good? About what? Virtually everything I hear about the American experience from Obama is negitive. Yes, I am the guy living the positive American experience! His government will solve all of the problems I don't have...and probably cost me all of the money I make to do so.

    No thanks. I work hard to make MY money, and enjoy keeping MY money to enrich MY life and the lives of the people I care for and causes I support. I don't want to give any more of my money up to support the causes HE (Obama) belives I should be contributing to (an example toward the top of Obama's list would no doubt be the Medicaid story on the fronpage of the R-J website). I am sure Barack is anti-gun, but he'll be the first guy to stick a figurative gun to my head and demand I pay HIS government more. No thanks!

    I laugh at you people who get caught up in the world of political gotcha games.


    tim wrote on March 23, 2008 10:17 AM: james,the president was elected by over half the pop.,you still cant get over that.americans dont want socialism or communism or whatever you want to call it,thats why obama will lose if he gets the nomination.


    bruc wrote on March 23, 2008 09:31 AM: james obama has me worked up because he hates America ,he is a scialist. he would like all white people removed and wellfare for everyone.If Bush could run again he would win with no problem.


    Read All Comments