A letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

I am writing yet another post in the form of a letter to you regarding the issue of abortion. Like most of my posts regarding you, I am not writing so much as to attack you for your positions on this issue - something I see as unproductive - as much as to point out why I deeply disagree with you in a way that might allow you and others to listen more objectively. Even more, I want to reason with you in the hopes that you may one day change your way of thinking on it.

I have previously written to ask you to think about the issue of abortion in the context of your dear late mother, whose challenges in being pregnant with you included that of being a single, uneducated, unmarried teenager whose forthcoming birth was considered embarrassing for both families. I pointed out how similar her predicament was to that of millions of other women who decided that they didn't want the "punishment," as you once put it, of having an unplanned pregnancy and who decided to terminate the lives of their unborn babies through abortion. I asked you to think about how your own life may have been affected if abortion, which you maintain should be legal and widely available, were a legal and available option to her at the time she found herself pregnant with you. And now I want you to think about the issue of abortion from the position of the subject of your first book. Your father.

Let's suppose that your mother and father met, as they did, at the University of Hawaii. They began a relationship. Your mother became pregnant with you. Your parents were unmarried. They had not yet earned their formal education. The world, the country and their own families looked down on their relationship. All of this so far is part of your actual real life story as well as of the story of many others less fortunate than you. But let's add one twist to the story, Senator. Let's suppose that your proud African father, surprised by the news that he was going to have a child, accepted it and began dreaming about the day of your birth and all the things you would do afterward. But your mother considered the prospect of carrying you a nightmare and decided, in a decision exclusive to herself, that your life would end prior to birth.

Your father would try to reason with your mother. He would suggest that they get married and that the three of you would be a family. He would assure her that their child would inherit a rich heritage and that the child would be part of a large extended family. He would talk about how he would dream of the possibility that this unplanned child, you, might one day graduate college. Might one day travel the world. Might one day get involved in politics and attain accomplishments that no African in America in 1960 would have ever thought possible. But she still said no. That although you are the biological descendent of both your Kenyan father and your Kansas mother, and are an obvious example of two sets of genes coming together to form one person, that your mother, and her alone, had decided that your beating heart would never live long enough to become a breathing baby Barack.

If this had happened, Senator, the dreams of your father would have never become reality. And instead of you spending much of your life dreaming for the father whom you never got to really know, it would have been your heartbroken father who would have spent the rest of his life pining for the son he never had a chance to get to know. The child who, although conceived in an act of mutual consent, and who was the biological offspring of both father and mother, was taken from him in a conscious decision that he had no legal power to be involved in. Senator, this is the nightmare of your father.

Your father never had to experience this nightmare because your mother did not make the "choice" to terminate your beating heart before birth. But this country has a lot of Barack Obama Seniors out there, of all races and backgrounds. A lot of men who unexpectedly became fathers-to-be, and who were willing to take the responsibility of accepting the child as their own, but who never had the opportunity to do so. Their dreams were turned into nightmares because the mothers-to-be faces challenges that in many cases were no more great than the challenges that your mother had in bearing you, and because the law that you defend allows the mothers to play an exclusive role in deciding whether or not the child, the biological offspring of her and the father, can live.

Senator, this is part of the true legacy of Roe v. Wade, which you support. This is one of the parts that neither you or other supporters of abortion spend much time talking about. But there are many broken dreams that have been turned into nightmares. And not just for fathers who had no power to stop their own children from being killed en utero. There also are a lot of mothers who decided to get rid of their "punishment," only to later come to see it as the worst, most wrenching, and most ill-informed decision of their lives.

I will not be supporting you in this election in large part because of my deep opposition to your position on this issue, which I do not think can be defended and which cannot be minimized. But regardless of what happens on Election Day, Senator, whether you lose or whether you win, you need to change. I say this because your policies on this issue, sir, stand in deep contrast to the dreams of your father, and contradict everything that you claim to be.

1858 Not considered human No legal rights The law gave people the "right" to make a "choice" about his fate	2008 Not considered human No legal rights The law gives people the "right" to make a "choice" about his fate
“Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally” - President Abraham Lincoln	“I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” - President Ronald Reagan

 

"There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned." - Rev. Jesse Jackson, at the time a pro-life supporter, National Right to Life News, (January, 1977)

 

In March of 1857, two days after the Presidential Inauguration, the United States Supreme Court settled, in a 7-2 ruling, the difficult question of slavery by announcing the decision of the landmark Dred Scot v. Sanford case. The ruling stated that no African American whether free or slave could ever have citizenship rights. It further interpreted the Constitution to declare African Americans to be "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." It was the settled law of the land.

In January of 1973, two days after the Presidential Inauguration, the United States Supreme Court settled, in a 7-2 ruling, the difficult question of abortion by announcing the decision of the landmark Roe v. Wade case. The ruling stated that unborn babies, or fetuses (which is the Latin word for "offspring"), have no right to life under the Fourteenth Amendment prior to 24 weeks gestation. It further interpreted the Constitution to declare that an unborn baby can be killed through abortion at the sole discretion of his or her mother for any reason prior to the twenty-fourth week of gestation. The ruling is still considered the "settled law of the land" today - even though many babies have survived after being born prior to the 24-week mark.

Whether people realize it or not, the debate over abortion is not new in the context of American history. In fact, we are having the same exact debate that we had 150 years ago over the issue of slavery. In both cases, the debate is over personal property/bodily rights versus the individual rights of living beings whose humanity is disputed. In both cases, those on the side of property/bodily rights claim that the government should leave them alone and that the subject of their "rights" is not human and/or not suffering. In both cases, the subjects - human slaves in the 19th century and unborn babies today - have no legal standing of their own and are defended by others who advocate on their behalf. And in both cases, the barbarism of the underlying activity - either the physical domination and brutality of other already-born human beings or the brutal killing of not-yet-born human beings whose hearts have already started beating - are given more innocuous nicknames. The property/bodily rights advocates of 1858 and 2008 are respectively known as "pro-state's rights" and "pro-choice." Here's a comparison that typifies the thinking on their respective issues:

And here are some actual quotes from politicians who have defended the property/bodily rights position:

The issue of slavery needed to be settled with a Constitutional Amendment and not just an attempt to reverse the ruling of Dred Scot. And the issue of abortion needs to be settled with a Constitutional Amendment as well. Because even if Roe v. Wade were reversed this morning, a number of states, including California and Maryland, have "trigger laws" that would automatically make abortion legal in those places. If it's wrong to allow unborn babies to be murdered, which it surely is, than why wouldn't it be wrong everywhere?

As a descendent of the victims of slavery and a former fetus that could have been aborted, I think that the parallels between these two "rights" are plentiful and striking. I also think that a lot of people who were involved in slavery, as well as many who have and have had abortions, are people who did not realize what they were doing. It was as socially acceptable to many 150 years ago to have slaves as it is today by many living today to have abortions. People did not see my ancestors as human beings and many people today do not see children who will breathe their firsts breaths within the next eight months to be human beings. To become the great country that it is today, America eventually came to see slavery as a moral evil that could not be tolerated. And to continue to be a great country, we must see the parallels between abortion and slavery and adopt the same attitude toward the other living beings with a beating human heart who do not have legal rights and whose fate is considered the "choice" of others.

The funny thing is that many who now think they're advocating freedom and choice are essentially taking the same position as Americans of yesterday, who, 150 fears later, are now considered to have been on the wrong side of history. Although I will not vote for Senator Obama beause of this issue, I pray for him and his family (as I do for Senator Mccain and his family). You could even say that I "oppose him with love in my heart." I strongly disagree with him and can't support him but like him and sincerely hope that one day he changes. But since he has associated himself with the Land of Lincoln and even announced his bid for Presidency at the historic Old State Capitol where Lincoln gave his House Divided speech, I often wonder if he realizes that Lincoln is not the Illinois politician whose position on the value of human life he is advocating. His position on this issue does semantically match those of an Illinois politician associated with Lincoln. But that politician was Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas, a state's rights supporter, who disagreed with Lincoln about the issue of "choice." Obama's seat in the Senate is next to the one that Douglass once held.

