Barack Obama has an issue. He has a big issue. Jeremiah Wright. Finally, he is taking some punches. The whole problem with Obama is that no one really knows him. No one really knows what he stands for, other than hope and change. If the type of change that Obama wants is the type of change that Wright recommends, then maybe his blindly loyal supporters need to rethinks things. As a refresher Wright, said "God Damn America" multiple times. He said that America is control ed by "Rich White People". He said that government invented AIDS to suppress the black population. How much more is hidden beneath the shiny, pretty shell of Barack Obama?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA
The point is Michelle and Barack Obama chose to have this man marry them; they chose to attend his church for 20 years; he chose to have Wright as his spiritual advisor. Something tells me that Wright didn't just start preaching this. So what exactly does Obama find "spiritual" about Wright? In a city as big as Chicago, I'm sure there were more moderate mosques, I mean churches the Obama's could have chosen. Sorry about that. Of course there is a difference between a radical Islamic mosque and the Trinity United Church of Christ, but not much.
A few posts ago, I expressed my rooting interest for Hillary to keep it close. Well Mr. Wright has given the Clinton campaign that opportunity. Be careful for what you ask for...
I am enjoying Obama getting bruised and beaten. I am really starting to dislike Obama, and it's about time! What used to scare me about Obama was that I didn't really hate him like I do Hillary. There was no threat of my casting an Obama vote, but now I can cast an anti-Obama vote with confidence.
My next point is that the media won't drill Obama on this like Romney got drilled on being a Mormon. Let's say that there is a video on YouTube of Romney's pastor/reverend/priest touting polygamy? Romney had to answers questions every day about his religion...last time I checked the Church of LDS did pledge allegiance to Africa (or Utah for Mormons). Will Obama distance himself from Wright? He must, but I hope not too soon.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
What does worry me...
Is the perceived level of democratic turnout in this year's primaries and caucuses (cauci??) I am not looking at the numbers compared to the Republican turnout numbers, but rather the 2004 Democrat primary turnout numbers verse this year's. Take yesterday's Wyoming caucus. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080308/us_primaries_080308/20080308?hub=CTVNewsAt11
To compare them to the Republican turnout is like looking at the TV ratings for a football game that is a complete blowout. Take a look in the stands late in the 4th quarter as a division one powerhouse gets the practice squad some reps verse Mississippi A&T.
The point is that over 8,500 turned out yesterday for the Wyoming caucus. Not even 700 turned out in 2004, and this was when George W. Bush WAS on the ballot. Not that John Kerry provided much inspiration to go out and caucus for, but he was running against a very unpopular incumbent.
In my opinion, this does not bode well for the GOP in the fall, especially if Obama wins the Democrat nomination. It seems, at least the media portrays it to be, that he has the youth vote energized as well as the black vote. Both of these groups tend to overwhelming favor Democrats, but don't actually turn out too well at the polls on election day. Does the same happen this year? Maybe, but maybe not if Obama is at the top of the ticket.
Karl Rove did a great job in 2000 and 2004 of motivating the conservative base to come out to the polls. The economic, Christian and foreign policy conservatives voted in full force, maybe even more so in 2004. It seems that the shoe may be on the other foot. The left is motivated. If Wyoming, by no means a bastion of liberal thought, turns out 12 times as many voters as the last primary they held in 2004, the turnout could be huge in November. That does not help a McCain candidacy.
What will help McCain is if Hillary get the nod. That will suppress some the this youth vote that is flocking to Obama. Also, McCain has appeal to independents. Hillary does not. Obama, for some reason, has appeal to independents. One can only hope that the Hillary/Obama feud continues to Denver (and beyond).
A question I have, is a Clinton/Obama ticket, in that order, spell trouble for the GOP? No, I don't think so, but reverse it, and that become more of a daunting task.
I hope that 2008 does not end up looking like 1996. An older, GOP senator up against an upstart, charismatic Democrat. Is John McCain the Bob Dole number two? No, I think McCain does have his "maverick" reputation (for better or worse) that helps him in a general election, but do enough of the conservative base come out for him like they did for W. Maybe, but we need more reasons to hate Obama like we do Hillary to motivate the base.
