Obama’s Honesty Problem
May 25th, 2008 at 07:17pm Mark Noonan
Michael Barone has crunched the numbers, and come up with this conclusion:
It’s a little dangerous in interpreting polls to assume that voters’ thinking proceeds along logical lines. People who aren’t professionally involved in politics, whose knowledge comes from bits and snippets of news, can hold beliefs that are contradictory or in tension with each other. They don’t feel obliged to resolve contradictions. But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic primary voters were saying that Obama lied about not knowing what Wright has been preaching and that he agrees with him a lot more than he has let on.
Now West Virginia and Kentucky are not typical primary states. They, together with Arkansas, where Hillary Clinton was First Lady for 12 years, were Obama’s weakest states in this year’s primaries. And some percentage of registered Democrats in these states have been voting Republican in recent presidential elections. Nevertheless, the negative verdict these voters render on Obama’s honesty and his relationship with Wright is likely to be typical of some significant quantum of potential Democratic voters this year. And not just in states like West Virginia and Kentucky, which he will certainly lose, but in marginal states which he must carry in order to be elected.
I find confirmation from this in a recent focus group conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by pollster Peter Hart (for whom I worked for seven years) of non-primary voters in Charlottesville, Va. As Hart and Alex Horowitz note in their analysis of reactions to Obama, “When asked to recount any two memories of the total presidential campaign so far, seven of the 12 participants cite Rev. Wright by name. So far, clips of Rev. Wright clearly are the one ‘key defining moment’ of this campaign.”
Most reporters are liberals, whose circles of friends and acquaintances have included people with views not dissimilar to those of Wright or William Ayers, the unrepentant Weather Underground bomber with whom Obama served on a nonprofit board and at whose house his state Senate candidacy was launched. Such reporters don’t find these views utterly repugnant or particularly noteworthy. But most American voters do. And they wonder whether a candidate who associates with such people agrees with them — or disbelieve him when he says he doesn’t.
Though most in the press won’t admit it, that’s a problem — for the Obama candidacy and for the whole Democratic party once it nominates him.
I think Obama’s people - as well as other leading Democrats - understand this far better than the MSM or Obama’s supporters do; thus the recent talking point that the Wright issue is pretty much out of bounds, plus absurd attempts to make the Hagee issue equivalent to the Wright issue (this AP story from today is typical of the “Hagee is the same as Wright” meme). As for the dishonesty people see in Obama - that is clear; it was an absurd lie on the part of Obama to state that he was unaware of Wright’s extremist views…everyone knows it is a lie, he knew it was a lie as he uttered it…and yet he said it, and now a large portion of the people have put down Obama as a liar. Hard to get out from under that.
Fundamentally, Democrats are forced into dishonesty because they know their policies are rejected by the broad majority of the American people - they can’t run explicitly on American weakness and kowtowing to the UN…so they talk about the need for diplomacy, as if we hadn’t been using diplomacy with great success these past 7 years (the growing alliance with India, the agreement to build SDI in Europe, the voluntary termination of Libya’s nuclear program, eg). They can’t run explicitly on high taxes…so they talk about “middle class tax cuts” and making the rich pay more. They can’t run explicitly on federally funded abortion on demand…so they talk about securing the right for women to “choose” regardless of ability to pay. On and on it goes - never saying what they really want to do…and this has bred the culture of dishonesty which convinced Obama, seemingly, that a rather stupid and bald-faced lie about Wright would go down smoothly. Well, it hasn’t - and it may cost Obama the election.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats
73 Comments
1. middlefinger | May 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Deleted - mindless insults.
2. Barack Obama » Obam&hellip | May 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
[...] nobody@flickr.com (caligyrl_yup) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt Michael Barone has crunched the numbers, and come up with this conclusion: It’s a little dangerous in interpreting polls to assume that voters’ thinking proceeds along logical lines. People who aren’t professionally involved in politics, whose knowledge comes from bits and snippets of news, can hold beliefs that are contradictory or in tension with each other. They don’t feel obliged to resolve contradictions. But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentuck [...]
3. CanadianObserver | May 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Barack Obama, no matter how much his opposition will try to stop him, will triumph in November. He will be leader of the free world, Mark; and who knows, perhaps, given time, you will come to love and accept it.