I am, like many others, absolutely heartbroken for the tragedy that his struck this talented young lady and her family. We will all be praying for her and asking the Lord to give her comfort in her darkest hour. But in addition to being heartbroken, I am extremely angry. I can't believe someone would kill an innocent child or her mother and brother. I pray that whoever is responsible for this crime truly is brought to justice.

Once upon a time, there was a good guy - we'll call him "John" - who was on an important long journey. He was on his way to a really nice house in which he would stay for a couple of years, take a new job, and do what he could do to help his country. But after traveling for a year and a half, John realized that there there was something that might prevent him from going further. There was a brick wall blocking his path to the house.

John wasn't traveling alone but had a bunch of buddies with him who were helping to guide his journey. And when they encountered the wall, John's buddies came up with a brilliant plan to deal with the wall so that they could complete the last leg of the journey. They told John that what he needed to do next was to go through the wall.

The wall, though outwardly impressive, was built on a shallow foundation. And so, John reasoned that if he walked up to the wall and firmly pressed against it, it would topple. But it didn't. John bruised his face a little and retreated to his buddies to put together a better plan.

His buddies told him that the problem was that he needed to be more forceful in the way he attacked the wall. That the reason that the wall didn't fall was because he simply walked into it. He needed to get a running start and then hit the wall. And then the wall, which was not anywhere near as strong as some thought it was, would certainly fall and John could go on to his new house. So, John came running and aggressively charged the wall. But that only caused John to suffer a concussion. The wall wasn't affected.

John was joined by a partner - we'll call her "Sarah." They were both tough people and liked the challenge of taking on obstacles. And so John's buddies put together a plan for both of them to rush the wall at the same time. Certainly, that would cause the wall to collapse and allow them to travel together to the house. And so they both ran full force into the wall, certain that their combined toughness and straight-ahead approach would cause the wall to meet its demise. But they both got hurt while the wall continued to stand.

By this time, a large group of well-meaning well-wishers had gathered to cheer John and Sarah on, urging them to try even harder to knock the wall over. "Take it to it!" shouted one person in the crowd. "Hit it hard" shouted another. The two tough competitors, weary from the pain they suffered from previous attempts to rush the wall, were encouraged by John's buddies and the crowd and lowered their shoulders and tried again. This time, they got hurt worse than ever. In anger, pain and frustration, they rushed it yet again, certain that if they ran hard enough or pushed hard enough that the wall would fall down. But with every attempt to attack the wall, they knocked themselves even sillier than they did the last time they charged. In their dazed state, they were beginning to forget that their end goal was to get to the house and that dealing with the challenge of the wall was just a means to that end.

John and Sarah wasted a lot of time trying to progress on their journey by knocking the wall down. They didn't realize until very late that directly attacking the wall wasn't the way to get around it. But, unfortunately, the multiple collisions had taken a severe toll on both of them and, in spite of the beliefs of their supporters, came closer to knocking them out than it came to damaging the wall.

A long time before John started rushing the wall in the first place, he and his buddies were given a tip by a smart guy - we'll call him Mike - who wanted to see John get to the house without running into trouble with the wall. Mike suggested that John and his team climb over the brick wall instead of trying to smash it in. This advice caused John's buddies and a lot of others who were pulling for John to laugh at Mike. What a ridiculous suggestion, they thought, from someone who clearly does not know how to step around obstacles or have the will for a fight. Unfortunately, John's buddies didn't realize that Mike was smarter than they were and that he had a lot of experience in going around obstacles.

How does the story end for John and Sarah? We'll know in about a week. But we already know that they would have been far better off if John's and his buddies had listened to Mike and gone over the wall instead of just trying to crash into it.

And here's the real lesson to be learned from this story. It wasn't ever going to be possible to bypass the wall by going horizontally - right to left, east to west, north to south - no matter how fast John went or how much force he went into it. The way to bypass this brick wall was to go vertically. The way Mike suggested that John and others bypass this roadblock.

Many people in this country - both conservatives and liberals -  are tired of hearing reasons to not vote for somebody. We want to hear a battle of ideas. Vertical politics and the discussion of ideas - not intense attacks - are the way to get around any political obstacle that blocks the path to the White House. A lot of us are tired of all the collisions and the noise that comes as a result of it.

And at the very least, many of us would like to see signs that our potential leaders actually learn something from previous experiences. If someone tries to rush the wall nine times and have only experienced pain as a result of it, without getting through it, why would anyone in their right mind think that a tenth try would work? Wouldn't it be much easier to go over it?

Last December, Chris Cilliza wrote in The Fix on The Washington Post's Politics Blog that the Presidential candidate who most scared the Democrats was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Some quotes from the blog:

Mike Huckabee's rapid rise in the Republican presidential race is prompting concern among some Democratic strategists who believe that the former Arkansas governor could become a daunting general election foe should he secure the GOP nomination.

"Mike Huckabee is the Republican that probably worries me the most," said Wooten Johnson, a Democratic strategist based in Louisiana. "Unlike the other Republicans, he isn't flawed in the eyes of the Republican base. But more importantly, he has a record of being a true compassionate conservative. He will be able to attract those suburban voters that don't want to vote for [a] Democrat."

John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster based in Alabama, offered a similar sentiment about Huckabee: "He is the type of person who plays well in both a People Magazine profile, on Leno and in debates," said Anzalone. "Real people seem to see a bit of themselves in Huck, and I think he will be difficult to demonize."

The article went on to say that although Huckabee's views are more conservative than the average voter, being in favor of Constitutional Amendments to ban abortion and prevent the definition of marriage from being changed, that a Democratic attack painting him as an extremist "just doesn't work." Matt Bennett, a former Clinton administration official, opined that Huckabee's "affability may take the edge off the harshness of his world-view."

That same month, Frank Rich wrote a column for the New York Times titled "The Republicans Find Their Obama." In it, Rich commented on a number of factors that made Huckabee unique among the Republican field and perhaps best able to take on the challenge of Obama, the emerging Democratic superstar. The fact that Huckabee and Obama are not far apart in age (Huckabee is less than six years older). The fact that both of them have wit and charisma. And the fact that both men have been able to attract support across both party lines and racial lines. He seemed to suggest that the hunger of many Americans for change could have ended up channeled not just toward Obama but also toward the newest Republican candidate on the national scene.

But fortunately for the Democrats, they never had to work to put together the difficult attack plan of derailing Huckabee's campaign. The Republican Establishment and media pundits did that for them. These are the same folks who are now loudly complaining that the election isn't going well. Starting around the time of Cilliza's and Rich's articles and continuing until Huckabee ended his Presidential bid in March, much of the conservative media undertook a relentless attack on Huckabee. He was routinely called a "liberal" - even though he has very conservative positions on social issues, is an ardent supporter of gun rights, and wanted to completely eliminate both personal and corporate income taxes. In spite of the near constant bashing of Huckabee on conservative radio shows, on Fox News, on the pages of the National Review and, amazingly, by an organization that claims to want to protect taxpayers (0% wasn't low enough, guys?), the former Governor outperformed expectations and won eight states in the primary season. He did this not only with almost no money and almost no endorsements but with the constant opposition of some of the people who were most influential in the minds of many Republican voters.

If the GOP were a sports franchise, it would be fair to say that the coaches and most vocal fans effectively benched their own best player. And now in the forth quarter of the championship game, they're blaming others that they are on the brink of elimination. They constantly complain about the fouls committed by the Democrats or how the refs, the American voters, must be blind. But they haven't figured out yet that a lot of the problem lies in the fact that they forced their own best player off of the floor. They would be smart to learn from this mistake, even if they never publicly admit that they made one, so that they don't do the same thing in the future.

Here are a few areas in which a Republican Presidential Nominee Huckabee could have made the score a little more even. They might even have helped his team to take the lead.

