Ten reasons why Barack Obama will not win the 2008 presidential election — and none of them have anything to do with his middle name.
Yes, I know it’s only August, and only a simpleton or clairvoyant would offer a post-election analysis about how Barack Obama blew the 2008 presidential race.
Needless to say I’m not clairvoyant. The jury still seems to be out — at least in some people’s minds — about whether I’m a simpleton, though. But, I won’t use any innate foolishness I possess as the basis for offering a judgment about the outcome of an election that’s still three months away. Rather, I’m going to do what any good political analyst should do; analyze the present situation and offer a (hopefully) informed assessment well before the trends I detect become so manifestly obvious that everyone will claim they too “knew” the outcome months in advance.
So here’s my top ten list of reasons why John McCain, despite running one of the most turgid and uninspiring campaigns in modern electoral history, will succeed George W. Bush as the 44th President of the United States.
Reason #10: Racist white voters will not support Obama
No, this isn’t a condemnation of white, Southern, toothless, gun-toting Republicans. It’s an observation about the rank and file of the Democrat party. Whether it’s angry older white women who feel that the election was stolen from Hillary by an upstart younger black man, or just your average Joe Six Pack union worker who made it clear in the Democrat primaries that Bill Clinton was speaking for him when he floated his racist trial balloons on Hillary’s behalf, the so-called party of the average guy has repeatedly shown its true colors; pure white, not half-white.
This shouldn’t be much of a surprise. A former Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan is now the respected Dean of the Senate Democrats. Any effort to break the cycle of black poverty and illiteracy through welfare reform and school vouchers has been repeatedly opposed by Democrat party officials who prefer their constituency to be completely dependent on the largess of their white elected leaders, rather than even the tiniest bit self-sufficient. Even Democrat fellow travelers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are less interested in bridging the divide between blacks and whites than they are in filling their own pockets with money from guilty white liberals and blackmailed corporations. Al Gore may have invented the carbon credit scam where his companies profit by selling hypothetical indulgences to hypocritical environmentalists who want everyone but themselves to change their lifestyles, but he doesn’t hold a candle to the organized race-for-hire politics of Jackson and Sharpton. The Democrat party is about preserving racial politics, not ending it, so it comes as little surprise that those who live by that sword may also die, at least metaphorically, by that same sword.
Take away the small cadres of limousine liberals and idealistic youth who will vote for Obama to assuage their guilt over being born wealthy and white, or just think it would be really, really cool to have a Black Guy in the White House even though it’s not all about skin color, and you have the naked face of race-based politics rearing its head in the Democrat party. The “Bradley Effect” is alive and well among Democrat voters, so named because they have a distinctive habit of lying to pollsters about their support for black candidates, only to act differently on election day. When their decisions actually count, all their progressive, liberal pabulum goes out the window as they reach for the lever and vote for the white guy like they did repeatedly in California, Chicago, New York and other cities. It’s why Obama needs to be 10-12 points ahead of McCain in the battleground states on November 4 — not statistically tied like he is today — or he’ll end up losing the election by double digits.
Reason #9: Europe loves Obama
Fresh off his triumphant tour of the Middle East and Europe, where he found time to exercise at the Ritz but not visit wounded American soldiers, Obama held a rally in Berlin and a lovefest in France to show the world that he is the better man for the job of President of the United States.
Actually, it wasn’t so much the presidency of the US that Barack was auditioning for, but Chief “Citizen of the World,” to cite from his own speech. Unfortunately for Obama, as more than one commentator has pointed out, Germany, France, Russia, China, Pakistan and other nations that he aspires to impress don’t have any electoral votes in the upcoming election. The McCain campaign’s effective mocking of Obama’s celebutard status — comparing public acclaim for Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton to his 200,000 Berlin groupies — only reinforces the point that Michael Medved made during one of his broadcasts. To paraphrase that observation, “Remembering back to the last time this occurred, there’s something a little disturbing about 200,000 Germans chanting their support for a charismatic leader in the streets of Berlin.”
It’s no mystery to anyone, other than the mainstream press, why the Obama Magical Mystery Tour failed to elevate him in the polls back in the US, even after the President of France gushed shamelessly over “Dear Barack” during his recent visit to Paris. Americans by and large dislike the amoral, appeasing, self-interested and shallow Europeans (or Euro-weenies in today’s vernacular), and aren’t particularly interested in emulating their lifestyle or adopting their values. Paris is a beautiful city and a wonderful place to visit, as is London, Rome, and the rest of Europe. But just because one likes French food or admires Italian architecture doesn’t mean that we want these yahoos telling us how to live our lives and whom to vote for.
Besides, what “Europe thinks” isn’t particularly noteworthy in and of itself, particularly when it comes to assessing life in the United States. Despite what the European rabble dislike about the US, and despite what our own press tells us the governments of Europe dislike about the US, the facts on the ground tell a different story. The trend in Europe since the Iraq war in France, Germany and Italy has been to throw the anti-US governments out of office and replace them with friendlier pro-American governments. As far as the people themselves of these countries are concerned, we can take our cues from sources other than Berlin rock concert attendees and disgruntled Muslim protesters marching through the streets of London. These same people who allegedly hate us will like us just fine — regardless of who our president is — when they need the US to pull their chestnuts from the fire as we’ve done so many times in the past.
Reason #8: The press loves Obama
Twenty to thirty years ago, when the Internet was but a dream in Al Gore’s fertile mind, cable TV was still in its infancy, and all the news was controlled by the Big Three TV networks and The New York Times, this Obama press mania would have been a problem.
