On May 6, 2008 the late Tim Russert said, “We now know who the democratic nominee will be…”, and I was a happy camper – I’ve been an Obama supporter from day one. Today, quite unfortunately, I’ve got my own Russert moment for you. We now know who the next President of the United States will be: John McCain.
Rick Warren and Barack Obama are friends; they speak the same language. Yet, it was John McCain who wowed the crowd of “new Evangelicals”. His straight-talk responses – Iraq? We must win and we WILL win! Energy? We must drill and we must drill NOW! Women’s rights? I will have a pro-life administration and appoint pro-life judges!
Now, stop right there. Let’s look at Obama’s reasonable position on a woman’s right to choose. Have abortions ceased to exist under pro-life President George W. Bush? No. What makes you think they will disappear under pro-life President John McCain? They won’t.
Barack Obama wants to tackle the causes that place women in the position of having to make that most serious of choices. If more women had the means, motive and opportunity to have a child, more women would obviously choose to bring a baby into this world. But George W. Bush, John McCain and the republicans have made this a very dark, cold and lonely place for many perspective mothers. We have a broken economy – people are making less and have to spend more. Wanna buy a home in today’s market? America is ranked 19th in the world in education, but as far as incarceration - we’re number one!
Anyway, the bottom-line is that John McCain utterly trounced Obama in what was supposed to be a real breakthrough moment for the democrat. Sure, McCain is wrong on the issues and will only lead America further away from the greatness that is beginning to seem like a distant memory, but politics isn’t about being right – it’s about winning. Come to think of it, in American politics, being right and winning seem to be mutually exclusive…
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 16, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Ryan
Beyond the merits of their policies, Obama’s vision simply lacks the confidence of McCain’s. I would argue looking back over the last 40 years, the candidate with the most confident vision for America has almost always won. The Democrats have fielded several candidates over the last four decades that lack confidence in their own ideas in the minds of the American public. The biggest sign of this mentality can be seen in how Obama tried to be really friendly and not offend anyone even when he disagrees with them. This comes across as weak and indecisive to many. To this cynical moderate it comes across as naive and easily exploitable. McCain was not there to make friends, but to get his point across and do it with confidence. This is one of the reasons I would never vote for Obama where as I would have entertained voting for Clinton.
Maybe its something in the Democratic ideology that prevents them from being so confident, but liberal/progressives do not come across as confident as moderates and conservatives do.
August 16, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Kurt
So you agree that it’s got nothing to do with the actual issues.
August 17, 2008 at 12:09 am
Ryan
Well not exactly. The Democrats nominated the wrong candidate to run against McCain since he is such a moderate. He is very decisive, but he is still a moderate. I fall into this category and I think a plurality of Americans do too. Obama is not enough of a moderate for starters, but his lack of overt confidence makes his ideology an even greater liability. If he was far more overtly confident, his ideology would matter less. McCain simply has an easier case to start with selling his views because he is closer to the center. Factor in the lack of overt confidence from Obama, McCain has it easy.
I suspect if McCain was facing Clinton, he would be in trouble because she comes across as confident and more moderate. Liberals/progressives do not like overt confidence as much as moderates and conservatives, which makes them a small minority of the electorate. Unless liberals/progressives warm up to overtly confident candidates like an Ed Rendell, they should just get used to keeping the opposition benches warm.
August 17, 2008 at 12:13 am
Kurt
I see what you mean.
I live in Pa., and Ed Rendell is a god around here, mostly because of his exuberance.
August 17, 2008 at 12:27 am
Ryan
Rendell was the only Democrat that got my vote in 2006 partially for that reason. I have my disagreements with his methods, but he is largely a moderate who believes in whatever cause he is fighting for. PA is the perfect example of someone needing to be a moderate and confident about it. This is probably why McCain has the best chance of any Republican since 1988 to take the state.
Why do you suspect liberal/progressive Democrat candidates do not come off as confident as even moderate Democrat candidates?
August 17, 2008 at 7:30 am
Kurt
I suspect it’s because of the specter of Jimmy Carter; who was, history has proved, right on the issues, yet dismally ineffective at persuading the voters.