  The Economy - Mike Huckabee seemed to be among the earliest candidates to understand that the economy would be an issue of grave concern for many voters. A year ago this month, the Republican Presidential candidates gathered for a debate on economic issues in Dearborn, Michigan. Mike Huckabee said:

"You know, a lot of people are going to be watching this debate, they're going to hear Republicans on this stage talk about how great the economy is. And, frankly, when they hear that they're going to probably reach for the dial.
I want to make sure people understand that for many people on this stage the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans it's not doing so well. The people who handle the bags and make the beds at our hotels and serve the food, many of them are having to work two jobs."

Even Rich Lowry of the National Review, one of Huckabee's fervent critics, eventually conceded three months after he withdrew from the nomination battle "wouldn't Mike Huckabee be just the right Republican for this particular moment, when pocketbook concerns are looming so large? Tonally, he was always right on this stuff." And unlike Obama, Huckabee could claim that he actually has prior experience in running a government that saw its economy grow.

Health Care - For many voters, this is a huge issue. And to match Obama's promise of health care, Huckabee had some tangible accomplishments to point to that would have been a good defense against the Democratic drive. Huckabee created a program that offered health insurance to poor children and also reduced the percentage of uninsured Arkansans so that it was a fourth less than the national average. He worked with President Clinton to create a childhood obesity program. He even has a personal story on lowering prescription costs - after losing more than a hundred pounds, he no longer needs to spend his own money on diabetes medication as he no longer needs it.

The South - Senator McCain's current problem isn't so much that he isn't making some nice attempts at three point shots on the blue side of the court. His biggest problem is defense. Barry the baller is driving straight into his territory and dunking - in places where no Democrat has been able to penetrate in decades. Barry-O even has time to smile and pose for Sports Center on the way up. Big Mac is spending way too much time playing defense. And he may be running out of time to make some shots of his own.

A number of the states that Bush won comfortably in 2004 but that are in a "toss up" status or that are merely "leaning" McCain  as of the time of this writing are in the south. These include Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and West Virginia. Of those states, Huckabee won the latter two, placed a close second in Virginia and even came in second in North Carolina months after he dropped out. It's likely or at least imaginable that if Huckabee hadn't been benched, he might at this point in the game have a lot more opportunities to try to take some shots of his own, knowing that his own side was safe. A popular southern Governor would have made the south a less tempting target for the Democrats. And actually, every winning Presidential ticket since 1960 has included a southerner.

Black Voters - One of the things that would really have helped an in-uniform Huck to take a shot at those blue states would have been his ability to do well with minority voters in general, including African Americans, who for the past 44 years have not voted much for Republicans. Think of it this way. This year, the Republican Party will probably earn a historic low share of the African American vote. However, if Huckabee had been the nominee, it is likely that he would have easily done better than the 15% ceiling of the black vote that the GOP has gotten since 1964. And so, Huckabee would have caused Obama, the first African American candidate, to get the lowest share of the black vote of any Democratic candidate in the past four decades. Think that wouldn't have mattered? It would have mattered in swing states like Florida, Ohio, and Missouri as well as in traditional blue states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania - all of which have huge black populations. In fact, a number of blue states became blue in the wake of Nixon's estrangement of black voters in the weeks before the 1960 election.

Bush - If somebody gives you a buck for every time that Obama says the phrase "McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time" from now until the election, the good news for you is that you won't have to worry about a recession. You'll have lots of extra cash to get you through the tough times.

The single most successful attack line of the Democrats, that McCain is Bush, wouldn't have worked at all if they had to substitute Huckabee's name for McCain's. Why? Because Huckabee was never a member of the U.S. Congress. He never had the opportunity to vote one way or another on the Bush Tax Cuts, or on Iraq. He never had anything to do with the appropriation of Federal tax dollars and thus couldn't be blamed at all for the doubling of the national debt. And even in some of the more damaging low points of the past eight years, such as the Hurricane Katrina response, Huckabee's government reacted in a way that sharply contrasted with the much-maligned response of the Federal Government. Arkansas opened its doors to the evacuees, provided medical care and other supplies for people in need, and Huckabee was responsible for it. How much lower do you think the Democrats' score would be if they couldn't count on those automatic threes that happen every time they mention McCain and Bush?

Chalk Talk

The point here is actually not just to reminisce about what could have been had Huckabee gotten the nomination. The point is to respond to many of those who are complaining the most about the way this election is going for the Republicans, who were part of the gang-up on Mike Huckabee. They need to learn from their mistakes if they're going to avoid doing the same thing in the future. Right now, they are blaming their opponents, the crowd noise, the refs, even the biased play-by-play coverage. But they miss the point that the root of their problems is that they themselves ganged up on their most able player who was most uniquely qualified to take on the current challenger. And that's not the fault of liberals. That's the fault of many of the people who are now doing the loudest complaining.

The Republicans could end up winning the election, although it's difficult to imagine how if McCain keeps listening to the bad advice he's been getting until this point in time. But if they had gotten their best player on the court in any capacity - preferably as a player but if not that, at least as a close advisor - they wouldn't be biting as much skin off their nails as they have been so far.

There are a lot of people in this country who cannot see past the issue of race. People of all ethnic backgrounds, both black people who can't see past race and white people who can't think in any other terms. To them, everything ultimately boils down to the categorization of "us vs. them," in which "us" and "them" are defined by ethnic and racial boundaries. These people - both black and white - wouldn't for the most part categorize themselves as racists, because they may not actively have severely negative feelings towards "them." But they're obsessed with "them" and about doing whatever was needed in order to protect "us." They are sick people who don't have the wisdom to realize that it's they themselves that are screwed up and not just "them."

I've been very blessed in my lifetime to have close relationships with people from essentially all ethnic backgrounds. I am black. My two best friends from grade school were white. Later in life, my closest friends were Korean and Indian. I've always had black friends as well. My parents and siblings also had close friends from other ethnic groups. My family is black. But we attend a mostly white church congregation. Not because we're trying to make some sort of statement. Because my Pastor is a good student of the Word and the people are very loving and we love the church. I don't think a lot about skin color there and, just as importantly, I don't think they do either.

Because from my earliest memories, I had relationships that transcended all ethnic boundaries, I have never defined "us" and "them" in the same way that some other people do. A lot of people in my "us" group don't look like me at all. A lot do. The people in my "them" group are just as diverse. I don't tend to have a lot of expectations about people from looking at them. I have to get to know them in because, no matter what they look like, I won't know whether they're part of "us" or "them" until I do.

America needs to get over its obsession with race. We don't spend enough time talking about race, as we need to air out a lot of the bad air and the division that we keep to ourselves. But we spend way too much time thinking about it.

If you could change the skin color of a good person, they would still be a good person. And if you could change the skin color of a jerk, they would still be a jerk.

Let me begin by saying that I don't make any assumptions that any individual or group of people are voting based on race, one way or another. I know that some people will vote because of race, both for McCain and for Obama. But I don't know who they are and I can't make any assumptions that a person voting for either one of them is racist, regardless of their skin color. To call someone a racist or to be motivated by race is a serious accusation. And I don't levy it lightly. I've written a bunch of times about how people can't be called racist because of who they support - over and over and over again. And many people wholeheartedly agreed with me that when a white person - even a white Democrat - decided that they would vote for McCain (who has been popular with many Democrats) instead of Obama, there is by no means enough information to make an accusation that the person's vote is motivated by race. But now that a black person, who happens to be a liberal Republican, endorses Obama, we suddenly have enough information to know that he's motivated by race? Huh?? Do people on both sides of this accusation passing realize how absolutely hypocritical they sound?

I don't agree with the Colin Powell endorsement. I am black and I'm also proud that there is a black man who is a major party nominee for President. Will I vote for him? Uh - No! Why not? For the same reasons I didn't vote for John Kerry, the slightly less liberal white guy. I don't vote for candidates who support legalized abortion, especially not for those who have Obama's record on that position. I also didn't drink from the punch bowl that day that someone poured in whatever made everybody think that Obama is the Greatest.Person.Who.Ever.Lived.  But I don't assume that Powell, who has very liberal positions on abortion and other social issues, is voting for Obama just because of race. Why? For the same reason I don't assume that white people who don't vote for Obama are racist. You just can't make that accusation against people without cause. In either direction, folks. You can't have it both ways.