If the Democrat nomination process runs into August, will a divided Democrat party have time to come together in under 3 months? One aspect is will the McCain camp have time to be able to get traction on Obama in under 3 months? What makes Obama scary is the fact that no one really knows what he stands for; he has no record to run on. The GOP may not have enough time to expose him for what he is, the most liberal senator in 2007. This is what makes election year politics great.
To compare them to the Republican turnout is like looking at the TV ratings for a football game that is a complete blowout. Take a look in the stands late in the 4th quarter as a division one powerhouse gets the practice squad some reps verse Mississippi A&T.
The point is that over 8,500 turned out yesterday for the Wyoming caucus. Not even 700 turned out in 2004, and this was when George W. Bush WAS on the ballot. Not that John Kerry provided much inspiration to go out and caucus for, but he was running against a very unpopular incumbent.
In my opinion, this does not bode well for the GOP in the fall, especially if Obama wins the Democrat nomination. It seems, at least the media portrays it to be, that he has the youth vote energized as well as the black vote. Both of these groups tend to overwhelming favor Democrats, but don't actually turn out too well at the polls on election day. Does the same happen this year? Maybe, but maybe not if Obama is at the top of the ticket.
Karl Rove did a great job in 2000 and 2004 of motivating the conservative base to come out to the polls. The economic, Christian and foreign policy conservatives voted in full force, maybe even more so in 2004. It seems that the shoe may be on the other foot. The left is motivated. If Wyoming, by no means a bastion of liberal thought, turns out 12 times as many voters as the last primary they held in 2004, the turnout could be huge in November. That does not help a McCain candidacy.
What will help McCain is if Hillary get the nod. That will suppress some the this youth vote that is flocking to Obama. Also, McCain has appeal to independents. Hillary does not. Obama, for some reason, has appeal to independents. One can only hope that the Hillary/Obama feud continues to Denver (and beyond).
A question I have, is a Clinton/Obama ticket, in that order, spell trouble for the GOP? No, I don't think so, but reverse it, and that become more of a daunting task.
I hope that 2008 does not end up looking like 1996. An older, GOP senator up against an upstart, charismatic Democrat. Is John McCain the Bob Dole number two? No, I think McCain does have his "maverick" reputation (for better or worse) that helps him in a general election, but do enough of the conservative base come out for him like they did for W. Maybe, but we need more reasons to hate Obama like we do Hillary to motivate the base.
If the Democrat nomination process runs into August, will a divided Democrat party have time to come together in under 3 months? One aspect is will the McCain camp have time to be able to get traction on Obama in under 3 months? What makes Obama scary is the fact that no one really knows what he stands for; he has no record to run on. The GOP may not have enough time to expose him for what he is, the most liberal senator in 2007. This is what makes election year politics great.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
This is what we are up against
As a conservative, it seems like an easier gig being liberal. Why would someone want our troops in harm's way? Why should these evil corporations ruin our environment and cause global warming? Why would anyone not want the children to have health insurance? It's all about the children when it comes down to it. That is, of coarse, once they make it through the birth canal. Where this drips with irony is the fight for the right to continue to kill unborn children. It is fought for as a civil right. Who would be against civil rights? Only a racist or sexist, of coarse. See, it's easy to justify reckless, leftist policies. You can do it from the comfort of your own home!
Let's take this example I stumbled on today:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/a82b4460-ade4-4d91-a0fa-bcd1f575233b
I read this and I think, "Who is going to pay for this?". Then I think that this next generation will be the biggest bunch of wussies the world has ever seen. Generation W, if you will. The generation was never allowed to see the difference in haves and the have nots. Why, so the have not are not embarrassed. Maybe a little embarrassment is what they need; maybe it will give them a little kick in the ass to say, "if I work harder, I can improve myself". No, just don't embarass them and keep the status quo.
Now watch how fun and easy being liberal is..."how can anyone with a heart for the youth of America not want to provide nutritious lunches for our students?" How easy was that? No need to look at the numbers behind it or who is paying for it or what type of message this sends to the haves.
