Several times already, we have seen the issue of race trump issues of substance.
We saw it when talk radio host Bill Cunningham was derided for including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s middle name, “Hussein,” while speaking about his lack of experience with regard to foreign policy and other issues. We saw it when Saturday Night Live was criticized for using a white actor to portray Obama on the show. We saw it when Idaho Rep. Steve King, in the course of raising relevant issues regarding why terrorists would prefer a Democrat in the Oval Office, was slammed for stating that an Obama presidency would have “terrorists dancing in the streets.”
Over the weekend, Kentucky Rep. Geoff Davis told the crowd at the Northern Kentucky 4th Congressional District Lincoln Day Dinner a story about how he had recently joined Obama in a “highly classified, national security simulation.”
“I’m going to tell you someting,” Davis said. “That boy’s finger does not need to be on the ‘button.’ He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”
Today, he apologized for referring to Obama as “boy.”
While the need for the apology is certainly understandable in this particular case–Obama is only about three years younger than Davis, so the use of “boy” to denote an age difference is unlikely–the apology itself overshadows the underlying message behind what Davis had to say: Obama is woefully unprepared and incapable of shouldering the burden that is the responsibility of defending America.
Once again, the issue of race is usurping a major substantive issue. Obama’s inability to make a decision during a recent national security simulation goes directly to the heart of his presidential bid, yet the only news we see or hear about these comments involve the improper and frankly unfortunate use of “boy.”
Why is it that, when confronted with information that outs Obama as being indecisive and inexperienced and unprepared in situations when decisivenes, experience and preparation are needed most, the only portion brought into the public debate is a white politician’s use of a discriminatory term, yet when Obama himself says that many small-town (read: white) Pennsylvanians are so bitter about their current situations that they turn to religion and guns and revert to being xenophobic, anti-immigrant racists, the portion thrust into the public debate is Obama’s use of the word “bitter” and how that somehow makes him an elitist?
Why is it that white politicians can be deemed racist, but Obama and his spiritual leaders cannot?
Why is it that the slightest misuse of a word or phrase by a white male congressman or female former vice presidential candidate is scruitinized ad nauseum until some sort of racial intolerance is tangentially found, yet blatant, overtly racist statements made by Obama supporters and even Obama himself somehow get a pass?
Why is it that the topic of race overshadows actual issues that have bearing upon the success or failure of this nation at all?
Until we can answer these questions fairly and honestly, we are doomed to pave our own path to destruction with white guilt and political correctness.