Some people have asked what Powell's possible motives might have been other than race. I can't speak for Powell, but just from a simple search of his record, I found the following:

• Powell is "pro-choice" (he sees abortion of unborn babies as "a woman's right")
• Powell doesn't seem to be big on traditional social conservative issues. He came up with the "don't ask, don't tell" compromise
• He is liberal on immigration
• He has been open to raising taxes
• He has been supportive of volunteerism and community service
• He's also long been critical of his party in a number of areas for a long time

And on top of all of the above positions, which lean definitely to the left, Powell is known to be seriously ticked off at his party over Iraq and other issues. In Bob Woodward's The War Within, Powell's testimony to the Iraq Study Group was described as an emotional scene in which Powell "exploded," "unloaded," and which in which he was "angry." And that happened at least two years after he was unceremoniously fired by the President - even as both of his two arch-rivals in the Administration, Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, remained. Which happened a year he suffered intense criticism as he had put his personal credibility on the line to present the case to the United Nations that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Sadaam was working to build nukes - claims that later proved to be based on bad intelligence. You think that people who may feel that they were wronged and put in a bad position don't retaliate? While you're thinking about that, why don't you call up Scott McClellan. If he's busy, go buzz Paul O'Neill and get his take.

I don't know that Powell's endorsement wasn't racially motivated. But then again, I don't know that the endorsements of white Democrats who have endorsed McCain aren't racially motivated. But I can see reasons why someone with Powell's beliefs and experiences could make a decision to go against his party's nominee and I can see reasons why a lot of Democrats would be uncomfortable with Obama - reasons in both cases that have nothing to do with race. And that's the point. You can't jump to conclusions about people when there are other possibilities for why they may make the decisions they make. That's just wrong - either way. And you can't complain about other people jumping to conclusions and rushing to judgement that someone is a racist because they aren't supporting a candidate of another skin color - and then turn around and do exactly that to someone else. That's just being a hypocrite in my book. Either way.

Part Three: The Huckabee Example

At left, Mike Huckabee listens to Ron Paul speak during last September's All-American Presidential Forum at historically black Morgan State University. The empty podium between the two men belonged to one of the four leading Republican candidates who decided to not show up for the debate. This year, the Republican Party could receive its lowest ever share of the African American vote. But if the Party of Lincoln ever wants to get more than 12% of the sixteen million likely black voters - the highest percentage that any GOP candidate has gotten since 1980 - again, they should take some notes from former Presidential Candidate and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

We've all talked a lot this year about issues involving race in politics. And a lot of talk has been made about the possibility that the GOP may this year get a historically low share of the African American vote. But what if I told you that I thought that it was possible, if the Republican Party really tried, that in little more than a decade, the party could begin to compete for the black vote?

If this happened, it would not only expand the reach of the party's base but would make it more likely for the Republican Party to continue to win elections in the 21st century as it would help it gain many voters who have traditionally voted Democratic by default. It would also change the public image of the party, which has been widely criticized for being comparatively ethnically monolithic. I believe I can offer the Republican Party a game plan to accomplish this goal. To do this, I would direct their attention to the picture above, which was taken during the Republican Presidential Forum held at the historically black Morgan State University and in which the top four leading candidates at the time all declined to participate.

My advice to the Republican Party: do what the guy on the left does.

If the Republican Party at large takes the advice and follows the example of Mike Huckabee, it will probably begin to see an increased level of support from blacks and other ethnic minority groups within the next three or four election cycles. And to turn this into a more actionable plan, I've extracted a few tips, all based on things that Huckabee has said or done.  Since everybody and their mother is talking about change this year, here's how the GOP can initiate some change of its own in order to change the way black voters view the party.

Principle #1: Show Up

Tavis Smiley: "... Let me commence tonight by thanking Morgan State University and Dr. Richardson for hosting us and my network home, PBS, for broadcasting this "All-American Presidential Forum." ... Fortunately, there are those in the Republican Party who do understand the importance of reaching out to people of color. I am grateful to former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Congressman Jack Kemp and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, all of whom have lent their support over the last year to this event. Indeed, last week, President Bush was asked about those GOP candidates not attending tonight, and responded by underscoring the importance of reaching out to communities of color. We believe that when we make communities of color better, we make our country better. And so enough said about the no-shows ... Please tell me and this audience, in your own words, why you chose to be here tonight"

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee: "Well, Tavis, I want to be president of the United States, not just president of the Republican Party."

One month after Mike Huckabee gave the answer quoted above, a voter asked all the Republican candidates a question at the CNN YouTube debate. The question was why it was that even though many blacks have fairly conservative views, "why don't we vote for you?" When Mike's turn came to answer the question, he responded with his theory of why he was able to win 48% of the black vote in Arkansas. "Here's the reason why: because I asked for their vote, and I didn't wait until October of the election year to do it."

Ever since Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips, an architect of the "southern strategy," encouraged his party to generally ignore black voters as part of a strategy for turning out more southern white voters, only a few nationally known Republican politicians have actively sought to make their case to black voters. Former New Jersey Republican Governor Tom Kean, who won the support of a majority of black voters when he was re-elected in 1985, complained two decades ago that the GOP "reached out to the Hispanic community, to almost every ethnic community in America except the black community." He also said ''You're talking about losing a major vote by 9-to-1 ...Is there any other group in America that a party is willing to lose by that much?"

The majority of two generations of African Americans have grown to resent the Republican Party, in significant part because the party has simply ignored black voters. Some Republicans have theorized that one way to reach black voters is to get some African American supporters to go out on behalf of party candidates in order to "bring in the vote." However, there is a problem with this theory. Black voters don't respond significantly better to black Republicans than they do to white Republicans, as evidenced by the defeat in 2006 of Ohio Gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell, Maryland Senatorial candidate Michael Steele and Pennsylvania Gubernatorial candidate and former NFL superstar Lynn Swann. All were high profile black Republican candidates who sought historic positions but who faced overwhelming opposition from black voters, even though most of these same voters identify themselves as conservative or moderate. The reason many black voters have refused to support Republican political candidates doesn't seem to have much to do with the candidate's skin color rather but their party affiliation. And the same sentiment probably exists to some degree toward many black intermediaries who serve as proxies between black voters and candidates that belong to the party that many of them resent.

Instead, Republicans should do what Mike Huckabee does. Show up. And I mean personally show up - not just recruiting intermediaries to talk with black voters on behalf of the candidate. The candidates need to make personal appearances and slowly and gradually make personal connections, instead of solely relying on "urban" ads or through black supporters. They need to understand that there is a well of resentment in the black community against the Republican party, and, like Mike Huckabee, they need to be brave enough to show up anyway.

During his Arkansas campaigns, Huckabee instructed his campaign staffers who handed out flyers to not skip certain neighborhoods but to reach out to everybody. Tavis Smiley, one of the moderators of the Morgan debate, raved about Huckabee a few months later on his radio show, saying that he had met Huckabee in Arkansas and lauded him for not being "afraid" to campaign among and interact with black people; he called him the best Republican candidate in his lifetime. If GOP candidates follow Huckabee's example, they may soon discover that like him, they're getting a lot of support from people who don't normally vote Republican.

Huckabee finished his answer to the question at the YouTube debate with a warning to his own party. "And I just want to express that our party had better reach out not just to African-Americans, but to Hispanics and to all people of this country. I don't want to be a part of a Republican party that is a tiny, minute and ever decreasing party, but one that touches every American from top to bottom, regardless of race."

Principle #2: Be Honest

Smiley: "...[please tell us] what you say to those who chose not to be here tonight."

Huckabee: "Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country, and it doesn't get better when we don't show up."