Let's have more fun. "I don't want the goverenment listening in on innocent citizens' phone conversations." "I am against illegal wiretaps." Gosh, who with a couple more brain cells than Paris Hilton would disagree. Nevermind the fact that some of thee wiretaps have uncovered terrorist plots that would have killed many (i.e. the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge). Also, no need to mention that the only people's conversations that were tapped into, are the ones that were going or coming from a known terrorist phone numbers. As I wipe the irony off the floor, I realize that liberals want the government less involved in our lives. Wait a second, no they don't! They want the government to run our lives from cradle to grave. Liberals want the government to feed our kids, educate them, give them good paying jobs, and, of coarse, mandate they have goverment healthcare. Just don't listen to my phone calls...
"We only want people to pay their fair shar in taxes" Hmmm, that makes sense, who wouldn't want that? Only a greedy, selfish bastard. But wait, don't the top 10% in wage earners pay 70% of the tax burdern? http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Looks like a pretty good deal if you are in the bottom 50%. The point is that it is easy to demogogue the issue and blame the evil rich for many problems we face. But don't the evil rich employ everyone else? Have you ever worked for a poor person?
"I'm for hope and change in Washington" Me too! Count me in! You don't supprt Obama? You are against change? I am for change, but if that change means the politics of Karl Marx, then I guess I am against change. If change means that we should be sitting down and negotiating with our terrorist foes, I guess I am against change. If change means creating larger and more cumbersome government burocracies that further remove individual responsibility, then I am against hope. But isn't change good? Aren't the people against change either dimwitted or reactionary? Are people against hope simple or backwards? No, but it's fun to say they are.
Let's take this example I stumbled on today:
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/a82b4460-ade4-4d91-a0fa-bcd1f575233b
I read this and I think, "Who is going to pay for this?". Then I think that this next generation will be the biggest bunch of wussies the world has ever seen. Generation W, if you will. The generation was never allowed to see the difference in haves and the have nots. Why, so the have not are not embarrassed. Maybe a little embarrassment is what they need; maybe it will give them a little kick in the ass to say, "if I work harder, I can improve myself". No, just don't embarass them and keep the status quo.
Now watch how fun and easy being liberal is..."how can anyone with a heart for the youth of America not want to provide nutritious lunches for our students?" How easy was that? No need to look at the numbers behind it or who is paying for it or what type of message this sends to the haves.
Let's have more fun. "I don't want the goverenment listening in on innocent citizens' phone conversations." "I am against illegal wiretaps." Gosh, who with a couple more brain cells than Paris Hilton would disagree. Nevermind the fact that some of thee wiretaps have uncovered terrorist plots that would have killed many (i.e. the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge). Also, no need to mention that the only people's conversations that were tapped into, are the ones that were going or coming from a known terrorist phone numbers. As I wipe the irony off the floor, I realize that liberals want the government less involved in our lives. Wait a second, no they don't! They want the government to run our lives from cradle to grave. Liberals want the government to feed our kids, educate them, give them good paying jobs, and, of coarse, mandate they have goverment healthcare. Just don't listen to my phone calls...
"We only want people to pay their fair shar in taxes" Hmmm, that makes sense, who wouldn't want that? Only a greedy, selfish bastard. But wait, don't the top 10% in wage earners pay 70% of the tax burdern? http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Looks like a pretty good deal if you are in the bottom 50%. The point is that it is easy to demogogue the issue and blame the evil rich for many problems we face. But don't the evil rich employ everyone else? Have you ever worked for a poor person?
"I'm for hope and change in Washington" Me too! Count me in! You don't supprt Obama? You are against change? I am for change, but if that change means the politics of Karl Marx, then I guess I am against change. If change means that we should be sitting down and negotiating with our terrorist foes, I guess I am against change. If change means creating larger and more cumbersome government burocracies that further remove individual responsibility, then I am against hope. But isn't change good? Aren't the people against change either dimwitted or reactionary? Are people against hope simple or backwards? No, but it's fun to say they are.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Going Green???
What exactly does that mean? In my opinion, nothing. But it makes people "feel" like they are doing something about the crushing burden of GLOBAL WARMING. I do want to go on the record and say that I believe global warming/climate change or whatever the environmental alarmists' jargon of this day is, may be the biggest, and well funded hoax of all time. Sure, the earth may be warming, but is it indisputable that it is man-made? Could it be the earth's natural warming and cooling patters? I know that Al Gore is the smartest man in the world, but how come the polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking? Could the sun be getting warmer? How is it that 1934 was the hottest year on record? How come 4 of the hottest 10 years on record were in the 1930's? How come only 3 of the hottest 10 years on record were in the last 10 years? Why in the 1970's the scare was global COOLING? Have the gas guzzling Americans stepped up the carbon emissions that much in only 30 years? Maybe. Maybe not.