4. Mark Noonan | May 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
CO,
Uh, we’re voting for President…not Messiah…
5. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I don’t think the voters in Appalachia had a problem with Obama telling the truth about Wright, though Wright is a factor. They had trouble with Obama’s skin color. I know hearing on the cable news that exit polling in both Kentucky and WV showed that 2 out of 10 said race was a factor in their voting decision and that 8 of 10 of those people voted for Clinton. Now you know that number is higher, because as we all know exit polling is when a stranger asks you about your vote. These people thought nothing of it to say to a stranger that race matters to them in voting. It is sad but understandable. Appalachian whites are poor and see “others” progressing in society while they languish in the bottom rung of society.
6. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Also, Oregon and its demographics kind of put a dent in Barone thesis. Though it is more educated than Kentucky non-college educated whites voted for Obama. Why is that. They aren’t from Appalachia. Obama doesn’t have a blue collar whites problem, he has an appalachian problem. This will be a problem for Obama in Ohio and Pennsylvania prehaps but recent polling suggests he is very competive with McCain in those states.
7. Mark Noonan | May 25th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Jerry,
Yep, that’s it - just racism. Keep whistling past the graveyard…
8. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
You do notice that Barone doesn’t mention Oregon which is as white as Kentucky and West Virginia. Why? Because Obama did well. I am sure Oregonians have heard about Wright, but it didn’t affect their vote as much as whites in KY & WV apparently. There is no question that Wright and Ayers will affect Obama’s campaign in the general, but if McCain is hoping that all it takes to beat Obama is to run ads on Wright and Ayers he is going to lose. Character is McCain’s strong suit in the election but he must have ideas too. Mark, how do you think the base is going to feel now that McCain is sort of coming back to his original position on immigration? The Malkinites are in a snit. But they always are.
9. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Jerry,
Could any part of the 92% African American support, that Obama reportedly has, have a racial component?
10. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Jerry,
You’re assertion that there’s a problem within the conservative base is just to rich for words considering your party is imploding.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5586409.html
Keep fiddling while Rome burns…….
11. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Jerry,
I don’t think it was a problem of “race” that Appalachian voters had a problem with - I think it was partly because of:
1. Obama’s being surrounded by and affiliation with racists and anti-Semites - Oh, you know, there’s a bunch, the black panther party, Rev. Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Lewis Farrakhan, and another guy who performed terrorism I can’t remember his name, and others. And also his affiliation and strong advocacy of the pro-murder group - Planned Parenthood. And also his advocacy and support for sodomite rights groups like NAMBLA, and what’s that other one… GLBT, something like that… a filthy bunch.
2. Mainly because of Obama’s statements about gun owners and Christians.
The only thing I care at this point…. is to see him shipped out of this country and take all the racists and sodomite groups with him!!!
12. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
No question. But Blacks would have voted for the Democratic nominee whoever they were in the 90% range. Are you then in agreement with me that Obama has more of an Appalachia problem than a blue colar whites problem? Also, how do you feel about McCain going back to his original position on immigration?
13. SEW | May 25th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
“that 2 out of 10 said race was a factor in their voting decision and that 8 of 10 of those people voted for Clinton.” Jerry
Could it possibly be they considered race a factor because 92% of blacks vote for BO, because he is black? Yet you die hard intellectuals place the burden on white racists! Try again.
14. SEW | May 25th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
jerry, Hate to tell you but HRC is a Democrat nominee.
15. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Neocon-
I am sure there are some feminists who now are pissed by the way they feel Clinton has been treated, but when they realize the next President will have the ability to overturn or keep Roe with their selection of Justices they will put away their hurt feelings and vote for Obama.
Jeremiah-
You are too funny for words. Obama does not support the group NAMBLA. But keep thinking that.
16. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
jerry,
Yes…he apparently DOES have a problem with Appalachian voters….and he needs to get over it.
17. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Obama does not support the group NAMBLA.
He doesn’t?
You better check again, I’m pretty sure he endorsed the idea of teaching kindergarteners about the perversion.
18. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Jerry,
Are you playing the fear card with the abortion issue? I thought liberals were above that?
I think Obama has more of a trust and experience issue than a racial problem, but that’s just one “typical white persons” opinion.
I think the immigration issue is a very personal, emotional issue and I don’t blame people for having doubts about stances. I do.
19. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Neocon-
I am not playing the fear card with abortion. Feminists are very sensitive to that issue and will realize that President McCain would appoint two Justices who would probably overturn that decision.
I agree with you about Obama, regarding experience, the trust part as expressed in the Barone article to me is less sound. I think there is a trust problem with some people and alot people in appalachia have a race problem.
Regarding immigration, I think McCain is right. We need sensible reform, and sending 12 million people back to where they came from is not doable. But many “typical white people” in your party will not be happy with this position.
20. phnx | May 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Notice that Jerry is defensive position revolves around racism. He says nothing about Obama’s chances of winning by running as the true liberal that he is.