When some Republicans talk about the fact that most blacks vote for Democrats, they offer a variety of interesting explanations, all of which spare the Republican Party from any fault whatsoever and, often, from any sense of responsibility to work to close the gap. Some of them, both white Republicans and a few black Republicans alike, speak, imply that the reason that blacks generally vote Democratic is because we've as a group been duped by Democratic trickery. Or that we're collectively looking for some type of handout. Or that the majority of the thirty nine million blacks in this country are racist. And the implication from these arguments are that black voters as a group are easily fooled, in search of freebies and overwhelmingly racist while the Republican party is a flawless entity with a continuous legacy as the Party of Lincoln. And to those folks, I offer a bonus tip: insulting a large group of voters - or their intelligence - is not a recommended strategy for convincing them to join you. It has been long documented that many Republicans have long avoided reaching out to black voters and even that there was a calculated strategy to do just that in order to improve the party's standing in the once-Democratic south. For some party members to pretend that this hasn't been the case isn't an example of showing party loyalty. It's being dishonest.

But Mike Huckabee is honest. And when he was asked about his reaction to the fact that his four leading fellow Republican candidates did not show up, he did not repeat one of the party talking points or try to defend their actions. He probably understood that their decision to shun the opportunity to present a Republican option to black voters was seen by many as yet another slap in the face to black voters, a very visible slight that hurt not only those candidates but further damaged the image many had of the Republican Party. And Mike was able to be honest about his party's failings while at the same time talking about the party's many current and historical strengths - he later cited the example of how Republican President Eisenhower sent federal troops to desegregate Little Rock Central High over intense resistance from Democratic Governor Faubus. Some people believe that being honest about their party's shortcomings is an act of disloyalty. But Mike's honesty, in addition to him showing up, probably caused more people to strongly consider voting Republican than would have otherwise been the case.

Principle #3: Understand The Issues

In the time that Mike Huckabee was given to speak during the debate, he rattled off a laundry list of issues of great concern to many black voters, demonstrating his familiarity with both black voters and the many of the problems that are on these voters' minds. Here are a few quotes from some of his answers that night:

Huckabee: "... that we made some real strides in the criminal justice system so that you don't have a different sentence for a 17-year-old kid caught with a lid of marijuana than you do some upper-middle-class white kid who gets caught with cocaine. He goes to rehab, and the black kid goes to prison for 10 years" (in response to a question about what he hoped his legacy would be in the eyes of black Americans if he were elected)

 

Huckabee: “… there is a disproportionate level of people in the African American community with hypertension, with stroke, with diabetes …” (another part to his answer to the legacy question above)

 

Huckabee: "... in some cases, it's because those who try to lift themselves up find that they get most importantly the heel of someone's boot on top of their head every time they try to raise their head ..." (in response to a question about the candidate's opinion of why the unemployment rate for black high school graduates is 33 percent higher than the unemployment rate of white high school drop-outs)

 

Huckabee: "... Eighty percent of the people who are in our prisons and jails are there for a drug or alcohol crime. They either were high or drunk when they committed the crime, or they committed the crime to get high or drunk ..." (in answer to a question about what policies the candidates would recommend to ensure that everybody is treated equally in the criminal justice system)

 

Huckabee: "... There are a lot of people in America that don't think the only poverty is in Darfur -- understand there's poverty in the Delta. There are people who don't have running water, people that don't have access to medical care and don't have a decent school to go to and you don't have to go halfway around the world to find it. We've got it right here in this country." (in response to a question about the U.S. playing a role in ending the genocide in Darfur).

Successful politicians are often people who take the time to study and get to know the concerns and feelings of their potential constituents. Many successful politicians are also personally familiar with their constituents - either because they are "one of them," as is the case of many people who run on the claim of being "born and bred" in the community they want to represent or because they've taken the time to really get connected to those constituents, have relationships with them, and have become familiar with their issues of concern. And Republicans who want black voters to vote for them need to treat black constituents like any other group of voters who they want support from. They need to take the time to understand the things that are on their minds.

Principle #4: Build A Reputation

Huckabee: "Quite frankly, for a lot of people there's a perception that Black Americans don't vote for Republicans. I proved that wrong in Arkansas, with 48 percent of African Americans voting for me."

When Huckabee won his first elected office in Arkansas, he became only the second Republican Lieutenant Governor since Reconstruction, only a year after Democrat Bill Clinton left the State House for D.C., where some people called him the "first black President." He withdrew from a speaking invitation from a conservative organization when he learned of some of their attitudes regarding race, publicly condemning them and declaring "I will not participate in any program that has racist overtones. I've spent a lifetime fighting racism and anti-Semitism." He was re-elected by a significant margins and then became Governor when Jim Guy Tucker was forced to resign in 1996. In the following year, the fortieth anniversary of the integration of Little Rock Central High School in which children were threatened with violence for trying to attend school, Huckabee gave a speech that reportedly moved many at the anniversary service to tears. He declared 1997 to be a year of racial reconciliation and urged people to let go of racial resentment. The next year, when he ran for his first elected term as Governor, the exit polls showed that about half of the black voters voted for Huckabee over his Democratic opponent. By the time that he was at the peak of his Presidential run earlier this year, he had amassed endorsements from an unusual number of African Americans compared to the average Republican. Some Democrats were worried enough that someone circulated an email urging black voters not to be "tricked" into voting for Mike Huckabee. He built up more goodwill during and after his campaign by firmly opposing Barack Obama but doing so with civility and respect. He even came to Obama's defense to a degree when the Reverend Wright scandal dominated the news in March. And when Huckabee made the news himself in May with an unfortunate joke about Obama that went horribly wrong, it was essentially a one-day story; black leaders did not condemn him or try to make it into a bigger issue.

More Republican candidates should follow Huckabee's example by persevering in trying to reach all voters despite the fact that many will hold their party affiliation against them. But if they actively reach out, reject racially divisive people, and strive for racial harmony, and keep doing it, both they and the Republican Party at large will reap a substantial benefit over time.

Principle #5: Be Yourself

Mike Huckabee also seems to understand an important concept when trying to connect with a group that may have a different set of experiences than you do: you don't have to always agree with them about everything. That nobody respects somebody who tries to say one thing in front of one group of people and another thing in front of another. And that people tend to respect people who are bold enough to respectfully defend opinions that not everybody agrees with.

Some people think that in order to connect with a black audience, you need to channel a Baptist preacher's cadence while telling the audience everything you think they want to hear. But Huckabee actually, being himself, discussed his support for policies that are unpopular with many black Americans. And he did it without even doing the Al Gore-style Baptist Preacher imitation (even though he actually is a Baptist Preacher). Some examples:

On the Death Penalty (which is unpopular among many blacks): "I probably dislike the death penalty more than anybody on this stage, but for a very different reason. I've actually had to carry it out, more than any governor in my state's history. I had to carry out the death penalty because that was my job. I did it because I believed, after reading every page of every transcript and everything in that file, it was the only conclusion we could come to. But I didn't enjoy it. And God help the American who somehow has this cavalier attitude about the death penalty and says they support it and they can do it. Let me tell you something from the person whose name had to be put on the document that started the process: It's a necessary part of our criminal justice system for those crimes for which there is no other alternative. But God help the person who ever does it without a conscience and feels the pain of it."

On "choice" (meaning abortion, which is defended by many Democrats): "I think we have some role to play in it [preventing genocide in Darfur], but I guess what disturbs me even more, we have not even addressed the genocide that's going on and the infanticide in our own country with the slaughter of millions of unborn children."

On Affirmative Action (from Huckabee's 2002 Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test): Question: Should race, ethnicity, or gender be taken into account in state agencies' decisions on college and university admissions? Huckabee's answer: "No." Question: Public employment? Huckabee's answer: "No." Question: State contracting? Huckabee's answer: "No."

