 | |
| |
|
|
October 14, 2004 Debate managers cover for Obama Commentary
"Dad," I said, "this guy is bad news! We've got to find somebody good to run against him." (Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka had just turned the Republican leadership down.) "Well, I don't know," my father — a decorated World War II vet and solid, pro-life conservative — replied, turning his attention back to the financial pages of the New York Times. "Obama seems like a nice enough guy to me." Obama, a "nice guy"? Judging by the man's record, which demonstrates support for the destruction of everything from job growth to helpless infants, I wondered just how "nice" a person would have to be, to compensate for all this. I got some idea of what my Dad (who had had more exposure to Obama's political persona than I had) was talking about, while listening to the first of the Keyes-Obama debates on October 12. An enigmatic affair in which the moderators saw to it that much was said and little concluded, the debate didn't seem to start until it was about to end. This is because Obama spent the first seven-eighths of it agreeing cordially if misleadingly with the major points that Dr. Keyes so cogently made. "Ambassador Keyes and I agree on one thing, and that is that the war on Terror has to be vigorously fought." "One thing that it appears Ambassador Keyes and I may agree on is that the single biggest threat we face is a nuclear weapon or some weapon of mass destruction." "Well, actually, I think Ambassador Keyes and I agree on a couple of things. I think freight rail is important (and) I do believe in O'Hare expansion." So pleasant, so reasonable. Still, Obama and Keyes are as different as night and day in terms of their political philosophy and approach. Obama, for some reason and fairly successfully, seemed to be playing this point down. "What is this guy up to?" I kept wondering, as discussion of the issues at hand went on. I found out, as did the rest of the audience, when Obama's sucker punch was landed just as the credits started rolling. When the Born Alive Infant Act was mentioned at last, Obama, abandoning all pretense of politeness, accused Dr. Keyes of "carpet-bagging" and informed all listening Illinoisans that Keyes could have "saved himself the trip" with a phone call because he — Barack Obama — would have voted for the Act had it contained a provision specifying that it was not meant to encroach on Roe v. Wade. "I find it fascinating that . . ." is all Dr. Keyes got in of his rebuttal. "We really are out of time," one of the moderators conveniently broke in. Well, if we really were out of time when the defining issues of the campaign finally came up, whose fault would that be? So there you have it. Case (as far as Debate #1 of the three-debate series goes) closed. The less-informed listener could not but conclude that there are few if any significant differences between the two men contending for the open senate seat, and that Dr. Keyes' transplanted vehemence about various issues is not so much untrue as it is unnecessary. "We already have a perfectly good candidate, and a home-grown one, thank you, so if you would, be a good fellow and move along," is the impression the debate's managers were able to create. Barack Obama, the "Democratic rising star," had some help, I think, in coming off as a "nice enough guy," indeed. But Dr. Keyes is not a fifth wheel. Barack Obama, whose socialist worldview is corrosive of all the Founding Fathers once sacrificed for, is a fifth columnist. Let's hope more of Obama's record will be set against his rhetoric when Ambassador Keyes and Obama face off again. Helen M. Valois is a homemaker and mom currently residing in the northwoods of Wisconsin. She is a member of the MI (Militia Immaculatae) movement founded by St. Maximilian Kolbe. She met Dr. Keyes when he was the graduation speaker at Franciscan University of Steubenville in 1996, when she was awarded her Master's Degree in Theology. Helen's articles and book reviews have appeared in a number of publications since that time. |
