The absurdity of the latest Obama character assassination

Updated
Somebody just wrote that Barack Obama is getting his economic policies from his dead African father.

The old man was against colonialism. This is why, the author writes, the president acted with President Bush to save the countries financial institutions, why he did the same with the country’s auto industry, why he decided to have his health care program carried out by “private” insurance companies but why he doesn’t wants the very top income brackets to not get all their tax breaks extended.

It’s because he’s “anti-colonial,” this guy writes. It’s because he’s inherited his African father’s politics? Got it?

Now I have three good reasons to point out the absurdity of this guy’s argument. One, I’ve come across him before. He’s the same guy who during the last years of the Cold War accused anyone who opposed building the MX missile of following the “Soviet line.” If you argued, as I did, that a mirved missile might be de-stabilizing because the other side - meaning the Soviets - would have to hit in the ground to keep it from shooting off its ten warheads up in space - you were taking your orders from the Communist enemy. Got it?

There are two other good reasons to condemn this attempt to turn any policy position you don’t like into something anti-American: Newt Gingrich is out there selling this guy’s accusation that President Obama is an “anti-colonialist; and the Washington Post chose to give space to it.

But, just to prove we’re not all losing our memories, aren’t “we” all against colonialism? Aren’t we all basically “anti-colonial?” Isn’t being anti-colonial part of being American?

The absurdity of the latest Obama character assassination

Updated