My point is that there is a shadow of a doubt that global warming is caused by man. So why the "green" movement. Because if there is a man made problem, you don't want to be the selfish bastard that does not install high efficiency light bulbs. Maybe that will save the whales...what ever happened to saving the whales? I guess we saved them all. But from who? The Eskimos. Maybe we should thank global warming for melting the ice caps where the Eskimos live.
What politicians on the left (and weak-kneed ones on the right) want are huge "carbon taxes" on those industries/companies who are perceived as carbon emitters. Again, no proof that carbon emissions are what are causing global warming, but lets tax it anyway. Let's tax Americans so that the efficient federal government can invest in alternative energy. I really love when a politician says they will "invest" in something; it really mean they will confiscate hard earned dollars to waste on their local pork barrel projects that keep them in office.
Anyway, back to going green. Those who tell you they are going green or buying green (i.e. a hybrid car), are the same with the "Think Globally, Act Locally" bumper sticker on their Toyota Prius. I guess putting catchy slogans on the back of your car will cool the earth. These holier than thou individuals feel they have a moral superiority since they have a recycled metal in their new bathtub. The whole thing is a farce.
My point is that there is a shadow of a doubt that global warming is caused by man. So why the "green" movement. Because if there is a man made problem, you don't want to be the selfish bastard that does not install high efficiency light bulbs. Maybe that will save the whales...what ever happened to saving the whales? I guess we saved them all. But from who? The Eskimos. Maybe we should thank global warming for melting the ice caps where the Eskimos live.
What politicians on the left (and weak-kneed ones on the right) want are huge "carbon taxes" on those industries/companies who are perceived as carbon emitters. Again, no proof that carbon emissions are what are causing global warming, but lets tax it anyway. Let's tax Americans so that the efficient federal government can invest in alternative energy. I really love when a politician says they will "invest" in something; it really mean they will confiscate hard earned dollars to waste on their local pork barrel projects that keep them in office.
Anyway, back to going green. Those who tell you they are going green or buying green (i.e. a hybrid car), are the same with the "Think Globally, Act Locally" bumper sticker on their Toyota Prius. I guess putting catchy slogans on the back of your car will cool the earth. These holier than thou individuals feel they have a moral superiority since they have a recycled metal in their new bathtub. The whole thing is a farce.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
American Idol Politics
The Democratic party's nomination process (and the entire Presidential race for that matter) is a great example of how little thought goes into selecting the leader of the free world and the next Commander in Chief of the most powerful military the world has ever known. If any schmuck gets up and start spouting they are for "Hope" and "Change" and people will swoon like the British Invasion is back. If that is the case I am against hope. I don't want change when I see what the change agent actually supports.
I go to an old fashion barber shop, and my barber has a very conservative customer base. He stated last time I was in his chair that some of these card carrying Republicans are actually considering the "Change" candidate. Why? Not because he is decorated war hero. Not because he has a track record to run on. Not because he would help the small business owners by keeping taxes down. Because a candidate is "articulate", or he is "sincere" or a "fresh face". One should look at what type of change he may supp rt. Does this candidate take ever closer to the European model of exploding welfare states with crushing taxes and soft foreign policy on self defense against enemies sworn to kill Americans?
Typical, lazy Americans pay more attention to the music than the words. Political armatures are mesmerized by the siren's song.
I go to an old fashion barber shop, and my barber has a very conservative customer base. He stated last time I was in his chair that some of these card carrying Republicans are actually considering the "Change" candidate. Why? Not because he is decorated war hero. Not because he has a track record to run on. Not because he would help the small business owners by keeping taxes down. Because a candidate is "articulate", or he is "sincere" or a "fresh face". One should look at what type of change he may supp rt. Does this candidate take ever closer to the European model of exploding welfare states with crushing taxes and soft foreign policy on self defense against enemies sworn to kill Americans?
