Dick Polman in todays Philadelphia Inquirer suggests it will. http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080907_The_American_Debate__It_s_little_discussed__but_Obama_s_race_may_be_decider.html
The vast majority of Republicans will not be voting for Mr. Obama, my mother-in-law being an exception that proves the rule. Most Republicans will not support any candidate with positions as far left as Mr. Obama.
The vast majority of Libertarians will not be voting for Mr. Obama. They see the ever expanding federal government as the overwhelming problem facing the country. While many may be somewhat sympathetic to his positions on the war in Iraq, they have a candidate, Bob Barr and will probably vote for him; all twelve of us.
There are a rather large number of people in the middle. These are dedicated Independents who vote Republican or Democratic or even Libertarian. They are always the key to any election assuming the Democrats and Republicans play their expected rolls.
The vast majority of Democrats WILL be voting for Mr. Obama, but as Mr. Polman points out in his article about 12% of Democratic voters cite race as problematic to their supporting Mr. Obama. These are people you would expect to be supportive of Mr. Obama's left of center policy prescriptions. FYI, there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Mr. Polman extrapolates that 12% number to the larger electorate and it is not an illogical thing to do. But Mr. Polman should be under no delusion. If Mr. Obama loses the election, it will not be due to racist Republcians or racist Libertarians or racist Independents. It will be because of racist Democrats.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Obama, McCain and playing the race card
I have to admit to being confused while listening to C-SPAN recently. Practically all the callers, some of whom were “professing” to be Republicans, were nonplused about McCain playing the race card with the Brittany/Paris ad. I tried to understand how this could be since it was Barack Obama who made a statement that had overt references to race on July 30, and I quote, “They’re gonna try to say that I’m a risky guy. They’re gonna try and say, well you know, he’s got a funny name and he doesn’t look like all the presidents on the dollar bill and 5 dollar bills…”. There have been protestations by those in the press such as Andrea Mitchell, who said that no one in attendance at this event thought he was talking about race (apparently Andrea can read minds). But the NY Times thinks this statement was in response to McCain’s racial attack, so by that measure it must have been racial if it is in to respond to a racial attack.
This wasn’t the first time Obama alluded to race. In fact, on June 20 in Jacksonville, he did more than just allude to race, he said, “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?” It doesn’t take a mental giant to juxtapose those two statements and come to the logical conclusion that they are saying the same thing. Like the July 30 statement, this was in the future tense. He was warning of future attacks by the McCain campaign.
So what exactly did the McCain ad say that triggered the July 30 version? Have you seen the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton “celebrity” campaign spot? I couldn’t find a clean clip but this piece includes the essence it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/28645/nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams-paris-britneyand-barack-obama
This ineffectual, somewhat vapid attempt to portray Obama as vapid, has been described by the New York Times as an attempt to play “the race card”. Instead of trying to explain this I’ll just post the operative paragraph from the July 31 NY Times editorial which explains the connection.
“The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.”
And this ladies and gentlemen is the subliminal message behind the “Brittany/Paris” campaign ad; Obama with white women. So, by logical extension this classic race batting technique from the Jim Crow era means Brittany and Paris are the representatives of virtuous young white women? At minimum this reveals the absurdity of the New York Times or the stupidity of the McCain campaign.
On August 2 Mr. Obama held a news conference. He admitted that his earlier comments had a racial component. But insisted he wasn’t playing the race card but rather was just trying to explain that the Republican ad, while not racial, was designed to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about him. He said that his biography is atypical and that Republicans are going to exploit his youth and inexperience and somewhat unusual life path because they don’t have a plan for the future and instead want to make him the issue.
Well Mr. Obama needs to get used to being the issue, because this election is a referendum on him. In an undeniable Democratic year, that his lead versus McCain is effectively within the margin of error on national polls, speaks volumes to the unease the American people feel. He should be ahead by 10 points. The ill ease isn’t about race. It’s about ideology. This country has been center-right politically for a very long time. His election means a significant move to the left and a significant number of independents and moderates are concerned about where an Obama presidency will take America.
“Politics ain’t beanbag”, Tip O’Neal is often quoted to have said. But it seems that Obama wants to coat himself with racial Teflon. Obama is going to try and spin any criticism of him that is not issue related, to race. He will try to use race to deflect any and ALL criticisms by making the Republicans defensive about appearing racist. Remember what happened to the Clintons in the primaries. If it can successful against Democrats, it should be a cake-walk against Republicans.
