Ladies and gentlemen of the Democrat party, here are your candidates for President — Senator Clinton, the Washington insider and Senator Obama, the photogenic rookie. I guess you have to fight an election with the candidates you have, not the candidates you wish you had. One important thing I took away from the debate tonight is that Barack is beatable. Even this election year. Even with an unpopular (at least according to polls) incumbent President. What we have been seeing recently is the humanization of Barack Obama. He has fallen off his high perch from self-inflicted wounds and harmful associations with America-haters like Reverend Wright. We saw more of this in the Hillary v. Obama debate this evening. He actually looked like he was unsure of himself and his answers to the questions reflected that. John McCain can beat this Barack Obama. He couldn’t beat the one we saw 6 months ago.
bittergate
So Obama said some inartful things about the good citizens of Pennsylvania while speaking to some fat cats in San Fran, about which Republicans are supposed to be outraged at the great slight he made to average Janes and Joes everywhere in this country. Do I have the story correct here? That seems to be the common interpretation of my friends on the right. This campaign season has already gone on too long, and we have run out of things to say about this race. That’s why all these little slip-ups take on such great importance. I have no doubt that Obama regrets saying what he said the way he said it, but I’m not really surprised that he would say something like this.
The honesty is refreshing. Wouldn’t we rather have a candidate who tells us how he really feels, instead of this mindless pandering we see every presidential election? What we have here is someone who, despite all of the photo-ops done by both Democrats and Republicans with the cheesesteaks and the beer and various average-Joe activities like hunting, doesn’t really identify with those people. There’s nothing shocking about this revelation. That’s part of Obama’s whole appeal — that he is something greater than all of the average people and that he alone has the ability to rise above the masses and above partisan bickering to actually get things done for the country.
He is different from John Kerry because he can overcome mistakes like this. People will still like Barack no matter what he says, and they will always prefer him to the ultimate Washington insider Hillary Clinton.
more cheap shots
Apparently my previous post struck a nerve with my buddy Chris. I don’t recall saying anything about cheap shots being the sole domain of the Democrats. I also think there’s a difference between saying something really stupid, like the GOP Congressional candidate he mentions in his post, and calling a candidate a “warmonger” and a “blatant opportunist”. I do give Obama credit for apologizing for Ed Schultz, but he had to do that, even if he agrees with Schultz. It’s hard to decide how outraged to be about what this McCain supporter said about Obama when it’s unclear what the guy meant by that statement (as Chris admits in his post).
I disagree with Chris and with Ed Schultz about McCain being a warmonger. Maybe it’s the definition we disagree about here. McCain intends to keep troops in Iraq as long as they are necessary to keep Iraq from falling apart. You can support that position or not, but this doesn’t automatically make him a warmonger. McCain won’t be trigger-happy on potential future wars. No one who has served in the military would be. I thought the Democrats had this view — that those who have never served should have less credibility than those who have when it comes to discussions of war. There’s another reason that McCain has a stake in Iraq, and it’s that his son is serving there. Do the Dems really want to argue that McCain wouldn’t take every future decision on what to do next in Iraq seriously with his son’s life on the line?
I’m not trying to defend Iraq. I don’t think it’s possible to make any progress on that argument at this point, since both sides have dug in their heels and nothing will keep them from believing what they believe about Iraq. But McCain has less faith in the Bush democracy project than he will admit.
cheap shot artists
Thanks for reminding John McCain who his opposition really is, Democrats. In case he wasn’t sure that the Democrats would say anything mean about him before the election, now he knows differently. Step right up and take those cheap shots. I’m talking to you, Ed Schultz, Howard Dean, and John F. Kerry. For those who have never heard of Ed Schultz, he is a liberal talk radio guy who occasionally appears on cable news shows and represents the Airhead America point of view. He called John McCain a warmonger. That doesn’t sound all that inflammatory in print, but it suggests that McCain is someone who is looking to pick fights that have nothing to do with our national security interests. I don’t see McCain this way, and in spite of his bad joke about bombing Iran, I don’t think he would be as willing to do it as the Democrats suggest that he is. I also think he’s more open to the kind of diplomacy Hillary and Obama keep talking about than he can admit as the Republican nominee.
DNC chairman Howard Dean is the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans. He always gives us such great material for our campaign ads. Think you might see this quote again?
John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can’t change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years.
While we honor McCains military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesnt understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
That’s right. Howard Dean calls John McCain a blatant opportunist. I suppose that this could be interpreted any number of ways, but to suggest, as Media Matters does, that Dean wasn’t accusing McCain of playing politics with his military service — that claim is laughable. Besides, under the Democrat rules of engagement, only those who have served in the military are qualified to support or criticize wars. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include Howard Dean. Also, Dean is being disingenuous with his claim that McCain is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years. McCain did no such thing.
