During the Democratic convention the big story was unity, or the lack thereof. The forces of Hillary Clinton were not happy about their candidate being passed over, not only for the nomination, but far more important, vice president. This is conventional wisdom, we happen to think that it wasn't a bad decision considering Clinton's high negative ratings (mid 40's) and the baggage of husband Bill. Having said that Hillary Clinton did have a constituency of female voters who had to witness the appearance of a glass ceiling in their own party. Compound this appearance with the pick of Joe Biden as VP. If Barak Obama had picked a woman he would have at least dispelled the notion of discrimination, an ongoing infatuation within the Democratic party. A pick of a woman would have mitigated the gender conscious forces confining the shafting of Clinton to Clinton herself and not her gender.
With John McCain's pick of VP going to Sarah Palin, not only has he exasperated the disgruntlement of the gender conscious woman vote within the Democratic party but has brought about the real prospect of taken away a large section of voters who would've gone Democrat. Add to this is the possibility of re-aligning the woman vote to the Republican party and the prospect of women taking a look at conservative philosophy as a whole viewing it on its own terms and not through a charactered depiction from Democrats.
We have opined that this election is an up or down vote for Barak Obama. A popular and groundbreaking figure that has shown that there is hope for Americans of all races to reach high office. For this reason we have said that if Obama lost in the general election it could only be attributed to his liberal philosophy. A loss for Obama would cause the Democratic party to re-think its positions. A mistake would be to attribute his loss to something other then his positions, the pick of Sarah Palin could do just that. If that's the case expect liberalism to be shut out of national politics for another generation.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Dissecting Obama's Saddleback
This years presidential election has the potential of reshaping the Democratic party. Ever since the candidacy of George McGovern Democrat's have nominated a candidate with political principles and world views that don't connect with the voters. The two exceptions Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton became default candidates due to failure or corruption and by not portraying themselves as liberal standard bearers, Clinton after all ran to eliminate welfare “as we know it.”
In this current race for high office Barak Obama is set to replace an unpopular administration much the way Clinton and Carter had. Add to this is Obama's popularity with young voters and great communication skills. If Obama were to lose, to what can we point to as the one element that brought him down?
To kick off the general election John McCain and Barak Obama faced off in a quasi-debate in California (Saddleback) answering questions on policy and morality. No other forum before has ever given voters a more stark contrast of both candidates. Voters could see that more then anything else they are voting for different visions. If Obama were to lose with all of his popularity it can only mean that his outlook or the principles of the liberal wing of the Democratic party have been rejected. Unlike other rejections, this one in particular could be a watershed moment for the Democrats because if Obama can't win as a liberal, no one can.
Just what are the tenets of liberalism and why are they not palatable? The more identifiable is the one that cherishes welfare. Since the advent of Linden Johnson's Great Society program of the mid 1960's the United States has spent trillions on social programs on all levels of government. Programs in area's of standard cash handouts to families with dependent children to health care, education, food, hosing assistance, and unemployment. One of the first questions asked to Barak Obama in Saddleback was what if anything does he see as America's failure. His answer was providing for the poor. After all the years and funds directed to do just that why such an indictment? It's not enough to say that welfare is well funded, there is strong evidence that it is destructive. It's not a new argument or hard to understand. Either it is right or wrong voters at least have an inkling that it is true. But putting the affects of welfare aside, with all that has been redistributed from one class to another, does Obama have enough grounds be ashamed of America? Obama does mention the need and dignity for work but this is short lived. He also gives somewhat of a contradiction when he mentions that he was against welfare reform under Bill Clinton and subsequently saw that it was beneficial and he was wrong to oppose it. If Clinton was right to cut welfare then why be ashamed that we haven't done enough over the years to “provide for the poor”?
But providing for the poor is one of his missions as president as though this is a new idea put upon a rich and selfish nation. This he sees as America's greatest failure. And he doesn't stop there. He was asked whether or not he believed in evil to which he said he did. In identifying where evil lies he sites Rwanda genocide as one and the other the streets of America. No mention of Islamic terrorism, none. Not just Islamic, but terrorism of any stripe. Wasn't 9/11 an more poignant example of evil? Has he forgotten? Not only does he not see Islamic terrorism as evil but we should be “humble” about it when recognizing it in others. We are reminded of the arguments of moral equivalence during the cold war years when the left would excuse the faults of the old Soviet Union by pointing out our own. Not only moral equivalence but moral relativism, where there is no right or wrong short of genocide or, for that matter, “American Streets.” As an aside, if genocide gives America a need to intervene in other nations as Obama has hinted in Darfur and Bosnia, then why is it not okay to topple Saddam Hussain for that very reason? Why is Iraqi genocide ignored totally? Couldn't he say he was against the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction because of faulty intelligence, but glad we went in if only to remove a genocidal regime?
