Posted on 08/18/2008 9:36:45 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Wall Street Journal has an absolutely brilliant editorial today here entitled "Obama on Clarence Thomas". It offers a view into what I and other bloggers have long been saying -- that beneath that well-scripted "post racial" veneer, Obama is a typical left-wing ideologue. When left alone, without a script, these real beliefs seep to the surface, painting a pretty divisive picture.
In answering a question on judicial appointees in a Town Hall style debate where he and John McCain appeared together (but not at the same time), Obama took a huge and demeaning swipe at the lone black jurist on the court, Clarence Thomas.
"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
Once again, Obama raises the specious issue of Thomas' background, experience and intelligence. Now, if the former law school professor would have bothered to check his facts, it is clear that though he may disagree with Thomas' judicial philosophy, he is nothing if not smart. That's a typical attack by the left to demean the Thomas tenure on the court. Because though Thomas is technically black, because he doesn't follow the liberal orthodoxy, he must not be smart -- otherwise why wouldn't he be the reincarnation of Jesse Jackson?
Even more telling, however, is Obama's perception of Thomas' lack of experience. As the Journal puts it:
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
I've noted before the arrogance that Obama carries with him -- anyone who believes that "he is the hope we've been waiting for" must have a very, very high opinion of himself. But here again, the facts don't fit the rhetoric. Obama may be a great speaker, but he's a neophyte. That's just a fact. He's the least experienced potential president in modern times. He may fancy himself as a Messiah figure, but his resume is weak. And much, much weaker than the U.S. Supreme Court Justice he demeans.
And, here again, the issue of Obama's true beliefs present a troubling picture of someone who has packaged himself to be president. He and his wife are on record in many places as having views that are both radical and out-of-the-mainstream.
The media, of course, has largely left these statements, writings and activities out of the news, preferring to report on his present scripted speeches as evidence of his hope-filled narrative. But the true evidence is there, and it often comes out in the kind of off-the-cuff remarks that were elicited in this debate format. It is why John McCain has pushed for Town Hall-style debated, and why Obama has resisted in favor of only three traditional debates before network news anchors. Its the kind of antisceptic format where Obama can control the angels of his not-so-better nature.
Which comes first; the chicken or the egg? True BO’s life experience enjoyed AA’s grace. But without the Chicago Machine, BO would have not faired so well so quickly. After all, he DID move to Chicago to take advantage of the political situation. I can assure you; BO’s rapid rise to power was the working of the Chicago Machine.
Do you believe Obama did all that on his own?
Only in America.
I maintain that approximately 47% of the electorate are either abysmally stupid or over-educated imbeciles....or both.
There are 53% of us left of which a large majority are conservative, with some moderates (you know: moderate, a person (like our president, perhaps) who stands for nothing.
Obama is something entirely different.
First of all, I don't know whether he is a legitimate American citizen. His entire history is buried somewhere, under a rock perhaps.
He is someone who was planted by the communists, nurtured and now has somewhat matured into the America-hating, muslim, pro-abortion clown that the 47% can find no wrong with.
When Democrats (the scourge of the earth as far as I'm concerned and I feel the same way about the damned RINOs) talk about 'bringing us together' that is the absolute LAST thing I want to see!
GRIDLOCK!!!!!!
I think he was directly involved in getting his opponents removed from the ballot the first time he ran for the legislature...the only time it was a real contest. As for the leaks to the Chicago Tribune, I have no idea--perhaps someone unaffiliated with his campaign who wanted him to win was behind those.
Oh, I’m sure he was involved. But he was helped, IMO, by the Chicago Machine.
.
Damn scary thought, but a good possibility since he would impose/do such stupid things that most with an IQ above Flori-DUH? on a hot day would consider socialist/commie....
I wish a lot of people would stop saying "pundints" when they mean to say "pundits". Can't believe how often I hear "pundints".
The final paragraph of that opinion demonstrates clearly why Senator Obama and the far left in America fear a Supreme Court justice who looks to the "intent" or "meaning" of the Founders for guidance in decisions like Kelo. After all, that's what Thomas Jefferson advised, when he said: "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (1823)
Here is the final paragraph of Justice Thomas's opinion:
"The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8—12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court." - Justice Clarence Thomas (Source: Cornell University web site)
To use a phrase the Left often employs, "most Americans," I believe, would find Justice Thomas's "legal mind" to be in accord with that of the genius Jefferson--not with that of the liberal justices and Senator Obama!
Anyone that saw how quick Obama answered that question with Clarence Thomas realized that HE dislikes this guy...big time and of all the justices he could have said first....he mentioned a black justice. Wow? You think in this church congregation they looked at Clarence Thomas as an enemy???
“I wish a lot of people would stop saying ‘pundints’ when they mean to say ‘pundits’. Can’t believe how often I hear ‘pundints’.”
Really? I’ve never heard anyone say “pundints” nor have I ever seen it written. Is it a regional thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.