Here’s an example. There was some criticism of Obama being arrogant especially after the speech in Germany. A caller to C-SPAN tried to spin the use of arrogance (when coming from a Republican) as code for “uppity”. In fact, on ABC’s “This Week”, David Gergen made that very argument. As a southerner, he said the real message was very clear to him. Well, it went over the head of this Southerner. If that analogy sticks then arrogance will soon fall from the political lexicon this season. But I don’t think the Republicans will take this lying down. Senator Lindsey Graham made a vociferous defense of this and said they will not allow to be done to them what was done to the Clintons. We’ll see.
This racial Teflon tactic could backfire for Obama. He has been trying to portray himself as post-racial. There ain’t nothin’ post-racial about any of this. If he keeps this up he will further alienate those blue-collar Democrats and independents that he will need to win this election. And if he loses, it will all be because he made race an issue.
This wasn’t the first time Obama alluded to race. In fact, on June 20 in Jacksonville, he did more than just allude to race, he said, “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?” It doesn’t take a mental giant to juxtapose those two statements and come to the logical conclusion that they are saying the same thing. Like the July 30 statement, this was in the future tense. He was warning of future attacks by the McCain campaign.
So what exactly did the McCain ad say that triggered the July 30 version? Have you seen the Britney Spears/Paris Hilton “celebrity” campaign spot? I couldn’t find a clean clip but this piece includes the essence it.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/28645/nbc-nightly-news-with-brian-williams-paris-britneyand-barack-obama
This ineffectual, somewhat vapid attempt to portray Obama as vapid, has been described by the New York Times as an attempt to play “the race card”. Instead of trying to explain this I’ll just post the operative paragraph from the July 31 NY Times editorial which explains the connection.
“The ad gave us an uneasy feeling that the McCain campaign was starting up the same sort of racially tinged attack on Mr. Obama that Republican operatives ran against Harold Ford, a black candidate for Senate in Tennessee in 2006. That assault, too, began with videos juxtaposing Mr. Ford with young, white women.”
And this ladies and gentlemen is the subliminal message behind the “Brittany/Paris” campaign ad; Obama with white women. So, by logical extension this classic race batting technique from the Jim Crow era means Brittany and Paris are the representatives of virtuous young white women? At minimum this reveals the absurdity of the New York Times or the stupidity of the McCain campaign.
On August 2 Mr. Obama held a news conference. He admitted that his earlier comments had a racial component. But insisted he wasn’t playing the race card but rather was just trying to explain that the Republican ad, while not racial, was designed to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about him. He said that his biography is atypical and that Republicans are going to exploit his youth and inexperience and somewhat unusual life path because they don’t have a plan for the future and instead want to make him the issue.
Well Mr. Obama needs to get used to being the issue, because this election is a referendum on him. In an undeniable Democratic year, that his lead versus McCain is effectively within the margin of error on national polls, speaks volumes to the unease the American people feel. He should be ahead by 10 points. The ill ease isn’t about race. It’s about ideology. This country has been center-right politically for a very long time. His election means a significant move to the left and a significant number of independents and moderates are concerned about where an Obama presidency will take America.
“Politics ain’t beanbag”, Tip O’Neal is often quoted to have said. But it seems that Obama wants to coat himself with racial Teflon. Obama is going to try and spin any criticism of him that is not issue related, to race. He will try to use race to deflect any and ALL criticisms by making the Republicans defensive about appearing racist. Remember what happened to the Clintons in the primaries. If it can successful against Democrats, it should be a cake-walk against Republicans.
Here’s an example. There was some criticism of Obama being arrogant especially after the speech in Germany. A caller to C-SPAN tried to spin the use of arrogance (when coming from a Republican) as code for “uppity”. In fact, on ABC’s “This Week”, David Gergen made that very argument. As a southerner, he said the real message was very clear to him. Well, it went over the head of this Southerner. If that analogy sticks then arrogance will soon fall from the political lexicon this season. But I don’t think the Republicans will take this lying down. Senator Lindsey Graham made a vociferous defense of this and said they will not allow to be done to them what was done to the Clintons. We’ll see.
This racial Teflon tactic could backfire for Obama. He has been trying to portray himself as post-racial. There ain’t nothin’ post-racial about any of this. If he keeps this up he will further alienate those blue-collar Democrats and independents that he will need to win this election. And if he loses, it will all be because he made race an issue.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Libertarian Party nomination of Bob Barr is good news for Democrats
The Libertarian Party yesterday nominated Bob Barr for President and Wayne Allyn Root for Vice-President. Mr. Barr was elected on the 6th ballot. The nominees on this ballot, in addition to Barr were Mary Ruwart, Wayne Allyn Root and None of the Above. Barr won with 54% of the vote.
