In the spirit of full disclosure I have contributed money to only one campaign this year--retired Admiral Joe Sestak. I am not working for any campaign and I am not lobbying for a job in any Administration, Democrat or Republican. I live in Mayland and have little hope of having a voice in who is selected to run as our next President beyond what I can write on these pages. Understood?
Good. Then why are pro-Bush Republican newspapers and magazines working so hard to ensure that Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate come November 2008?
Following close on the heels of Obama endorsements from the neoconservative Weekly Standard and the conservative Republican newspaper the Sioux City Journal, yet another conservative Republican newspaper the Dallas Morning News has now rushed to support Obama.
There’s definitely an Obama bandwagon out there – built and pushed by Republican neocons eager to put another right-wing Republican in the White House.
Back in 2000, the Dallas Morning News supported George W. Bush.
In 2004, it did the same.
“Mr. Bush has always risen to fight the next round,” the newspaper said:
Americans want and need a president with a backbone steeled by courage and a heart tendered by compassion. Not since the beginning of World War II has America faced as much uncertainty about its national security and its economic prospects. The next president must have the firm conviction to persevere against Islamic terrorism and the empathy to give his fellow citizens a helping hand, even as he steadily guides the American economy through the turbulent waters of globalization. (October 17, 2004.) . . .
We have also seen Mr. Bush preach compassion to a party that historically hasn't rallied to the cause of the immigrant in South Texas or the student stuck in a failing school. Government can be a force for good, Mr. Bush tells his supporters. Republicans normally don't talk that way. This one does, and he walks the walk (his landmark education and Medicare reform bills, for example). America is better for it, too, despite Mr. Bush's tacking too far to the right on certain divisive social issues.
Now the Morning News looks at Obama and sees the same qualities it once saw in Bush.
Mr. Obama, the son of a white American mother and black Kenyan father, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country. His life experience gives him a unique perspective and a greater ability to build diplomatic bridges. We don't always agree with his positions, but we recognize his potential to unite disparate political factions and restore cooperation between the White House and Capitol Hill. Americans are tired of divisive, hard-edged politics. Democrats would inspire a refreshingly new approach by choosing Mr. Obama as their 2008 candidate.
Why do these outlets and media who have fawned over Bush in the past like Obama so much?
Could it be because his positions on the crucial issues of health care and Social Security are closer to those of the Republican right wing than those of any other Democratic contender?
Could it be because his pose of rejecting what the Morning News calls “the divisive politics of the past” make him an easier mark for Republican leaders who still go down the line with the partisan and hyper-divisive George Bush and Dick Cheney?
These Republicans have proved for many, many years that they are all for divisive politics, so as long as it helps the right. So maybe that’s why they are promoting a Democrat who talks like Barack Obama does – and why they loathe the prospect of running against a tested fighters like Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
Or maybe it’s just that these Republicans just want the Democrats to nominate someone they know will be easy to best. Yes, I know some polls suggest Obama does better in a nationwide match up. If you buy that nonsense let me sell you a bridge.
Does anybody seriously doubt that the Dallas Morning News – or the Sioux City Journal or the Weekly Standard--or Karl Rove – who have all hyped Obama, will all support the Republican nominee in the fall election, no matter who that nominee is, over any Democrat?
Does anybody seriously believe that these pro-Obama Republicans are sincere when they talk about a new "bi-partisan" respect and of ending divisions?
Does anybody seriously believe that they have anybody’s best interest at heart except their own partisan one?
Harry S. Truman once said: “Whenever a fellow tells me he’s bipartisan, I know he’s going to vote against me.”
It’s the same with the pro-Obama Republicans.
They are against Democrats today, will be against Democrats tomorrow, and will be against Democrats forever.
And so they are for Obama.