McCain has every right to include his military service in his re-introduction to the American people, because that’s a big part of who the man is. If his intention was to exploit that military service for maximum advantage, he would probably mention it every three seconds like John F. Kerry did in 2004. He also wouldn’t keep the fact that his son James is serving our country in Iraq a secret (more on that later).
leave mitt alone
Some social conservatives can’t accept victory. Mitt Romney will not be our next President. They got what they wanted. They won. Seems to me they can’t take yes for an answer. Thanks to their support of anyone but Romney, we are now stuck with McCain. Now a small vocal group of malcontents is making threats not to support McCain if he picks Romney as VP. They even have printed an ad (see PDF here). First of all, McCain knows that he got this far without their support, so what makes them think they have any influence on him now? There’s also no guarantee this group wouldn’t sit the election out no matter what McCain does with Romney.
This is incredibly stupid on their part. There’s no need to make threats about it, because McCain wouldn’t pick Romney anyway. In some ways, Romney would be a smart choice. He does shore up a McCain weakness as far as knowing something about the economy, so it does make sense in these economic times to take that aspect into consideration. He would certainly be a desirable choice over Governor Crist, Governor Pawlenty, and McCain’s BFF Lindsey Graham. Any of these guys more closely mirror McCain’s positions on the issues than Romney does. But as much as I think Romney would make a fine VP, and even President someday, now is not the time, and McCain has some better choices if he really cares what social conservatives want (that’s doubtful).
There are many other ways for Romney to raise his 2012 or 2016 profile without tying himself to a possible McCain presidency. Of course, McCain’s VP may be the Republicans’ 2012 nominee, but I think Romney would be a strong contender without that built-in advantage. He will have 4 to 8 years after the 2008 election to build up his conservative credentials. I know that there are fellow Mitt fans out there who have complete faith in the guy, and who may find it unfair that he still has to prove himself to social conservatives, but we have to acknowledge that there are misconceptions out there that cause people not to trust him. He has the ability to change this. He just needs time. Being McCain’s VP isn’t the right move for Mitt Romney, and with the other options McCain has, it’s not the right move for McCain either.
are they serious?
Non-“right wing crazies” also question the Democrats’ (and specifically Obama’s) patriotism.
Like Joe Klein, for example.
This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what’s wrong with America than what’s right. When Ronald Reagan touted “Morning in America” in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight “and getting darker all the time.” This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama’s hopemongering is about as American as a message can get although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.
That’s what the right is questioning about the Democrats and about Obama. It’s not that he doesn’t wear a flag pin. I could care less whether Democrats or Republicans wear flag pins. The attitude and mindset of a potential President is what’s important here. I want someone who, while admitting the challenges and struggles we face as a country, will also acknowledge the possibility that we can overcome those challenges. I’ve said on several occasions that it’s customary to have the party out of power tell the voters how terrible everything is to win elections, and that both sides do this. However, the Democrats seem to have perfected this particular argument, and it’s often hard for them to admit that the country isn’t doomed, because this ruins all of their stump speeches.
It also damages their push for national health care, pulling out of Iraq — forget for a minute that both Hillary and Obama have flip-flopped on their commitment to immediate withdrawal from Iraq — and all of their other grand social experiments and new government spending. This aversion to Bush has really tied the Dems in knots to the point where they can never give him credit for anything, even when it’s obvious they agree with what he does. According to the Democrats, Bush has ruined this great country, and all the bad things happening to you in your life are indirectly caused by your President. This period of misery will continue under President McCain, because “he’s just like Bush”. McCain will also ruin your life, so the only choice you have is to vote Democratic. That’s their whole argument. McCain = Bush.
At some point, the Democrats will have to make the case for their nominee, and it has to be more than “We’re not like Bush!”. President Bush isn’t running again, and running against him won’t work this time.
it’s not going to happen
The longer the Democratic primary battle continues, the more difficult it seems to be to keep the Democrats from doing something stupid. Exhibit A: the possibility that they would end up picking someone no Democrat voted for in 2008. I’m talking about America’s most revered loser Al Gore. There is actually a discussion among some “senior” Democrats about tossing out the preferences of Democrat voters and nominating Al Gore as the Democrat who will lose to John McCain in November. That’s a fabulous idea. If you want all out civil war in the Democratic party, just try to pull this stunt. Even if you think that Al Gore actually won in 2000, there’s nothing new or original about him other than his obsession with saving the planet. He’s Washington establishment through and through and he’s one of those boring white male types we keep electing as President.