Typical, lazy Americans pay more attention to the music than the words. Political armatures are mesmerized by the siren's song.
A case for McCain
John McCain: war hero, true patriot, (relatively) conservative.
Barack Obama: ????, very liberal
I hear many people tell me "well I don't like either one of 'em". "I'd rather not vote". These are silly reasons not to exorcise your civic duty (not your right) to vote. These are the same people who complain about politicians, gas prices, the war...whatever. Don't vote, keep your mouth shut.
I do want to take a couple minutes to outline why I like Johnny Mac. Again he was not my first choice during the primaries, but he is my only choice now. I know that my vote for McCain this fall goes toward a leader, not a speaker. We are at war. As Commander in Chief, the President is the leader of our armed forces. John McCain knows how and when to use the force of our military. He has a proven trackrecord. Does Obama? Interesting article in the WaPo about the leaders in the military being a little nervous about an Obama administration. Didn't he say he wanted to invade Pakistan???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NATION/476716884/1001
I can have confidence that McCain can use our military the way it is supposed to; the whole point is no one knows anything about Obama, he is an empty vessel.
One thing to keep in mind this the judiciary branch; most likely one or two supreme court justices will retire (or die) during the next 4 to 8 years. I want John McCain nominating the next supreme court judges, not an unknown quantity in Obama. As a reletively social conservative, I cringe as "Under God" is taken from America and when schools ban more Christian references but become more accomidating of Muslim culture. I appreciate a justice who can show judicial restraint. Now, I am not an abortion nut, but I do think it is a bad law in how it came about. As opposed to law being made by the legislative branch, Roe v. Wade set a precdent in judicial activism. Abortion is an issue that deserves debate in a open forum. Roe v Wade is a law passed from the bench, not from the people. Unacountable judges verse elected officials. The next president will appoint judges who have the power to decide (in a life term) if they want to legislate from the bench or do they want to interpret the constitution as our framers would like. Since when do we doubt what Madison, Jefferson, and Adams had in mind for this nation? An ACLU lawyer type that an Obama would nominate does. A McCain presidency would appoint judges in the mold of a Thomas, Alito, and Scalia. That is all a President can do to uphold what little traditional values we have left, is by appointing, not "conservative" judges, but strict constructionalist justices.
Look at government spending; HUGE differnce between an Obama and McCain administration. Obama, from what little we know about him, would be a big spendin', tax hikin', nanny state supportin' good 'ole fashion liberal. Again, Senator McCain has some votes on record that I would like to have seen gone the other way, but on spending he is a hawk, not a pig.
Obamamania is all the rage; once the MSM/talk radio/blogosphere start to set their sites on Barack Obama after they take their bull's eye off Hillary, he will be exposed....slowly but surely.
Barack Obama: ????, very liberal
I hear many people tell me "well I don't like either one of 'em". "I'd rather not vote". These are silly reasons not to exorcise your civic duty (not your right) to vote. These are the same people who complain about politicians, gas prices, the war...whatever. Don't vote, keep your mouth shut.
I do want to take a couple minutes to outline why I like Johnny Mac. Again he was not my first choice during the primaries, but he is my only choice now. I know that my vote for McCain this fall goes toward a leader, not a speaker. We are at war. As Commander in Chief, the President is the leader of our armed forces. John McCain knows how and when to use the force of our military. He has a proven trackrecord. Does Obama? Interesting article in the WaPo about the leaders in the military being a little nervous about an Obama administration. Didn't he say he wanted to invade Pakistan???
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080226/NATION/476716884/1001
I can have confidence that McCain can use our military the way it is supposed to; the whole point is no one knows anything about Obama, he is an empty vessel.