There are few liberals that can run and be elected without masking their true agenda…and they certainly can’t be elected in a national election running on an true liberal platform.
21. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
and they certainly can’t be elected in a national election running on an true liberal platform.
Phnx,
Yep. And Obama is an Ultra-Liberal. A Mega-Pile of trouble!
22. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Good catch phnx.
Jerry,
How do you know Roe will be overturned? You don’t, but you are playing on the anxieties and fears of women. Nice.
I am sure there is some racism in Appalachia. But I also think there is some racism in SC. So what?
You’ve really got to quit buying into the notion of a big, scary, evil conservative movement just waiting to impose theocracy. I mean it’s actually happening in the ME, which you wont even bother with.
I guess creating false problems is way of avoiding the actual ones.
23. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
The reason I think that Roe would be overturned is because recently the Court outlawed partial ban abortion. The first time since Roe that the Court limited abortion. Also, the Court has been more conservative as of late, Re: Affirmative action, limiting the plaintiff’s right to sue in discrimination cases amongst other rulings.
Phnx-
Barone’s article was not about Obama being a liberal it was about him being untrustworthy vis a vis Wright. I countered that by suggesting whites in Oregon seemed not to have a problem with Wright and thus suggested that Appalachians have issues with a black candidate as the exit polling suggest. So nice try to change the argument. We will see in this election if a liberal can win. If Obama can’t do it in november then it will never happen.
24. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
If Obama can’t do it in november then it will never happen.
And do you realize what a mistake it would be if the voters do elect Obama as their President?
25. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
God will be replaced by liberalism?
26. neocon | May 25th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Do you support partial birth?
And more conservative in those judicial issues? Or more fair?
27. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
God will be replaced by liberalism?
Is that what you want?
How do you think God feels about that?
28. jerry | May 25th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I am for abortion on demand. Conservative or More Fair that depends upon your personal beliefs I guess. Just like the law itself.
And no Jeremiah I don’t want any ism to replace God.
29. js | May 25th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
so if you want God to be around jerry, why do you vote for the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics….
30. Casper | May 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Jeremiah,
Obama is a Christian. He is not going to get rid of Christianity.
Mark,
Obama’s Wright problem is countered by McCain’s Parsley and Hagee problem. Like it or not The Democrats are going to play it up, and the fact that McCain threw both Parsley and Hagee under the bus this week shows he is concerned about it too.
31. phnx | May 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Jerry,
Obama is already trying to distance himself from his liberal ideas and relationships, including Wright. Its not Wright which is the issue, it his ideas, and Obama subscribes to them along with a number of additional far left philosophies.
In case you haven’t noticed Oregon is a very left of center state. Kentucky is not. I certainly hope that you leftists continue to campaign on the idea that opposition to Obama equals racism. It will be a real winner…for McCain
32. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Oh yeah, Baby!!!
Let’s show God we REALLY care!!!!!!!!
Let’s see how many babies we can crush and suck the life out of!!!!!!!!!!!
Let’s let the sodomites take over the streets of America with the stinch of feces!!!!!!!!
Let’s talk nice and give the Terrorists a great big teddy bear hug!!!!!!!
Oh yeah, we’re on a roll here…
Let’s raise taxes and give “FREE” healthcare to everybody!!!!!!!!
Let’s open all our gates to the foreigners and let them pour in!!!!!
Let’s stop working for what we have and let the Democrats be the bread-winners!!!!
Man what a rosey picture….Sheeew! could God ever be prouder???????
Anybody got an aspirin?
33. Rana Quijotesca | May 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Noone comments on the rejection of Hagee’s endorsement? Perhaps evoking referring to the Nazis as “hunters” that God would send to get the Jews back to Palestine wasn’t too smart, or decent for that matter.
34. Jonathan | May 25th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
And do you realize what a mistake it would be if the voters do elect Obama as their President?
It can’t be a bigger mistake than voting for George W. Bush twice.
35. Jeremiah | May 25th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
It can’t be a bigger mistake than voting for George W. Bush twice.
George W. Bush was no mistake, or he wouldn’t have been elected twice.
But you synchpant sheep follow so blindly the fine line of liberal idiocy.
Pity.
36. Casper | May 25th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Rana Quijotesca,
McCain’s rejection of Parsley’s endorsement is going to hurt him the most. Parsley does a great job of getting the vote out in Ohio. If he decides to sit the election out, McCain is in trouble.