Shortly after the results of the 5th ballot were announced Root took the podium to endorse Barr in hopes (or probably more accurately, after a non-smoking back-room deal) to become his VP.
It’s not hard to predict that this effort will probably be as big a failure as previous elections. The Libertarian Party rarely gets more than 1 percent of the vote.
But this year could be different. Bob Barr is a very eloquent politician. He may be a Johnny come lately to libertarianism but he seems to be a dedicated convert. His VP, Wayne Allyn Root, is also a newcomer and he too comes from the Republican Party. Mr. Root is an extremely eloquent and energetic man. He has a certain charisma that Mr. Barr does not. They will make a good team.
Hence the problem for Republicans; Georgia could easily go to the Democrats with native son Barr in the race as a Libertarian. Georgia is probably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Neal Boortz , a very popular nationally syndicated radio talk show host broadcasts from WSB in Atlanta. He’s a pro Iraq War libertarian who seems to be leaning toward John McCain. But Barr is very popular; popular enough to pull enough votes from McCain to put Georgia in the Democratic column.
Georgia has 15 electorial votes, that’s 5.5% of the 270 needed to win. In a very tight election this could be very significant.
I promoted John McCain to become the Republican nominee and he is the best one for the current climate as only he can appeal to moderates and independents. His veto pen would be the only hope for slowing down what will be an avalanche of spending and tax increases once the Democrats get in office with their increased majority in Congress.
But here’s another thought; the Libertarians have an opportunity to improve their brand this election. There may still be a spark of liberty within the American people. And we need that spark to become a conflagration if we’re going to save this republic. Barr and Root could tap into the large donor list of Ron Paul and compete and in the process awaken a latent libertarianism that I have to believe still exists. They won’t win and they could guarantee a Democratic victory but to quote P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one thing that gives me hope as a Republican, and that is the Democrats. It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”
The question is what is better for America in the long-run? Is it better to elect John McCain and hope he will be a bulwark against a Democratic Congress creating gridlock and thereby basically maintaining the status-quo. Or should we vote Libertarian help the only party that has a long-term chance to restore our republic to its founding principles.
Right now I just don’t know.
Shortly after the results of the 5th ballot were announced Root took the podium to endorse Barr in hopes (or probably more accurately, after a non-smoking back-room deal) to become his VP.
It’s not hard to predict that this effort will probably be as big a failure as previous elections. The Libertarian Party rarely gets more than 1 percent of the vote.
But this year could be different. Bob Barr is a very eloquent politician. He may be a Johnny come lately to libertarianism but he seems to be a dedicated convert. His VP, Wayne Allyn Root, is also a newcomer and he too comes from the Republican Party. Mr. Root is an extremely eloquent and energetic man. He has a certain charisma that Mr. Barr does not. They will make a good team.
Hence the problem for Republicans; Georgia could easily go to the Democrats with native son Barr in the race as a Libertarian. Georgia is probably one of the most libertarian states in the country. Neal Boortz , a very popular nationally syndicated radio talk show host broadcasts from WSB in Atlanta. He’s a pro Iraq War libertarian who seems to be leaning toward John McCain. But Barr is very popular; popular enough to pull enough votes from McCain to put Georgia in the Democratic column.
Georgia has 15 electorial votes, that’s 5.5% of the 270 needed to win. In a very tight election this could be very significant.
I promoted John McCain to become the Republican nominee and he is the best one for the current climate as only he can appeal to moderates and independents. His veto pen would be the only hope for slowing down what will be an avalanche of spending and tax increases once the Democrats get in office with their increased majority in Congress.
But here’s another thought; the Libertarians have an opportunity to improve their brand this election. There may still be a spark of liberty within the American people. And we need that spark to become a conflagration if we’re going to save this republic. Barr and Root could tap into the large donor list of Ron Paul and compete and in the process awaken a latent libertarianism that I have to believe still exists. They won’t win and they could guarantee a Democratic victory but to quote P.J. O’Rourke, “There is only one thing that gives me hope as a Republican, and that is the Democrats. It’s going to be hard to do a worse job running America than the Republicans have, but if anybody can do it, it’s the Democrats.”