August 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm
libhomo
Ed Rendell is horribly corrupt, as we found when he kept breaking election law to support Hillary Clinton. I will never give that politician a dime.
As for the event, it was illegitimate and unAmerican. Very few people other than militant, anti-American Christian extremists watched it. (Remember, its subject matter is a snore for most people, and it was competing with the Blood Olympics.)
If Obama’s advisers share their assessment, they will modify Obama’s approach.
The real issue is that a crazed religious extremist like Rick Warren is leading two major presidential candidates around like they were his puppies.
August 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Ryan
I do not know where you are coming from libhomo, but almost every person I know who watched this discussion was not a social conservative. Most of them are social moderates and progressives.
August 18, 2008 at 8:25 am
renaissanceguy
“Yet, it was John McCain who wowed the crowd of ‘new Evangelicals’.”
I suppose you could call me an “old Evangelical.” McCain did not wow me.
“Now, stop right there. Let’s look at Obama’s reasonable position on a woman’s right to choose.”
There is nothing reasonable about burning a baby with saline solution, tearing it apart with forceps or sucking it out of the womb with a vacuum. There is certainly nothing reasonable about pulling it out feet first, stabbing its head, collapsing the skull, and then pulling it the rest of the way out.
“Have abortions ceased to exist under pro-life President George W. Bush? No. What makes you think they will disappear under pro-life President John McCain? They won’t.”
Which is why I am hugely disappointed with George Bush and the other Republicans. It is why I have all but abandoned the Republican Party. But for other people that I know, it is still a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.
“If more women had the means, motive and opportunity to have a child, more women would obviously choose to bring a baby into this world. ”
It’s not that hard. Billions of women have done it for thousands and thousands of years. For the most part, you conceive and it eventually just happens.
“We have a broken economy – people are making less and have to spend more.”
But we will never fix a broken economy by continuing to do what broke it. A free economy is what we need. Freedom is a good thing.
“Sure, McCain is wrong on the issues and will only lead America further away from the greatness that is beginning to seem like a distant memory, but politics isn’t about being right – it’s about winning.”
Are you referring to the greatness we had before or after the federal income tax and the New Deal?
“Come to think of it, in American politics, being right and winning seem to be mutually exclusive…”
You’ve got that right. Otherwise, Jack Kemp or Alan Keyes would already have been elected President.
August 18, 2008 at 9:27 am
Keith
“…Barack Obama wants to tackle the causes that place women in the position of having to make that most serious of choices.” This seems like a pretty simple thing to me. KEEP YOUR PANTS ON! There, I fixed it.
August 18, 2008 at 9:43 am
Kurt
Ren, you lost the argument as soon as you used the word “baby”.
Try again.
Keith, spoken like a true misogynistic conservative.
August 18, 2008 at 11:29 am
Keith
What’s hateful about encouraging women to act responsibly? Please explain.
August 18, 2008 at 11:31 am
renaissanceguy
How does calling a baby, a baby, mean that I lose the argument?
I called both my girls babies when they were in the womb. I’ll bet that Mr. and Mrs. Obama did too.
August 18, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Kurt
You guys aren’t going to bait me. Sorry.
August 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm
The Red Pill
“You guys aren’t going to bait me. Sorry.”
Why don’t you just admit that this topic is above your pay grade? That’s how Barack Obama—the man who wants to be the leader of the free world—sidestepped the issue.
Also, Obama’s claim that abortions are up under the Bush administration is false. According to FactCheck.org, as of 2005, abortions are indeed down under the Bush adminstration. Are there any recent statistics that the Obama campaign can point to that refutes this?
(For the record, I am pro-choice, so save the slams. I just have a low tolerance for being fed BS)
August 18, 2008 at 3:42 pm
The Red Pill
Hmm..did my comment not go through?
August 19, 2008 at 11:40 pm
cadawg
Kurt, I too called my children babies before they were born. You don’t want to take the bait, because you know you can’t win an argument against what respects life versus what diminishes it. Very sad.