37. js | May 26th, 2008 at 12:11 am
so whats that got to do with hussein obama and his lies….lol…stooges are at it again…
38. Gaijin | May 26th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I’ll see you all at the Obama Victory Party in November. I think some of you might be starting to come to the realization that the Democrats are going to be the majority next year. Bush has guranteed that. Keep drinking the Kool Aid guys, there’s going to be a Liberal majority for at least 8 years. Thanks in advance for screwing everying up so badly!
Peace, Gaijin
39. Rana Quijotesca | May 26th, 2008 at 1:41 am
js-
A dismissal of the Hagee claim was made in the post, and I answered to that… so it was relevant.
Also, no actual evidence of Obama actually lying about anything was presented in the post… only bla bla bla talking point bla bla bla accusation.
You are making an accusation; it is up to you to provide non-circumstantial evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obama knew and remembered everything that Wright had said in the last few years. Oh wait… Obama has been a Senator in DC… I guess that his church attendance record in Chicago hasn’t been too great, now has it? Perhaps he should have the NSA bug his church so he can keep track of his pastor.
You made an accusation, now prove it. If you don’t, then you are small and worthless… You probably don’t deserve the oxygen you suck up if you get your kicks by throwing around accusations without evidence for political gain…
Now, let’s look at McCain. McCain actively sought the endorsement of an anti-Catholic, disgusting, far-right hate mongering preacher in Hagee (if you really want me to dig up quotes, I probably still won’t because I’m in Ecuador and having too much fun to placate you people). Hell… he hinted that the Holocaust was just part of God’s plan and was instrumentally useful because it got the Jews back to Israel. The way I see it… there are three situations that could have lead to this endorsement after an active search: 1.) McCain supports Hagee’s views, which would be ironic to say the least; 2.) McCain didn’t find the plethora of nasty tidbits that could get him into trouble with this endorsement; or 3.) McCain knew about these comments and views, and opted to try to hide them from the public so he could use Hagee’s endorsement to reach out to evangelicals, a group with whom he is on shaky ground.
Whichever one is the case, do you really want that running your country?
40. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 1:58 am
I’ll see you all at the Obama Victory Party in November.–Gaijin.
Yeah buddy, then we’ll get to put the Democrats in their real place of belonging.
41. thrower | May 26th, 2008 at 2:45 am
You’re being a bit harsh on McCain, Rana. This is the crap you have to go through to get the Republican nomination, a precursor to becoming a Republican president.
That being said, it cancels out the Wright nonsense, leaving the economy and other real life issues as the determinants of the November election. Unless a catastrophe befalls him, Obama beats McCain as he should.
42. CanadianObserver | May 26th, 2008 at 7:55 am
40. Jeremiah | May 26th, 2008 at 1:58 am
I’ll see you all at the Obama Victory Party in November.–Gaijin.
Yeah buddy, then we’ll get to put the Democrats in their real place of belonging.
————————–
I realize that you posted that comment in the early hours of the morning and you may have been a little punch-drunk, Jeremiah, but what does ‘their real place of belonging’ mean exactly?
43. Greg-O | May 26th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Let me get this straight: McCain receiving endorsements from two pastors of two churches where McCain isn’t even a member, cancels out Obama choosing to be a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and running? This might play amongst Obama supporters, but I don’t think it plays in November. Between Obama’s honesty problem, his geology problem, and most importantly his foreign policy problem, he will have much to explain between now and Election Day. His recent gaffe in blaming President Bush for Hugo Chavez was particularly illustrative, considering that Chavez was first elected in 1998, then re-elected in 2000; both occurring prior to President Bush taking office.
44. Magnum Serpentine | May 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Jeremiah
george was not elected the first time, he was appointed by a corrupt supreme court acting with-out authority to overturn a state election. When the supreme court said stop counting they essentially appointed george acting president.
as for george being elected the second time, that was not hard to do especially when Ohio gave 1 voting machine for every 1000 democrats and 100 voting machines for every 1 republican.
I also liked how in 2004 in Florida several counties, suddenly there were more republican votes than there were citizens who lived there. some counties in Florida had like 50000 registered voters and yet 75000 republicans voted in that same county.
Amazing
45. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 10:06 am
“george was not elected the first time…” - Magnum
In an earlier thread I pointed out how detached from reality liberals are and Magnum confirms that assertion.
But, I do assume then that Magnum will be firmly in Hillarys corner since she does have the popular vote over Obama and more experience.
So Magnum, are you going to stand by and let Obama steal this nomination?
And of course one way to do that is to not seat two entire states!! You gotta love Democrats.
46. SEW | May 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“Amazing” Magnum
The amazing thing is how well your tinfoil hat works. Deluded. Take your meds.