If there is a defeat of Barak Obama it is time for the Democratic party to shed it's postmodern, class struggle outlook. They are not ideals rooted in reality, as pointed out in providing for the poor (been there done that) and the need to give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt by drawing attentions to our shortcomings. The one thing about Obama is that there is nothing unique in his politics and has given the voters a chance to once and for all make clear what they think of liberal politics. Democrats would be wise to retool in the event of a vote of no confidence.
In this current race for high office Barak Obama is set to replace an unpopular administration much the way Clinton and Carter had. Add to this is Obama's popularity with young voters and great communication skills. If Obama were to lose, to what can we point to as the one element that brought him down?
To kick off the general election John McCain and Barak Obama faced off in a quasi-debate in California (Saddleback) answering questions on policy and morality. No other forum before has ever given voters a more stark contrast of both candidates. Voters could see that more then anything else they are voting for different visions. If Obama were to lose with all of his popularity it can only mean that his outlook or the principles of the liberal wing of the Democratic party have been rejected. Unlike other rejections, this one in particular could be a watershed moment for the Democrats because if Obama can't win as a liberal, no one can.
Just what are the tenets of liberalism and why are they not palatable? The more identifiable is the one that cherishes welfare. Since the advent of Linden Johnson's Great Society program of the mid 1960's the United States has spent trillions on social programs on all levels of government. Programs in area's of standard cash handouts to families with dependent children to health care, education, food, hosing assistance, and unemployment. One of the first questions asked to Barak Obama in Saddleback was what if anything does he see as America's failure. His answer was providing for the poor. After all the years and funds directed to do just that why such an indictment? It's not enough to say that welfare is well funded, there is strong evidence that it is destructive. It's not a new argument or hard to understand. Either it is right or wrong voters at least have an inkling that it is true. But putting the affects of welfare aside, with all that has been redistributed from one class to another, does Obama have enough grounds be ashamed of America? Obama does mention the need and dignity for work but this is short lived. He also gives somewhat of a contradiction when he mentions that he was against welfare reform under Bill Clinton and subsequently saw that it was beneficial and he was wrong to oppose it. If Clinton was right to cut welfare then why be ashamed that we haven't done enough over the years to “provide for the poor”?
But providing for the poor is one of his missions as president as though this is a new idea put upon a rich and selfish nation. This he sees as America's greatest failure. And he doesn't stop there. He was asked whether or not he believed in evil to which he said he did. In identifying where evil lies he sites Rwanda genocide as one and the other the streets of America. No mention of Islamic terrorism, none. Not just Islamic, but terrorism of any stripe. Wasn't 9/11 an more poignant example of evil? Has he forgotten? Not only does he not see Islamic terrorism as evil but we should be “humble” about it when recognizing it in others. We are reminded of the arguments of moral equivalence during the cold war years when the left would excuse the faults of the old Soviet Union by pointing out our own. Not only moral equivalence but moral relativism, where there is no right or wrong short of genocide or, for that matter, “American Streets.” As an aside, if genocide gives America a need to intervene in other nations as Obama has hinted in Darfur and Bosnia, then why is it not okay to topple Saddam Hussain for that very reason? Why is Iraqi genocide ignored totally? Couldn't he say he was against the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction because of faulty intelligence, but glad we went in if only to remove a genocidal regime?
If there is a defeat of Barak Obama it is time for the Democratic party to shed it's postmodern, class struggle outlook. They are not ideals rooted in reality, as pointed out in providing for the poor (been there done that) and the need to give America's enemies the benefit of a doubt by drawing attentions to our shortcomings. The one thing about Obama is that there is nothing unique in his politics and has given the voters a chance to once and for all make clear what they think of liberal politics. Democrats would be wise to retool in the event of a vote of no confidence.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Let Them Eat Inflated Tires
Aside from Barak Obama's missteps and associations his biggest problem is the same as other Democratic predecessors who ran for top office and that is his political principles.
National campaigns, unlike the primaries, must appeal to the undecided vote, a group that is apolitical with an open mind that would vote for either party. The problem with Democratic presidential candidates is that they don't seem to have a handle on what it is middle America wants in a president and liberal policies are not it. They at least recognize that the word “liberal” is an albatross so they stay clear of the label but not the ideals. Never will it be heard in a general election, or even in the primaries, a candidate say that he or she is a liberal standard bearer. Republicans have the opposite problem in that everyone says they're a conservative when running but seldom are in governing. Democrats never say they're liberals but almost always are when in office.