 

So what happened after the conservative southerner showed up, expressed disappointment that some of his fellow candidates chose to avoid the debate, demonstrated his understanding of the audience's concerns, shared his growing record of connecting with black voters - and then - openly disagreed with a good portion of the audience about some of the most sensitive issues? He was declared to be the clear winner of the debate and won himself a lot of new African American fans. Dr. Cornel West, an Princeton Professor, civil rights activist and Obama supporter who disagrees with many of Huckabee's policies, told the former Governor after the Morgan debate "you are for real."

Principle #6: Get Comfortable Building Bridges

Huckabee: "But I want to make sure that the people of this country recognize that we've come a long way, but we have a long way to go. And we don't get there if we don't sit down and work through issues that are still very deep in this country, when it comes to racial divide."

Fear is the enemy of all relationships, because love and fear aren't generally at the same place at the same time. And one reason that there is still too much racial tension bubbling just under the surface within too many people is because we spend too much time being afraid of each other. People are afraid either of being accused of racism or afraid of being judged according to stereotypes. And when we try to pretend that tensions don't exist, the division doesn't go away but only grows deeper.

The fear of addressing the difficult issues of race is probably one of several factors that has prevented the GOP in large part from attempting to fix the rift with its onetime faithful constituents. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand, while having a very good understanding of a lot of the background of many of our nation's racial tensions and showing empathy for the historical struggles of black Americans, isn't afraid to talk about issues that involve race. Because he is willing to engage black voters, is honest, has a decent understanding of many of the issues and frustrations of different groups of people, has a good reputation for showing sensitivity toward everybody, and is comfortable in his own skin, all of this enables him to have credibility and be well received when he chimes in on issues that might make others uncomfortable to discuss. And the more leaders we have in government who have these characteristics, the more effective they will be in helping America heal from the more painful parts of her history.

Principle #7: Don't Shrink Back In Fear

To a Republican politician who cares about fixing the divide, it may seem like the challenge of helping heal four decades of a strained relationship is a very difficult challenge. And because of the difficulty, some may be tempted to not even bother - a sentiment that in itself is partially responsible for how things are now. But I want to remind Republican leaders of some of their own words of encouragement that were spoken regarding a different challenge.

It has been mainly Republican politicians that have encouraged us to not give in to fear. To not look at a struggle or a challenge as unwinnable but rather to concentrate on a plan for victory. To understand the criticality of taking the challenge head on and not accepting anything short of victory. If the Republican leadership understands the importance of reaching out to everyone and applies these same principles to this task, the party will in a decade or so become both stronger and better able to continue to win national elections. But, truly, in an increasingly diverse 21st century America, failure - the refusal to change from the status quo on racial diversity - is simply not an option for the Republican Party.

I am an African American. For a number of reasons, I will not be voting for Barack Obama this year. I will undoubtedly be part of a small percentage of black voters who will not be supporting him. And because of this, many people, both black and white, have accused most black voters of "voting black."

I have defended white voters against the charge that most of them who aren't supporting Obama are refusing to vote for him because of his race.  And now I'm going to spend some time defending black voters against the charges of reverse-racism because of the decision of many to vote for Obama. I think human beings in general deserve more credit and that we need to examine other factors and do some analysis before insulting large groups of people by implying that they're all a bunch of racists. I think we need to do just a little homework and a tiny bit of analytical thinking in order to derive the right conclusions instead of just making surface-level observations.

Any Democrat Will Do

According to the estimates of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, every Democratic Presidential Candidate since Lyndon Johnson has achieved at least 85% of the African American vote. All nine of those candidates, from LBJ to John Kerry, happened to be white. Barack Obama could get a historically high share of the black vote next month. But even if every black voter in the country voted for Obama (which won't happen), that would only represent a modest 11% improvement over the share of the black vote that John Kerry got in 2004 or that Al Gore got in 2000. In fact, it would only be a 17% improvement over the share of the black vote that any other Democratic Party Presidential Nominee received since Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater in 1964, the year that Republicans alienated black voters for at least two generations.

The "Republican Tax"

On the other side, since 1964, every succeeding elected Republican Administration has averaged a lower level of support from black voters than the one before it. President George W. Bush (9.5%) averaged worse over his two elections than his father, President George H.W. Bush (10%) did, who did worse than Reagan (10.5%), who did worse than Nixon (14%). If Obama were to somehow attain more than 90% of the black vote this year, as he probably will, it would be consistent with the voting trends of the past 44 years. On the one hand, since the advent of the southern strategy in 1968, the Republican Party has in general not worked very hard to seek the votes of black voters. But on the other hand, it appears as if every Republican Presidential Candidate, no matter how personally decent, has paid a penalty for being associated with the Republican brand, which has continually deteriorated in the eyes of African Americans. I call this effect the "Republican Tax."

The Republican Tax implies that every Republican Presidential Candidate has inherited the burden of the suspicion that many black voters have had of his party and of the party's unwillingness to resolve its image problem with minority voters. It also is in my opinion why Democrats sometimes get away with saying things that no Republican could get away with saying. It's because many people associate the GOP with racism and racial politics and are quicker to look for it in Republican candidates than those in the Democratic Party, which has fixed this part of its image problem and is no longer viewed by many as a party of ethnic intolerance. The Republican Tax causes some people to see racism even when none exists.

Even though blacks have rarely voted for Republicans since 1964, it does not appear to because blacks as a group are liberal. According to the University of California Berkeley, since 1976, the percentage of black voters identifying themselves as conservative or moderate has been at least four and a half times the percentage of black voters who then go to the polls and vote for a Republican President. Note that in each of these years, the race of the major party candidates did not seem to be a factor as Obama is the first ethnic minority major party nominee.

The tendency of Republican Presidential candidates to do increasingly worse with black voters will probably continue until the party leadership makes a decision to take this problem on and decides to fix it. From all indications, this problem seems to be like tooth decay, which some people ignore until the pain intensifies to the point in which action is unavoidable. The Republican Party for decades has seemed satisfied with getting only 15% of the black vote and in a sense hasn't been bothered enough by the decay to get the problem resolved. But this year, the party's historical failings with minority voters could actually cost it the election.

Do blacks tend to "vote for their own" in historical elections?

The answer seems to be not necessarily. And certainly not when "their own" is a member of the much-disliked Republican Party.

In fact, just two years ago, black voters in three states had the opportunity to "vote black" when three black candidates emerged past their party's primary to compete for high profile historic positions. Ken Blackwell had the opportunity to become Ohio's first black Governor. Michael Steele could have become the second black U.S. Senator. Former NFL star Lynn Swann had the chance to become Pennsylvania's first black governor. All three were Republicans. All three ran against white guys. And all three had black voters vote against them by dramatic margins. Black voters in Maryland voted against Steele by a margin of 74% to 25% in order to elect his white competitor. In Ohio, blacks voted against for Blackwell's white competitor by a margin of 77% to 20%. And in Pennsylvania, blacks voted most dramatically against one of its favorite sons - giving Ed Rendell support from 87% of black voters and only 13% to Swann. All three states have sizable black populations - Pennsylvania is 10% black, Ohio is 12% black and Maryland is 29% black. In fact, in Maryland, all Steele had to do to win was to carry 30% of the black vote. He didn't. All three of them lost.

Conclusion

And so it doesn't seem fair or accurate to suggest that black voters will automatically vote for "the black guy" in order to elevate him to a historic position of power. It's more accurate to suggest that for the last 44 years, blacks have not been willing to vote for Republicans. And if you haven't read it already and want to hear my opinion on why this is happening, you might read here.

Wait a minute, TVV. What about within the Democratic Party. What about how all the black voters just flocked to Obama over Clinton? That ultimately happened, but if you remember, a year ago, Clinton was leading Obama among black Democrats by 24 points. Some pundits theorize that when blacks realized that Obama could potentially win, they decided to vote for him. However, that ignores the fact that the time at which Obama made the most gains in black Democratic support was around the time of the South Carolina campaign in which the Clintons were widely believed to engage in racial politics. Republican commentator Dick Morris, who knows the Clintons well, believed this as well and wrote that it was part of a calculated strategy to alienate black voters in a way that would help propel her to victory. From that point on, for the first time ever when the Clintons were on a national ticket, they became unpopular with many black voters.