The question is what is better for America in the long-run? Is it better to elect John McCain and hope he will be a bulwark against a Democratic Congress creating gridlock and thereby basically maintaining the status-quo. Or should we vote Libertarian help the only party that has a long-term chance to restore our republic to its founding principles.
Right now I just don’t know.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
No Country for Old Men
This is off the path of what typically is found on this site.
I'm ambivaent about the issue of abortion. My position is basically constitutional; the states should decide, it's not a federal issue. And many people both on the left and right are not comfortable with the way privacy was used to decide Roe v. Wade. I say this only to introduce a slice of Americana as found in the book "No Country for Old men", a great book that was made into a great movie that won best picture. Here's the last paragraph of the opening to Chapter 7.
Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I ain't even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the saying goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was saying somethin bad about them, but of course that's a high complement in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don't like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam, I don't think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don't have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.
I'm ambivaent about the issue of abortion. My position is basically constitutional; the states should decide, it's not a federal issue. And many people both on the left and right are not comfortable with the way privacy was used to decide Roe v. Wade. I say this only to introduce a slice of Americana as found in the book "No Country for Old men", a great book that was made into a great movie that won best picture. Here's the last paragraph of the opening to Chapter 7.
Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing this and the right wing that. I ain't even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the saying goes. I told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was saying somethin bad about them, but of course that's a high complement in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on. Finally told me, said: I don't like the way this country is headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion. And I said well mam, I don't think you got any worries about the way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don't have much doubt but what she'll be able to have an abortion. I'm goin to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she'll be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the conversation.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 29, 2008
A major tenet of leftist philosophy is a willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Leftists generally are against individualism and identify more with groups. They generally believe collectivism is a better way to attain our common goals than with individual efforts and no one can deny that in some instances organized collective effort is best. One should bow to the collective wisdom to attain the common good.
Let's apply this philosophy to the current situation within the Democratic Party. We have 2 individuals running for president. Only one of them can become the nominee. It is rapidly becoming the prevaling wisdom within and without the party that a protracted primary campaign will become, and to many minds has become, damaging to the parties chances of winning in November. With every day that passes the Democrats are providing more and more fodder for future Republican commercials.
So why hasn't one of these candidates capitulated? Isn't that the proper thing to do for the "common good" of the Democratic Party? Mrs. Clinton, by just about every metric, cannot win the nomination without creating a significant schism. Why doesn't she concede? And Mr. Obama, he's relatively young and even though he has a slight but insurmountable lead, he could use some additional experience; why not agree to become Mrs. Clinton's vice-president? He could then run for president 8 years hence, several years before his 60th birthday.
The Republicans, that band of darwanistic individuals, seem to be much more civilized in this area. They traditionally rally around the putative favorite early on. This cycle was a bit more contentious than usual, but in the end they came together and much sooner than the Democrats, in no small part due to their winner take all philosophy in the primaries.
When it comes to coveting power, the Democrats are a level above the Republicans. The Republicans are just as capable of abusing their power. One need look no further than the Republican run congresses since 1994 to see how power can be abused. Or President Bush and the expondential expansion of presidential power for which he has been responsible.
But there's one difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe power is their birth-right. How can it not be? Their whole reason for wanting power is so they can make your life better. After all, they know what's best for you. They're not in this for themselves. It's all about making sure you're better off. And they're happy to take advantage of others in the society to accomplish that goal. They are therefore deserving of power.
There's not a penny's worth of policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Either one is fully capably of implementing the Democratic Party's quasi-socialist agenda. So the reason neither one will give up is simply this; their thirst for power is infinitely greater than their concern for the integrity of the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy in politics is unavoidable.
Let's apply this philosophy to the current situation within the Democratic Party. We have 2 individuals running for president. Only one of them can become the nominee. It is rapidly becoming the prevaling wisdom within and without the party that a protracted primary campaign will become, and to many minds has become, damaging to the parties chances of winning in November. With every day that passes the Democrats are providing more and more fodder for future Republican commercials.
So why hasn't one of these candidates capitulated? Isn't that the proper thing to do for the "common good" of the Democratic Party? Mrs. Clinton, by just about every metric, cannot win the nomination without creating a significant schism. Why doesn't she concede? And Mr. Obama, he's relatively young and even though he has a slight but insurmountable lead, he could use some additional experience; why not agree to become Mrs. Clinton's vice-president? He could then run for president 8 years hence, several years before his 60th birthday.