47. Some Assembly Required | May 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
neocon, I’m convince you take spin as fact. With regards to hilary and the popular vote you seem to miss one critical thing, Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan which is what gives her the ‘popular vote’. So it’s statements like yours that does not surprise me that you cannot understand what happened in 2000 or even 2004. Instead you chalk it up to liberal fantasy because if it wasn’t it would mean the party in which you are a part of and hold so dear is in fact comprised of criminals. I truly feel sorry for you, I can’t imagine what it would be like to see my whole world crumbling because my party has been proven a complete and total failure.
It’s also comical how you brand anyone who does not agree with everything your party does as a democrat of a Liberal (as if thats some sort of insult).
I’m sure you and Mark can sit around come November and reflect back on the good ol days with a bottle of cheap red wine and a box of cleanex watching that complication tape of Bush’s triumphs that I’m sure one of you has made.
McCain will place a distant second to an Obama presidency. Which will last 8 years. Depending on how well he does in turning the country around, it could be another 20 years until the next republican president. Which will only happen if the country starts to swing as far left as it has gone right. Otherwise, It will be a Democratic US for quite some time.
48. FmrMarine | May 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Sew
>>>The amazing thing is how well your tinfoil hat works<<<
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
You are 100% on the money sew.
it is a fact, “liberalism IS a mental disorder”!
Maybe if earbama loses to McLame, he will drop out grow a beard, reinvent himself as the savior of the planet, with lies and junk science and win a nobel prize and raise millions of dollars for himself by bilking people out of carbon credits.
OH wait! al gwhore has already done that..DAMN.
49. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
SAR,
Thank you again for confirming my “detached from reality” assertion I have made re: liberals.
Hillary “only” has the popular vote because the DNC decided that the voters in Michigan and Florida don’t count, yet Hillary actually brought her message to them. How dare she! That’s priceless.
Which of the 57 states will the DNC exclude in November?
“….who does not agree with everything your party does as a democrat of a Liberal..” - SAR
Most of those who disagree with the conservative position are Democrats/Liberals. The other few would be Libertarians or Anarchists. That’s not a “brand”, it’s just fact.
Please quit being so hyper-sensitive and stop buying into the notion of a big, scary conservative movement that wants to impose a theocracy. You’re eyes might open a bit.
50. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Magnum,
Please educate yourself and read the opinion. Had Gore requested a recount of ALL of the votes the result may have been different. But he requested a recount in just 3 counties, al dem strongholds. This is very similar to the method that got the Governor of Washington elected…count the votes, and then count the votes again until you get the desired result.
However since this was a FEDERAL election, counting only some of the votes would amount to disenfranchisment of the other voters. If you recall, Gore didn’t want the military write in ballots counted, knowing that these would be heavily in favor of Bush.
You really need to get a grip, living in the past is dangerous to your already feeble psyche.
51. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 11:04 am
So then that makes Florida, Michigan and military votes that don’t count to the DNC.
Good to know.
52. Some Assembly Required | May 26th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Neocon, please man, don’t get self righteous about voter disenfranchisement. Let me tell you your argument after the DNC seats those Florida and Michigan delegates on the 31st, unless Obama is declared the nom. before then is gonna go…
“How dare Democrats change the rules in the middle of the game! This is what you want running your country?. They only stick to rules if it’s convenient for their party. Is there any end to what these people will do to get the presidency?”
As I said before, anyone who disagrees with you is essentially branded a loon who is disconnected with reality. Why would you do this? It’s simple, you cannot refute any of their arguments so you must show them to be inept. You know, like how Aliens only abduct hill billies and drunks.
53. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Whether Barack Obama is honest or not he is still a presidential candidate and a sitting member of the US Senate. Hillary Clinton made a statement about the duration of the campaign and used a very poor analogy and has been lambasted by the MSM. Yet Liz Trotta came out and said that Obama should be assassinated and chuckled about it smiling and save for Our own post and that from Editor and Publisher and the Huffington Post there has been virtual silence in the MSM.
If the Right Wing wants to have a real discussion about honesty We are willing to lay all the cards out on the table and this is something We would hold the Right is fearful of doing. In such a debate nothing can be out of bounds, Clinton scandals involving Whitewater and Lewinsky the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster, Travelgate and the secret meetings about health care. Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of the War in Iraq too should be scrutinized as should be her inability to tell the truth about matters as trivial as a flight into Bosnia for a photo op. As for Obama a closer examination of his associations with Reverend Wright, Rezko and the Chicago democratic political machine are all on the table for Liberals. Jeremiah Wright for Progressives that want to get politics and race out of the gutter and into the light need to keep this issue going because it exposes a clear divergence with conservatism whether it be the movement or the ideology.