And so, I am going to suggest that it's time for Americans to stop using surface-level observations without further analysis to accuse and insult groups of millions of people. Black people who are voting for Obama should not be presumed to be voting for him "because he's black." White voters who are not voting for Obama should not be presumed to be racist. Voters make their decisions for a variety of reasons, including candidate positions, party affiliation, as well as because of resentment against a political party or ideology. You cannot fairly conclude that a person is a racist because of the skin color of who they choose to vote for or who they choose to vote against. And if you do, you have lost the moral ground to complain when people make unfair presumptions about you.

Former Presidential Candidate and Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee warned his party to be careful in how they campaigned against Barack Obama last June. He warned his fellow Republicans that any attempt to undermine Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama by "demonizing" him would backfire. Huckabee's words:

"The Republicans will make a fundamental, if not fatal mistake, if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barrack Obama ...  Don't underestimate the extraordinary, substantive moment that Barack Obama's nomination represents in our country"

Huckabee caught a whole lot of flack by some Republican pundits and voters for making this statement. These people thought for some reason that they knew more about winning elections than the conservative guy who figured out how to win four statewide elections in Clinton's home state and to win half the black vote along the way. A lot of others simply ignored his good advice. One day, they are likely to realize how good this advice was and how bad an idea it was to ignore it.

It's not a new thing in a Presidential Campaign for a candidate's character to be attacked - both in honest and in dishonest ways. Former major party candidates Williams Jennings Bryan and Barry Goldwater were essentially accused by their competitors of being mentally unstable. When the late former Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson ran for office in the 1950's, supporters of his opponent floated rumors that he was a homosexual. President George W. Bush, whose grandfather was briefly the chairman of a branch of the United Negro College Fund, was painted as someone who supported hate crimes. If you want the top job and are close to getting it, a lot of people will say a lot of bad things about you no matter who you are.

But a lot of people get really turned off when a campaign begins to spend nearly as much time attacking its opponent's character as they do promoting their own candidate's character or issues. Especially when they plainly admit that's what they're doing. And last week, for some reason, the McCain campaign told the press that they believed that their best shot of winning now is to essentially ignore the advice that Huckabee gave his party in the summer. Some campaign staff told reporters that they felt the only way they could win is to spend a lot of time talking about Obama's character. The campaign has reportedly shifted nearly 100% of its national ad spending into attack ads. In the past week, the campaign has called Obama "reckless," accused him of "palling around with terrorists," and seem to have been responding to a degree to requests from some supporters that they should "take the gloves off." They've begun to do the exact opposite of what Huckabee suggested, which is to confront Obama on the issues.

And with the historical significance of this election, it's apparently possible for this approach to backfire in multiple and unexpected ways. The McCain campaign had to deal with negative press earlier this week when somebody in the crowd of a campaign rally in Florida responded to a statement made about Obama and Ayers by shouting out "Kill him!" - although it was not clear whether the person was referring to Obama or Ayers. Also, from looking over the Real Clear Politics poll averages along with campaign news, it appears that being overly aggressive in trying to attack Obama's character has not helped the McCain campaign at all. In other words, what Huckabee said seems true.

Some in the press have begun to make accusations that the campaign's usage of the Ayers issue is racist - a charge that I do not agree with at all (if John Kerry had known Ayers, it certainly would have been brought up as an issue against him in 2004). However, the current environment - the fact that the Republican Party as a whole has generally not tried to court black voters for most of the last four decades, combined with the fact that the party has a lot less ethnic diversity than the Democrats do, combined with the fact that McCain is running against the first African American major party nominee - means that it will be easier for passionate attacks against Obama to be interpreted as racism than it would if the party were more diverse. In fact, try this at home: from now until the election, watch the televised campaign events and count the number of black people you see standing in the background behind the candidates. If in the next month you manage to count ten, write me - you may be eligible for a prize. The Republican Party's unwillingness to commit to reach out to voters of all races has made full-time character attacks even more counterproductive than they are normally. Which, again, is what Huckabee implied.

I disagree with a number of Obama's positions and as I've said before, will not vote for him because of them. But I don't dislike him. And you don't have to almost loathe someone in order to not vote for them. I pray for both Obama and McCain. And like many Independents, I am incredibly turned off by negative campaigning. The red meat that fires up both the Democratic and Republican base is something that the unaffiliated voters who will decide this election will be likely to spit out. 

If McCain wants his standing in the polls to improve, he needs to immediately stop listening to the conservative radio pundits (the same guys who viciously attacked McCain earlier this year; yeah - those radio pundits) and some of his other former tormentors-turned-allies. He frankly needs to quit listening to a lot of the people who seem to have been giving him advice. He needs to no longer devote so much of his time and resources trying to get people to personally dislike Barack Obama and invest them in trying to get people to like his own ideas more than those of Obama's. He really needs to listen to the good advice of somebody who actually knows how to win an election and who knows how to be conservative without being mad about it.

A letter to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Senator Obama,

I am impressed with how you have been able to rise from being relatively unknown four years ago to become a major party Presidential nominee. As an African American, I am proud of your accomplishment and pleased to see the day come in which a black man can contend for the Presidency and in which most Americans are willing to vote for someone who does not look like them. I am praying for you just as I also am praying for Senator McCain and for our leaders in general. I strongly disagree with a number of your policies but I do like you personally. And because I like you, I want to tell you a few things that you really need to hear.

Let me start by explaining why I will not vote for you. 

While I disagree with you on a number of issues, there is one issue that I disagree with you above all others. Senator, in every year since the late 1970's, at least one million unborn babies a year have been aborted in the United States. The overwhelming majority - more than 90% - were aborted for reasons other than rape, incest, or issues involving the life or health of either mother or baby. It has long been acceptable in this country to terminate the developing lives of unborn babies at almost any stage of development for any reason. And you have not only steadfastly supported abortion in general but also voted against banning partial birth abortion - a procedure that occurs at a point in time after the unborn baby can in most cases live outside the womb, can smile and can recognize her mother's voice. In fact, you have defended the practice of abortion under essentially all scenarios. Your positions seem to reflect your answer to the question that you were asked at the Saddleback forum in August about when life began. You stated that to answer that question with specificity is above your "pay grade."

You are already a very educated man, but perhaps you've never known the following facts. Senator, the human heart begins beating 21 days after conception - only a week after most women can discover that they're pregnant. By six weeks after conception, some brain activity is detectible and the lungs have started to develop. By the eighth week, every major organ that an adult will ever have has begun forming and is in place in a tiny little body that with every passing week begins to more closely resemble how he/she will look at birth - an event that will take place in less than seven months. All of these prenatal developmental activities occur on a fixed time schedule at some number of days after conception. After conception, if a baby is not aborted or miscarried, these things will generally happen like clockwork. Without conception, none of them will happen at all.

Senator, you have given your campaign a clever tagline - "change" - something so simplistically clever than several of your opponents have tried to copy it. But did you know that God is the one who first suggested the word "change?"

I'm sure you have probably heard the word "repent" a lot before in church. But do you know what the origin of the word means? It means literally "to change your mind." And although you've talked a lot about how this country needs change, I feel obliged to tell you that you yourself also need change. You need to change your mind about this issue.

In fact, I believe that your steadfast and constant support of abortion is a contradiction of everything that you claim to be and everything that you claim to represent. I'll explain why.

You are obviously an intelligent man and have also pledged to both be respectful to people who see things differently than you as well as to incorporate dissenting points of view in your decision making. You have frequently criticized President Bush, claiming that he failed to consider viewpoints that contradicted his own when making decisions. But when it comes to the issue of abortion, I need to ask whether or not you've ever considered alternative viewpoints? Have you ever studied the human development process or the statistics on abortion? Ever talked to a former abortionist or any of the masses of women who are horrified that they once believed the things they were taught about it? Senator, do you investigate and make your decisions based on a wide range of evidence or do you simply believe your "gut" or what those closest to you tell you? You present yourself as a cerebral and considerate man. But have you thought and considered the evidence about the many tiny beating human hearts whose fate will be determined largely by whoever is next elevated to the Presidential pay grade?