The Republicans, that band of darwanistic individuals, seem to be much more civilized in this area. They traditionally rally around the putative favorite early on. This cycle was a bit more contentious than usual, but in the end they came together and much sooner than the Democrats, in no small part due to their winner take all philosophy in the primaries.
When it comes to coveting power, the Democrats are a level above the Republicans. The Republicans are just as capable of abusing their power. One need look no further than the Republican run congresses since 1994 to see how power can be abused. Or President Bush and the expondential expansion of presidential power for which he has been responsible.
But there's one difference between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats believe power is their birth-right. How can it not be? Their whole reason for wanting power is so they can make your life better. After all, they know what's best for you. They're not in this for themselves. It's all about making sure you're better off. And they're happy to take advantage of others in the society to accomplish that goal. They are therefore deserving of power.
There's not a penny's worth of policy difference between Obama and Clinton. Either one is fully capably of implementing the Democratic Party's quasi-socialist agenda. So the reason neither one will give up is simply this; their thirst for power is infinitely greater than their concern for the integrity of the Democratic Party. Hypocrisy in politics is unavoidable.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Democratic Party Implosion Watch: March 27, 2008
It's getting hard to keep up with all the latest cannibalist commentary from Democrats about Democrats:
- Bill Clinton suggested the American people have 2 good, patriotic candidates from which to choose; Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
- James Carville, the Ragin' Cajun, said Govenor Bill Richardson's (former Clinton cabinet officer) endorsement was particularly timely, Holy Week, the same week that Judas took 30 pieces of silver. I'm so glad most Cajun's aren't like Mr. Carville.
- Bill Richardson said he wasn't going to get in the gutter with Mr. Carville, then in the next breath said the comment by Carville was "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton."
Not bad entertainment...
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Obama Speech
There has been an almost euphoric aura around the campaign of Barack Obama. It continues albeit to a lesser degree after the controversy surrounding the statements of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor. Mr. Obama, being the excellent politician that he is, took immediate action and gave an excellent speech this past Tuesday inwhich he addressed the multi-faceted problem of race with an honest appraisal of the situation from both perspectives.
From the main stream press there has been almost universal encomia. Race, the most divisive issue in this country, an issue that has beeen responsible for much suffering on many levels has come into this presidential contest; you knew it would. While the speech was very good, it was not perfect and raised serious questions regarding his commitment to his principles and ability to lead.
He made a moral equivalence between his pastor whose comments negatively influenced literally thousands of people on a regular basis as the same as his white grandmother's racial comments that made him "cringe".
He made a second moral equivalence between Ms. Ferraro's comments about Mr. Obama's success being due to his being black and the implication by "some" of her "deep-seated racial bias" and Reverend Wright's incendiary remarks; to which she took significant umbrage. This exchange didn't do anything but accelerate the growing schism within the party.
But these were relatively minor errors.
In his speech Mr. Obama said, "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren." Noble words.
Senator Obama needs to explain why he didn't engage his former pastor in a colloquy regarding his developing post-racial ideology and how it conflicts with liberation theology. Liberation theology, as espoused by Reverend Wright, runs counter to his above stated reason for running for president. So one cannot be blamed for having some doubt either about his committment to those noble words or his ability to effect change. If he can't or won't confront his own pastor and congregation and challenge them to move toward those noble words, how can we expect him to challenge and move a country?
From the main stream press there has been almost universal encomia. Race, the most divisive issue in this country, an issue that has beeen responsible for much suffering on many levels has come into this presidential contest; you knew it would. While the speech was very good, it was not perfect and raised serious questions regarding his commitment to his principles and ability to lead.
He made a moral equivalence between his pastor whose comments negatively influenced literally thousands of people on a regular basis as the same as his white grandmother's racial comments that made him "cringe".
He made a second moral equivalence between Ms. Ferraro's comments about Mr. Obama's success being due to his being black and the implication by "some" of her "deep-seated racial bias" and Reverend Wright's incendiary remarks; to which she took significant umbrage. This exchange didn't do anything but accelerate the growing schism within the party.
But these were relatively minor errors.
In his speech Mr. Obama said, "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren." Noble words.
Senator Obama needs to explain why he didn't engage his former pastor in a colloquy regarding his developing post-racial ideology and how it conflicts with liberation theology. Liberation theology, as espoused by Reverend Wright, runs counter to his above stated reason for running for president. So one cannot be blamed for having some doubt either about his committment to those noble words or his ability to effect change. If he can't or won't confront his own pastor and congregation and challenge them to move toward those noble words, how can we expect him to challenge and move a country?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