The vast majority of the GOP voters here or people like Mark Noonan who are Movement Conservatives will never air their dirty laundry in public in an effort to head to the washing machine. They would rather smear the political Left and denigrate its candidates and then seek sites that support their views on issues that matter not one scintilla to the debate going on in America today. If you want to discuss matters that mean something at the American dinner table you on the Right will have to be willing to look at yourselves, warts and all, as many conservatives have begun to do despite “movement” conservatives kicking and screaming that to do this pushes them closer to becoming Liberal.
No, in fact We realize this merely moves you to the center. But that move to where the bulk of American adults are in the center, away from the 20% that are partisans on each side and the 10% that are ultra left and reactionary respectively, threatens the political Right far more than the Left. Conservatism as practiced by the far Right and the partisan Right cannot exist with an enemy or an Other to rail against even if more serious issues exist. When their icons of respect [priests come to mind as well as members of Congress that have fallen from grace] fail in their ability to be perceived as perfect all discussion of their failure is deemed detrimental to the movement and must be squelched with distraction to other issues or even out right fabrications of worse misdeeds by the other ideology. The concept that this is a some sort of Culture War is the least honest thing that We have encountered in politics since Al Smith ran for President in 1928. This is far from being about a culture of life to those in the national Republican Party. This is about maintaining a status within the nation that allows for them to have power, a luxurious lifestyle and have men like Noonan, Margolis and Pusateri do all the heavy lifting and stable cleaning by preaching to already in the fold voters. The only fear that the RNC has is that there won’t be enough members of the “base” energized to make an honest showing on McCain’s behalf because he does not share any of their values on issues that are important to Christian Conservatives.
This is the honesty problem Movement Conservatism has and in a slumping economy this problem shines much brighter in the light of Sol than any problems Obama has in the dark.
54. SEW | May 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
And the only reason the Dems are “looking for a solution” now is not because of the disenfranchised Democrat voters/states, but because they don’t want the messiah to lose those electoral votes in the general. So transparent except to the tinfoil hat wearers.
Not just a Barry Hussein honesty problem but a Democrat Party honesty problem. For a good example of Democrat honesty, read Magnum #44 above. 100% lies yet he could care less. A good atheist though.
55. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Pain, in the midst of your rant are you serioulsy suggesting that B. Hussein Obama really represents what you describe as the center of the electorate??
B. Hussein has locked up the altruistic, but uninformed under 30 vote, the psuedo intellectual latte sippers vote and the Black vote (despite their usual strong support for Republicans).
McCain is depending on all those “uneducated racist blue collar dems” in Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as the disenfranchised Florida and Michigan dems. He alrady has the “gun totting clingers and souther racists.”
The election will hinge upon how many felons and illegal aliens the dems can enlist in Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, and Califoria, as well as how successful the dems are at voiding military absentee votes.
56. Pain | May 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
56. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
That’s all good, but We cannot see where McCain, absent using every tactic in the GOP smearbook can win more than 16 states including all of the upper midwest maybe Mississippi and Alabama but even Texas is in play along with Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia. Obama breaks the solid South with young voters and unprecedented support from 18 to 35 educated whites and Latinos and the rout is on.
57. Mark Noonan | May 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Pain,
According to Rasmussen, the electoral college is split 260/240 in favor of Obama right now…hardly a ringing endorsement of any desire for massive change in America…and this is by grace of Obama doing well in places like Colorado, where he will end up losing in the end. Meanwhile, McCain is crushing Obama in Florida and is within easy striking distance of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan against Obama.
If you are really expecting any kind of a blow out win in November, then you just haven’t been paying attention…I still rate it as “lean Democrat” to win the White House, but anything is possible and if Obama wins, it will be very narrowly.
58. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ohh yeah, Barry O’s got the support of the Latino vote.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fight_for_the_latino_vote
No se puede!
You seriously think Obama will win the South??? You are more deluded than I thought. You leftist elitists have certainly worked at winning their hearts and minds by call them all racists, and uneducated rednecks.
I note you never answered if you thought Obama represented the center of the electorate. By brilliant political insights you have espoused I will take it that you do. Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was tlking about the US electorate, not Canada.