One thing to keep in mind this the judiciary branch; most likely one or two supreme court justices will retire (or die) during the next 4 to 8 years. I want John McCain nominating the next supreme court judges, not an unknown quantity in Obama. As a reletively social conservative, I cringe as "Under God" is taken from America and when schools ban more Christian references but become more accomidating of Muslim culture. I appreciate a justice who can show judicial restraint. Now, I am not an abortion nut, but I do think it is a bad law in how it came about. As opposed to law being made by the legislative branch, Roe v. Wade set a precdent in judicial activism. Abortion is an issue that deserves debate in a open forum. Roe v Wade is a law passed from the bench, not from the people. Unacountable judges verse elected officials. The next president will appoint judges who have the power to decide (in a life term) if they want to legislate from the bench or do they want to interpret the constitution as our framers would like. Since when do we doubt what Madison, Jefferson, and Adams had in mind for this nation? An ACLU lawyer type that an Obama would nominate does. A McCain presidency would appoint judges in the mold of a Thomas, Alito, and Scalia. That is all a President can do to uphold what little traditional values we have left, is by appointing, not "conservative" judges, but strict constructionalist justices.
Look at government spending; HUGE differnce between an Obama and McCain administration. Obama, from what little we know about him, would be a big spendin', tax hikin', nanny state supportin' good 'ole fashion liberal. Again, Senator McCain has some votes on record that I would like to have seen gone the other way, but on spending he is a hawk, not a pig.
Obamamania is all the rage; once the MSM/talk radio/blogosphere start to set their sites on Barack Obama after they take their bull's eye off Hillary, he will be exposed....slowly but surely.
Monday, February 18, 2008
My $.02 on Presidential Politics
If there is a good reason to look forward to leap years, beside this years' summer olympics in smog smothered Bejing, it is the tradition of presidential campaigns. Although this cycle seems to have started just after the 2006 midterms, we now are entering the meat of the order...
My stance is that I was a big Romney supporter starting early on in his campaign. I donated a couple dollars and a little time to his primary campaign here in Georgia. He is (was) what I expect out of a president: proven in the public and the private sector, a problem solver as he fixed the 2002 winter olympics and the Massachussetts budget as governor of the Bay State. He looked presidential, he spoke presidential. For some reason his message never translated nationally. I am not sure why, and I do not want to blame it purley on being the "Mormon guy" running. He was painted as a flip-flopper from the get go, and it stuck. Romney was branded as a political opportunist. If one really studies his record of how he governed the state of Massachussetts, he ran on how he actually governed, not based on some comments that he made in 1994 when running against Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy in their Senate race. Romney was a pro-life, fiscal conservative. All this being said, he is out of the race and the 'ole war horse is the GOP nominee (not officially, yet).
I was very skeptical at first of John McCain. The media hypes him as a "maverick", which in conservative circles is not a good thing. Sure, he came down on the wrong side of a couple issues, but were they CORE issues?? Maybe; take McCain-Feingold. Does anyone really care about campaign finance? Or is it just election year politics? McCain's immagration bill was not exactly what I think would be best, but now that he has had time to reflect on it. He has "finessed" his position and believes border security should come first. He is committed to prevent wasteful, ear-mark spending, keeping taxes low, and his staple is being very strong on national defense. McCain has a very high conservative ranking by the American Conservative Union. I don't think Republicans need to "hold their nose" and vote McCain or just vote agains the Democrat ticket. A McCain vote is one you can be proud of. We can't compare McCain to Romney or Huckabee anymore; we must look at him verse a Hillary or Obama.
The Democrat primary is delivering much more fireworks than the GOP primary did. I had found myseld rooting for Obama to give Hillary a run for her money for the same reason I found myself pulling for the Giants over the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Who in their right mind thought Hillary would be fighting for her political life 3 months ago? Now this contest is not so cure anymore. A candidate has emerged. The junior senator from Illinois has taken it to the junior senator from New York. Obamamania has caught fire...but why? What has he done to deserve to be President of the United States? The leader of the free world? Sure Obama is very accomplished comared to you and me, but one shouldn't compare their credentials to a candidate for president! He served 2 year in the US Senate before throwing his hat in the ring. Prior to that he was in the Illinois state senate with numerous "present" votes on his voting record. That does not sound like someone I want dictating the direction of this country, and his limited senate record shows he has the most liberal voting record of all 100 senators. What he does have going for him is his charisma, his speaking skills, and his "newness". The Democrat party has always likes the new kid. Bill Clinton is a great example. John Hawkins wrote a great column about this "Hallmark Candidate."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/02/15/barack_obama_a_human_hallmark_card_for_president
Obama is all style, no substance. He talks about change and hope; who in their right mind is against hope?!?! What sort of change does America want? Higher taxes? More intrusive federal government welfare programs? Pulling out of Iraq and negating all the progress that our men and women have made over the last year? That is not my type of change. What is scary about Obama is that the garbage that he sells, too many people are buying it. People are fainting at his rallies, comparisons to JFK and Roosevelt are everywhere, his poll numbers skyrocketing. Just because someone can deliver a speech well does not qualify them to be president; maybe Tony Robbins should run for president.