You are an African American man and you have a wide level of support from the black community. But do you have any idea how heavily abortion has devastated the black community? Are you aware that the abortion statistics among African Americans are so high that one out of three black pregnancies ends in abortion? That one unborn black baby is aborted for every two black babies that are allowed to be born? That more black babies were aborted in 2004 than the total number of already-born black people who died for all causes of death put together that year? But you support the policy of allowing abortion for all reasons and at all times and have been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, an organization which is believed by many to place a higher concentration of abortion clinics in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. If you are elected President, should I feel better that the Chief Executive who supports the policy that is wiping out a significant portion of our race is also black? Actually, that thought makes me feel even worse.

You are an Attorney and were a Constitutional Law Professor. But you continue to express support for what both conservative and liberal legal minds regard as one of the worst opinions ever rendered by the High Court. Bob Woodward reported two decades ago after reviewing notes from the Justices involved in the case that even those same justices called key parts of that ruling "arbitrary" and "legislative." Some of them even mocked the presentation of the ruling, calling the written opinion itself "an abortion." The other abortion case decided the same day as Roe, Doe v. Bolten, involves a plaintiff who claimed that her name was forged on the Supreme Court position and that she never supported legalized abortion in the first place. The two women who were the plaintiffs in both of these landmark Supreme Court cases have both lobbied, unsuccessfully, to have the High Court overturn the cases that bear their pseudonyms. But you have staunchly supported Roe in spite of the legal flaws that scholars on both sides of the debate see as blatant.

You identify yourself as a Christian and have referenced Scripture in making some of your public speeches. But I wonder if in your many years in church you've ever flipped a few books back and read Jeremiah 1:5, which reads "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." Or gone back a bit more and seen in Psalm 139 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb" and "your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." Since you are the one who has highlighted your Christian faith and referenced Scripture in explaining your take on some issues, I have to ask what do you think about those passages? Do you feel that it's okay to pay close attention only to the parts that talk about alleviating poverty and suffering and to ignore the parts that strongly suggest that life begins before birth?

Let me appeal to you in a more personal manner. Senator, have you ever considered your own life story when thinking about the issue of abortion? How your beautiful late mother found out she was pregnant with you around the time of her eighteenth birthday and had to deal with two sets of unaccepting parents who might have preferred that you - and all the inconveniences and complications your birth brought - could be made to just "go away?" Have you ever thought that if the Roe ruling had been handed down a bit earlier and if abortion were as easily available and encouraged as it is now that you might not be here? Have you ever thought of how many other baby Baracks - unborn babies whose mothers faced situations no more trying than your mother faced with you - never were allowed to be born?

Think about how many people have felt inspired by your story. How many other children in your exact situation could have touched people if they had not been killed en utero because their mothers thought that they had a right to make "a choice" to do so. How many would-be community organizers never got a chance to be be born so that they could work with hurting people? How many would-be lawyers never got a chance to be born so that they could one day pass the bar exam and one day add their unique perspective to the political scene? And think of the ripple effect of abortion. Because if your mother had "chosen" to abort you, your beautiful little children would have never been born either. Have you ever thought how many similarly adorable children who are full of hope and promise never came to be because their parents were never given an opportunity to be born - because their would-be grandparents made a "choice" to terminate their already-beating hearts prior to birth?

This, Senator, is why you need to change. Because, in this one area especially, the things that you say you care about don't line up with the things you appear to believe or the things that you do. And so, sir, I urge you to utilize your campaign slogan and apply it to yourself and your policy. To take a long look at yourself, the things you believe, the things you've said and the way you've voted. And then truly, from the heart, change.

I am not suggesting that you change the way politicians "change" - in blatantly insincere attempts to modify outward behavior without altering inward beliefs. I'm urging you to make a real change. Fundamental change. A change in what you believe in.

And if you do one day really change and establish a track record of thinking differently over a period of time, you might be pleasantly surprised at the warmer reaction you get even from many white rural voters who have resisted you. There are a lot of people in this country who currently oppose you but who at first really wanted to like you. But they, like I, cannot support someone who supports a policy that allows for the lives of the most vulnerable among us to be taken away. We all are praying, politics aside, that one day you will change.

Suggested cover for Simpson's next book	October 3, 1995 - Simpson gets the reprieve of a lifetime when he escapes the penalty of the crime we now all know he committed - double murder.	October 3, 2008 - After living thirteen years as a free man, Simpson is finally convicted of robbing two sports memorabilia dealers at gunpoint in Las Vegas	What types of things go on inside of that guy's head???

Let's all remember what we were doing on October 3rd, 1995, when Orenthal James Simpson was found not guilty of all charges for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Suppose that after hearing that verdict and seeing a man whom nearly everyone eventually would come to believe was guilty escape justice and being given an extraordinary chance at a new life, someone whispered some predictions in your ear. They told you that one day he'd try to write a book laying out the details of his own crime ("If I did it ..."). And that exactly thirteen years later, he'd find himself guilty and facing life imprisonment for a separate crime? I wouldn't believe it.

The original case against OJ failed for a number of reasons, including having the best team of attorneys a rich guy could buy, being famous, and having a key piece of evidence (the gloves) flop in a dramatic fashion. He also benefited from having the lead detective in the case who testified for the state perjure himself in the course of the trial - something that I'm sure every defense attorney would pray for if they could even imagine it possibly happening. He was extremely lucky to have escaped justice. His victims never had the opportunity to experience the past thirteen years living in freedom as he has.

But what do you call a person who gets the chance of a lifetime to have a new start - something not many people get - and to put yourself in a position in which you go back to prison for the rest of your life for a different case? I'll let you all pick the most appropriate word for that.

So, since OJ likes to write, I'm going to suggest a title for the next book he writes, undoubtedly from his prison cell: If I were a Psychopath

I will never ever vote for anyone who supports legal abortion - especially not those who supports it for any reason. This means that I will never vote for Barack Obama, who has the worst abortion record I have ever seen in a politician. Some would call me a single issue voter. I don't believe that I am at all, but I do have prerequisites that a candidate must meet. We all do (for example, would you vote for a candidate who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan? I wouldn't. That doesn't mean that that's the only issue I care about either). If a candidate does not have the good judgment to protect all life - especially the most vulnerable among us, they will never get my vote no matter what.

Here is a fact you may not have heard yet from the full-time media pundits. The Election of 2008 will be the first in U.S. History in which neither the first-place or second-place candidate has ever held any executive position at any level of government.

This will be the first time ever in our nation's history in which neither of the top two candidates was either a sitting or former President or Vice President, a state Governor, a Mayor, a General or Admiral in the U.S. Military, a U.S. Cabinet official or a state Cabinet official. The candidates have varying degrees of experience and accomplishments - with McCain having the clear advantage in total experience as an elected official. But the simple, brutal truth is that neither major party candidate has any experience whatsoever running any level of government as an Executive. This has never happened before.

In fact, in only 27% of the 55 elections we've had so far has even one of the two leading candidates never held an executive position in Government.

As a matter of fact, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is the only member of either ticket that has even one day's experience as an executive at any level of government.

Only twice before in U.S. History has a U.S. Senator come directly from the Senate to the White House - Warren Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. But even in these two situations, Harding had been a Lieutenant Governor in Ohio. And Kennedy had been a U.S. Congressman for six years and a U.S. Senator for eight years.

I respect the life stories and accomplishments of our Presidential candidates. Senator McCain has serves his country in the armed forces with distinction and honor and has been a member of the Senate for a long period of time. Obama is in his first term as a U.S. Senator and served as a state Representative for eight years. But any way you spin it, whoever you are and no matter which side you are on, you have to be stunned by the fact that at this moment in America's history, the next President of the United States will be somebody who has never been the top guy in any organization in Government before. Or a business for that matter. Ever.

I was going to try to find a creative way to end this article, but I find I have nothing left to say.