He will not win if he runs on a the liberal agenda that he has supported during his political life. I was about to liken Obama to the rest of the leftist chameleons who change the color (political philosphy) to suit the surroundings before each election, but I don’t want this to misinterpretted by you leftists as some racial remark.
what you don’t seem to realize is that the last few elections have been very close. All you need to do is lose a few percent of any constituency and the election result changes. Independents and moderates will be drawn to McCain who has a true track record of bipartisanship. Obama has none. He doesn’t even have nay record of accomplishment, only a few sound bites about change and hope.
While I am glad you are overconfident, I am concerned about the post election depression you leftists will experience. When you lose in November, the conspiracy theories will make 2000 look mild. The suicide hot lines will be working overtime, and there will be a 24 hr guard at the Golden Gate Bridge.
59. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Not too mention the cries about disenfranchised voters, diebold machines and voter fraud.
I can hear it now. When liberals lose elections, it is never because of the message, it’s always some external, “suspicious” reason.
It’s that detached from reality thing.
60. Casper | May 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I think it’s going to be a close election. Both candidates have a uphill battle. McCain probably has the harder rode as he has to win the independents while not ticking off the base.
A lot will have to do with how the candidates allow the other sides to define them. If Obama allows the right to portray him as an elitist with questionable associates, he will have a very tough time. If McCain allows the left to portray him as an angry old man who wants to run a third Bush term, he loses. Changing positions on immigration and dumping Hagee and Parsley this week didn’t help.
61. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“If Obama allows the right to portray him as an elitist with questionable associates…” Casper
His is already seen as this it is up to him to prove otherwise to the voters. Its the chameleon strategy.
“If McCain allows the left to portray him as an angry old man who wants to run a third Bush term, he loses.” Casper
No matter how you look at it, age and experience will be a issue in the election for both candidates. McCain has already distanced himself far from Bush, and he is making a bid for the enviromental vote as well.
The election will be between that nasty old man who who has experience and substance and that young charasmatic messiah who is full of hope and lacking in any substance or experience.
62. Casper | May 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“If Obama allows the right to portray him as an elitist with questionable associates…” Casper
“His is already seen as this it is up to him to prove otherwise to the voters. Its the chameleon strategy.”
Which is interesting considering that McCain was son of an admiral, was the one going to private schools growing up and whose wife is worth 100 million.
“The election will be between that nasty old man who who has experience and substance and that young charasmatic messiah who is full of hope and lacking in any substance or experience.”
Gee, I don’t consider McCain nasty. I do think he is having a hard time distancing himself from Bush. Seems like every time Obama says something about Bush, McCain jumps to Bush’s defense.
63. Some Assembly Required | May 26th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The further McCain distances himself from Bush, the more of his base and evangelical support he loses. It’s a fine line he has to walk which is why the odds are stacked so high against him. Regardless, I think this country is fed up with what republicans have done in the last 7 years so there will be a democratic president this election. Unless, democrats some how circumvent the will of the people and allow Hilary as the nom. That will motivate the republican base regardless of what they think of McCain simply because of their hatred of Clinton. If the supers do not give Obama the tipping balance before may 31st, that could very well be a reality. I can see the attack ads now, showing how Hilary stole the nomination from Obama. I think the 7 more years of the same will be a moot arguement consider the maneuvering it would take for Clinton to get the nomination. Her platform of running against the ’status quo’ would crumble and McCain in all likely hood would be the next president. IMO.
64. Casper | May 26th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Some Assembly Required,
I don’t think it matters to the republicans who the democrats run. They have been working on a lot of hate for Obama over the last few months. They are going to throw everything they have at whoever gets the nomination. The democrats will do the same with McCain, although I don’t think Obama will get as nasty as Clinton would.
65. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“Unless, democrats some how circumvent the will of the people and allow Hilary as the nom..” - SAR
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)**
Obama - 17,262,155 47.5%
Clinton - 17,426,809 47.9%
What was that SAR?
66. Some Assembly Required | May 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Casper, though I agree the republicans will run a negative campaign, Clinton also tried it against Obama and it completely de-railed her. Granted, both of them were mainly campaigning towards democrats but various states had open primaries in which everyone could vote. I also agree that Obama’s campaign will not be saintly but it will be a far cry from ones in previous elections.
I see Republicans getting weak at the knees at the hopes that Hilary gets the nom. I mean Operation Chaos wasn’t created for nothing. November is a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then. It will be interesting to say the least.
Neocon, Obama was not on the ticket in MI, anyone with two cents and chewing gum in their pocket knows how retarded that popular vote total you have cited is. Just curious though, what’s the total including FL and not MI? I have a funny feeling your not gonna post that one.
67. neocon | May 26th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
That’s my point SAR.
From the party that lectures everyone on voter disenfranchisement - this is a fine example.