When it comes to the electorate anti-conservative are liberals but anti-liberals are not always conservative. The reason being is that liberalism is expensive. Certainly a centrist could be apprehensive about conservative tax policy citing deficits in government ledgers but thats government ledgers, not their own. which is more immediate. Another problem with liberalism is the propensity to come up with government run solutions to big problems. All one has to do is run over a pot hole to distrust government to solve big problems. For Democrats to have broad appeal as a governing party it's going to have to retool. Since a liberal message doesn't get them to the white house they must rely on bad news in order to win.
Which leads us to Barak Obama. Would he even have a chance if it were not for bad news? Note how as the war becomes more and more successful with lowering gas prices and 3% growth in the economy his star seems to be fading. He's certainly is not helping matters in his recent tactic of defining his opposition as racist, a much overused liberal devise. No popular conservative has ever escaped this charge. With the current run up in oil his response has been 1. higher prices are okay only it happened too quickly. 2. replacing oil with “green” energy and other technologies that don't exist 3. inflate your tires. 4. confiscate money from oil producing companies put it all in an airplane and dump it out over populated areas (well not quite but not that much different). You don't have to be conservative to recognize that none of these so-called solutions will lower the price of gas anytime soon. Add to this is his high sense of himself. He seems to believe all the hype saying that he is what the world has been waiting for. This is a bit much. This is not to say that Obama cannot still win. McCain is not only running a hapless campaign but he is unable to coordinate a message that resonates with the voters mostly because he doesn't have one. McCain is a typical senator in that his line of work is to compromise and see different sides to an issue, a virtue important in legislating but out of place in leading or formulating a message. Only two senators have ever been elected president.
Its been said countless times before but it is worth repeating. The election is a referendum on Barak Obama. But not Obama only but the political philosophy of liberalism. A much unreported story in the campaign is the defection of Joe Lieberman the former Democrat vice presidential candidate in supporting McCain. Most Americans would like to see a black president. If Obama loses it will be because of his politics and if that happens liberalism is all but finished.
National campaigns, unlike the primaries, must appeal to the undecided vote, a group that is apolitical with an open mind that would vote for either party. The problem with Democratic presidential candidates is that they don't seem to have a handle on what it is middle America wants in a president and liberal policies are not it. They at least recognize that the word “liberal” is an albatross so they stay clear of the label but not the ideals. Never will it be heard in a general election, or even in the primaries, a candidate say that he or she is a liberal standard bearer. Republicans have the opposite problem in that everyone says they're a conservative when running but seldom are in governing. Democrats never say they're liberals but almost always are when in office.
When it comes to the electorate anti-conservative are liberals but anti-liberals are not always conservative. The reason being is that liberalism is expensive. Certainly a centrist could be apprehensive about conservative tax policy citing deficits in government ledgers but thats government ledgers, not their own. which is more immediate. Another problem with liberalism is the propensity to come up with government run solutions to big problems. All one has to do is run over a pot hole to distrust government to solve big problems. For Democrats to have broad appeal as a governing party it's going to have to retool. Since a liberal message doesn't get them to the white house they must rely on bad news in order to win.
Which leads us to Barak Obama. Would he even have a chance if it were not for bad news? Note how as the war becomes more and more successful with lowering gas prices and 3% growth in the economy his star seems to be fading. He's certainly is not helping matters in his recent tactic of defining his opposition as racist, a much overused liberal devise. No popular conservative has ever escaped this charge. With the current run up in oil his response has been 1. higher prices are okay only it happened too quickly. 2. replacing oil with “green” energy and other technologies that don't exist 3. inflate your tires. 4. confiscate money from oil producing companies put it all in an airplane and dump it out over populated areas (well not quite but not that much different). You don't have to be conservative to recognize that none of these so-called solutions will lower the price of gas anytime soon. Add to this is his high sense of himself. He seems to believe all the hype saying that he is what the world has been waiting for. This is a bit much. This is not to say that Obama cannot still win. McCain is not only running a hapless campaign but he is unable to coordinate a message that resonates with the voters mostly because he doesn't have one. McCain is a typical senator in that his line of work is to compromise and see different sides to an issue, a virtue important in legislating but out of place in leading or formulating a message. Only two senators have ever been elected president.
Its been said countless times before but it is worth repeating. The election is a referendum on Barak Obama. But not Obama only but the political philosophy of liberalism. A much unreported story in the campaign is the defection of Joe Lieberman the former Democrat vice presidential candidate in supporting McCain. Most Americans would like to see a black president. If Obama loses it will be because of his politics and if that happens liberalism is all but finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)