Although there is a lot of "Republican fatigue" out there; look at where an Obama administration would lead us vs. McCain. Say what you want about the 'ole Scott, but he is fighter. I fighter with an attitude, and I want a fighter...not a butterfly.
My stance is that I was a big Romney supporter starting early on in his campaign. I donated a couple dollars and a little time to his primary campaign here in Georgia. He is (was) what I expect out of a president: proven in the public and the private sector, a problem solver as he fixed the 2002 winter olympics and the Massachussetts budget as governor of the Bay State. He looked presidential, he spoke presidential. For some reason his message never translated nationally. I am not sure why, and I do not want to blame it purley on being the "Mormon guy" running. He was painted as a flip-flopper from the get go, and it stuck. Romney was branded as a political opportunist. If one really studies his record of how he governed the state of Massachussetts, he ran on how he actually governed, not based on some comments that he made in 1994 when running against Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy in their Senate race. Romney was a pro-life, fiscal conservative. All this being said, he is out of the race and the 'ole war horse is the GOP nominee (not officially, yet).
I was very skeptical at first of John McCain. The media hypes him as a "maverick", which in conservative circles is not a good thing. Sure, he came down on the wrong side of a couple issues, but were they CORE issues?? Maybe; take McCain-Feingold. Does anyone really care about campaign finance? Or is it just election year politics? McCain's immagration bill was not exactly what I think would be best, but now that he has had time to reflect on it. He has "finessed" his position and believes border security should come first. He is committed to prevent wasteful, ear-mark spending, keeping taxes low, and his staple is being very strong on national defense. McCain has a very high conservative ranking by the American Conservative Union. I don't think Republicans need to "hold their nose" and vote McCain or just vote agains the Democrat ticket. A McCain vote is one you can be proud of. We can't compare McCain to Romney or Huckabee anymore; we must look at him verse a Hillary or Obama.
The Democrat primary is delivering much more fireworks than the GOP primary did. I had found myseld rooting for Obama to give Hillary a run for her money for the same reason I found myself pulling for the Giants over the Patriots in the Super Bowl. Who in their right mind thought Hillary would be fighting for her political life 3 months ago? Now this contest is not so cure anymore. A candidate has emerged. The junior senator from Illinois has taken it to the junior senator from New York. Obamamania has caught fire...but why? What has he done to deserve to be President of the United States? The leader of the free world? Sure Obama is very accomplished comared to you and me, but one shouldn't compare their credentials to a candidate for president! He served 2 year in the US Senate before throwing his hat in the ring. Prior to that he was in the Illinois state senate with numerous "present" votes on his voting record. That does not sound like someone I want dictating the direction of this country, and his limited senate record shows he has the most liberal voting record of all 100 senators. What he does have going for him is his charisma, his speaking skills, and his "newness". The Democrat party has always likes the new kid. Bill Clinton is a great example. John Hawkins wrote a great column about this "Hallmark Candidate."
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/02/15/barack_obama_a_human_hallmark_card_for_president
Obama is all style, no substance. He talks about change and hope; who in their right mind is against hope?!?! What sort of change does America want? Higher taxes? More intrusive federal government welfare programs? Pulling out of Iraq and negating all the progress that our men and women have made over the last year? That is not my type of change. What is scary about Obama is that the garbage that he sells, too many people are buying it. People are fainting at his rallies, comparisons to JFK and Roosevelt are everywhere, his poll numbers skyrocketing. Just because someone can deliver a speech well does not qualify them to be president; maybe Tony Robbins should run for president.
Although there is a lot of "Republican fatigue" out there; look at where an Obama administration would lead us vs. McCain. Say what you want about the 'ole Scott, but he is fighter. I fighter with an attitude, and I want a fighter...not a butterfly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