And indicative of liberal hypocrisy.
68. phnx | May 26th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“I see Republicans getting weak at the knees at the hopes that Hilary gets the nom. I mean Operation Chaos wasn’t created for nothing.”
Once again SAR you demonstrate that you are clueless. I’ll give you a hint…Operation Chaos wasn’t designed to get Hillary elected.
It has already been a massive success in its objective. If you can’t figure it out I’m not about to tell you.
69. Some Assembly Required | May 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I take it back neocon, I agree with you on something. The democrats did this to themselves. They created this barrel of worms that Obama and Clinton both signed off on. Voter disenfranchisement could be argued either way here. Considering there were rules which were broken and such. Criminals do not get the right to vote because they broke the law. Granted, the average citizen really had no say in what happened, but the main thing is their vote counts in the general. If they chose to vote republican that is their right and the way in which they can punish the democrat party for their shinnagins (sp).
That said, Hilary is behind in every sense of the word as it stands right now. For her to get the nom. right now would cripple the democratic party in november. IMO.
Phnx, point taken. Though I don’t see OC as the success that you make it out to be. After super tuesday it was pretty much inevitable that the race would go to the convention. Regardless of republican voters switching to Clinton. IMO.
70. Faceplant | May 27th, 2008 at 12:02 am
“On and on it goes - never saying what they really want to do…and this has bred the culture of dishonesty which convinced Obama, seemingly, that a rather stupid and bald-faced lie about Wright would go down smoothly. Well, it hasn’t - and it may cost Obama the election.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390690/
“Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright could hurt his presidential hopes. So could his comment about “bitter” small-town America clinging to guns and religion. And Americans might question Sen. Hillary Clinton’s honesty and trustworthiness.
But according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, the bigger problem appears to be John McCain’s ties to President Bush.
In the survey, 43 percent of registered voters say they have major concerns that McCain is too closely aligned with the current administration.”
“32 percent have a major problem with the Illinois senator’s past associations with Wright and the 1960s radical William Ayers.”
Keep spinning Marky.
71. js | May 27th, 2008 at 7:57 am
“But even granting that, it seems to me that about half of West Virginia and Kentucky Democratic primary voters were saying that Obama lied about not knowing what Wright has been preaching and that he agrees with him a lot more than he has let on. ”
39. Rana Quijotesca
“Also, no actual evidence of Obama actually lying about anything was presented in the post?”
why is it that small mindedness in liberal thought errupts the second it comes under attack…who cares really…but this is just another example of a halfwitted attack on a general concept of conservative thought…hence the statement “You are making an accusation” in your stupid post in that you repeated several times to my simple statement “so whats that got to do with hussein obama and his lies?.lol?stooges are at it again?”….as a matter of fact…that the “whole post”, wherewith you proceed to do exactly what I posted about, which is try to change the subject from obama to mccain…now..you have to understand exactly what stooge means…when you so daftly understand simple words and false accusations against others to prove it…..i guess that puts you on the bottom of the moron stick too, eh!!
72. js | May 27th, 2008 at 8:11 am
ya know…when a person spends 20 years at a church…his morals, values, goals, all become entwined in the message that church delivers…he becomes a stewart of the message…
and when people tend to find out that they spent 40% of thier adult life following a message that the majority of the community finds to be abhorrent to the good order (this being the basic concept behind abolition, freedom) it tends to be a shock, a life changing event cause by remorse, not a time to party on and act like nothing happened…
so when obama runs up to the people and disassociates himself, reluctantly, and arbitrarily, from the priest who he has cleaved to for twenty years….without naught more than a short speech delivered not for the cause of his remorse, but for the cause of his election, then yes, it is due and proper to consider him a bald face liar…yup…barak obama will literally say anything to get elected…its typical of democrats, look at the way the 04 and 06 elections panned out…even so….elected democrat party representatives have pointed to this tactic…acknowleding that they are using lies to influence the vote intentionally…dont let them fool you…unless you think that we really ought to leave control of this nation in the hands of liars….thats what it comes down too….its got nothing to do with liberal or conservative values…..its totally about if we want proven liars to govern us….its that simple…
73. Brett Michaels | May 27th, 2008 at 11:42 am
If a braod majority of America rejects Democratic policies, then why did the Republicans lose control of congress?
We had complete control of the Presidency, Senate and House and we couldnt maintain control.
If Republican policies are so great…they why did we lose?
If Republican policies are so great, then why is McCain the Republican nominee? Why not Huckabee or Romney or Thompson?
The only candidate the GOP could nominate is a Democrat in disguise.