It’s over for Al Gore. He would be better off staying where he is and making outrageous sums of money lying to the public about global warming. I know the media is easily distracted by shiny objects and candidates not actually in the race, but there’s nothing to see here. I never overestimate the Democrats’ ability to screw up a sure thing, but I can’t believe they would seriously consider nominating Gore over Obama or Hillary. It takes away the novelty and the advantage either Dem would have in November. It’s not going to happen. Al Gore will not be the Dem nominee in 2008. Get over 2000 and the Clinton years and get on with your lives. Nominate Obama. Or you Dems could just struggle and struggle until August or September. Either way works for me.
be very afraid of president mccain
McCain is even scarier than Bush because he will start more wars! He will spread more “democracy by force”! He’s actually serious about dealing with rogue states! He really is a neocon, and his “realist” advisors — mere window-dressing. Be very very afraid of this man. He’s a close friend of Bill Kristol, who, as the left reminds us, has to be the most terrifying advocate of pre-emptive war EVER. The Financial Times’ writer, Anatol Leiven, worries that McCain won’t talk to our allies enough before pursuing US foreign policy. He seems to be fearful that a President McCain would get the UK into another war. Does he seriously believe that PM Gordon Brown (for as long as he remains PM) and possible successor, David Cameron, have the same instincts as Tony Blair as far as a joint venture in more wars? I don’t know the answer to that.
I do know what would happen if we let Europe attempt to defend itself. It would be a miserable failure. The UK has its own national identity crisis right now. The leadership there is willing to surrender piece by piece the UK’s national sovereignty. There’s a reason why PM Brown and Labour will not allow the people to have a say on the Treaty of Lisbon, which gives more and more control and authority to the European Union. It’s not much different from the EU Constitution, which was decisively rejected by several EU member states. Why do I bring that up? It’s important to recognize the signs of a fading power in the world. A country unwilling to protect and preserve its own existence would hardly be a country willing to defend its allies, or to be a useful asset in the pursuit of the terrorists.
All I have to say to those like Leiven is: Be careful what you wish for. After 4 years of President Obama or President Hillary, you might be sorry that you questioned the wisdom of electing John McCain.
something we should all agree on
Chris Matthews is not an objective journalist, and he says some really dumb (some might say a bit creepy) things.
Like this, for example(on Barack’s speech):
We’ll have much more on this momentous day and what I personally view as the best speech ever given on race in this country. One that went beyond “I have a dream,” to “I have lived the dream but have also lived in this country.”
Better than Martin Luther King’s speech? You have got to be kidding.
Or this:
I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract. Something that you just check in with, now and then, like reading Great Gatsby and Huckleberry Finn. Read this speech, once in a while, ladies and gentlemen. This is us. It’s us with the scab ripped off.
No exaggeration here. A speech Barack felt compelled to give to keep the Wright matter under control is now on par with great literature by F.Scott Fitzgerald and Mark Twain. Uh huh. Chris Matthews checks his objectivity at the door when he clocks in to work every day. I don’t know how much more proof we need that he has a glaringly obvious bias to Democrats in general and Barack in particular.
I liked Barack’s speech. I’ll leave the micro-analysis of it to others, because I have no interest in dissecting every single argument he made yesterday. I will say this, however — if the desired objective was to get the Wright matter settled, I don’t think that his speech achieved that objective. This will follow him into November, unless the media gets tired of the story. Don’t be surprised if this happens. Without new information, stories like this die. The media is in the tank for Barack, and it will do everything in its power to protect him, including not asking the hard questions of someone who wants to be president of this country.
trouble for gordon brown
Looks like Gordon Brown will have a little trouble duplicating Tony Blair’s electoral success. That was one heck of a short honeymoon for current UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and like here in the US, it’s about the economy. Apparently his finance minister does not share his skill in economic matters, but you would think that Gordon Brown could give the guy a few ideas. It’s odd that Brown has struggled so much as Prime Minister. After all, he made quite a few brilliant moves as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He isn’t Tony Blair, and that’s what the good citizens of the UK thought that they wanted. Even with all of his years in the Blair orb, it’s not clear that he was the right guy to take Blair’s place in Number 10. Voters are fickle though, even across the pond, and they could change their minds tomorrow.
Until then…the latest poll has the Tories leading Labour by 13 points. (h/t – Real Clear Politics)
The numbers– Conservatives – 42, Labour – 29, LibDems – 21
Tories once lost elections on the economy. Will this be the reason Labour loses power again? The leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, sure hopes so.