Liberal bloggers and commenters at The Washington Post op-ed section are rightly criticizing a column this week by syndicated scribe Kathleen Parker that questions Barack Obama's "deep-seated" Americanism. But she is only following the footsteps of Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal who raised similar issues three weeks ago -- and was praised by NBC's Brian Williams for a "Pulitzer" worthy effort.
Noonan wrote then:
Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem...[H]as he ever gotten misty-eyed over... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills?
Henry Ford was a vicious anti-Semite, but no matter. For Noonan continued:
John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee....
Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country -- any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was lovable, and what does he think about it all?...
[N]o one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness.
No one? And surely not Peggy Noonan. And, of course, Obama has spoken about why he loves American often and at great length, if Noonan might have noticed if she was paying attention.
Now, Kathleen Parker, in contrast, used the words of another to set forth her central premise. At least this time she didn't quote someone who suggested that certain liberals be taken out and shot, as she did in a column back in 2003.
She opened this week's column (she is published in dozens of papers) by quoting 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia who said he backed John McCain over Barack Obama:
"His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with 'someone who is a full-blooded American as president.'"
We don't know Mr. Fry, but polls did show that an extraordinarily high number of voters in the recent Democratic primary in West Virginia did -- privately -- admit that race had an awful lot to do with their vote.
But Parker assured us, again, that her own views had nothing to do with race:
Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.
Who 'gets' America? And who doesn't?...It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.
Ok, I'll give you a little bit of help if you are perplexed. Throw away those books, put a yellow magnet on your car and maybe one of those "made in China" flags on your car antenna. Make sure that you stuff yourself at places like "Old Country Buffet" regularly, and take your vacations in Branson, M. O.
Now, you have to grow a thicker skin. Remember what is now acceptable in your world:
Remember, this was a sitting United States Senator in the Republican party (at that time).
Remember that Coulter is NOT on the Republican extreme; mainstream Republican candidates do not distance themselves from her.
And to get you still better adjusted to your new political environment, follow (Clinton suppoter) Max Blumenthal as he explores the CPAC 2007 conference (Conservative Political Action Conference). Remember that Republican Presidential candidates regularly speak at this.
Permalink | 35 comments