Well, maybe. Somehow, despite the mainstream press’ antipathy for Nixon in 1968 and 1972, and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, “the wrong guy” still managed to get elected. Today, with the media monopoly all but gone and the influence of these opinion-shapers visibly diminished, it makes it even harder for the liberal press to control the agenda. Whether it’s fake Bush military records being exposed by an Internet blogger, the declining circulation of most major newspapers, or the utter irrelevancy of former giants like CBS News, the public is no longer required to accept the Pravda-like party line about evil (or stupid) Republicans and courageous, progressive Democrats. In fact, if it wasn’t for the alternative media that publicizes their reporting to show how silly and superficial it is, many people today wouldn’t even know what the New York Times said, or hear the latest inanity coming from the mouths of Katie Couric or Matt Lauer.
Americans have always had a built-in resistance to the elite, privileged class telling them what to do and how to think. When the mainstream press universally describes the election of the presumptive Democrat nominee in inevitable terms, the country’s collective bulls*it meter goes full tilt. Because we have conservative talk radio today to help set the record straight, and independent news sources like Fox News and The Drudge Report to give us the other side of the story, we no longer need to be afraid that our opinions are out of the mainstream. Instead, many people have come to understand that it is the mainstream media that is non-representative of majority thought, and as such anything the MSM says is now more likely to be filtered through a prism of fact checks and bias-alerts instead of being accepted unabashedly.
In short, the more the mainstream press tells us there is only one conclusion to reach, the more we all feel compelled to seek and do the opposite. All of which is bad news for “The Anointed One.”
Reason #7: Gas is $4/gallon
Never mind that it costs more to fill up the average car in Europe than it does in America. Americans don’t want to drive a golf cart with an AM-FM radio like they do in London, or squeeze themselves into a tin can on wheels like they do in Paris, Berlin and Rome. We’re not looking to justify $9/gallon gas by riding in a cardboard box that gets 40miles/gallon, so that the cost of filling up a mini-Cooper in Europe is equivalent to filling up your SUV in America. This is America, and we don’t give a rat’s rear end what they do in Europe and why they do it. If it makes sense on its own merits we’ll adopt it — and undoubtedly improve on it. If it can’t pass the common sense test, then no amount of high-minded preaching by the self-appointed elite will turn a bad idea into a good one.
And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget the hypocrisy of Al Gore and other liberals who decry the high price of gasoline as a failure of the Bush administration; all of whom have been advocating $4/gallon gas for years in an effort to force Americans to abandon their cars and turn to mass transit. Trains and busses are great in a place like New York City, which is a densely populated island the size of DFW Airport. But in Texas, Wyoming, Arizona, or even a lot of the East Coast itself, mass transit is impractical. On occasion, and for specific tasks like commuting to work in an urban environment, mass transit may be great. But in a nation the size of the United States with a lot of distance between points even when it’s a “local” drive, we still need our cars. Paying four bucks a gallon is nuts when we have plenty of domestic oil reserves that are off limits thanks to our Democrat friends in Congress, regardless of how good it will be for “the planet” in Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi’s distorted view of reality.
One day we’ll all be driving solar powered wind mobiles, and the cost of a barrel of oil will no longer be an issue. (Actually, one day our great-grandchildren will be doing this, since new technologies don’t arise with the snap of a finger because Nancy Pelosi wants to demagogue the issue.) But until then we need oil; and not just a three-day supply from the Strategic Oil Reserve. Or, a nation-wide program to check the air pressure in our tires as Obama suggested, and thus supposedly alleviate the need for any further drilling.
There’s plenty of oil in ANWR that’s off limits because Democrats don’t want to risk potentially spoiling a pristine, 80-below-zero landscape the size of a few football fields. They’d rather have you pay through the nose to fill up your gas tank, and hopefully be pissed off enough at Bush to not elect John McCain. But as one person on the street said in a recent TV interview after she was shown an actual picture of ANWR while filling up her gas tank, if drilling there will threaten the local wildlife, then put all the animals in a zoo and pump the oil so my gasoline bill will be lower! The same goes for drilling offshore the US coast. China is going to drill 60 miles from the US coastline on behalf of Cuba while Nancy Pelosi “protects the planet” by preventing the US from developing these same oil fields, so we can buy this oil at a premium from the Chinese.
People aren’t stupid. They may be lazy and ill-informed at times, and willing to save the environment when the cost to them is $2.15 a gallon of gas instead of $2.05. But crank that cost up to $100 a tank-full, and you can almost hear their collective cry of “screw the polar bears!” Obama and the Democrats have turned a deaf ear to this outrage, lamenting only that the price of gas went up “too fast”, instead of “too high.”
Economic issues will drive the 2008 election. However, the people will not blame Bush and McCain for their misery, but rather Obama and Pelosi who have done absolutely nothing to alleviate the pain.
Reason #6: We’re winning the war in Iraq
There’s only one problem with declaring the surge to be a failure before the first new troops landed in Iraq; declaring a civil war to exist in a country that has reconciled many of its ethnic and religious tensions; and advocating an immediate withdraw because the “war is lost” when all indications point to the fact that the bad guys have been essentially defeated: you look like an idiot when you try to tell the American people that you were either (a) right all along despite the fact that you were obviously mistaken, or (b) never really said what the videotape actually shows you saying as you try out your latest round of “what I really meant by saying the surge wouldn’t work” explanations.
As George Patton once said during another time of war, Americans love a winner. The Democrats and their allies in the press have been trying to persuade the country for the last six years that Iraq is another Vietnam. It isn’t, and never was. Obama won his party’s nomination by asserting that he was always against the war, that he’d pull our soldiers out of Iraq regardless of the facts on the ground, and that he’d talk to dictators and enemies of the US without preconditions.
Well, a funny thing happened as events in Iraq improved following the surge. Americans began to once again support the war effort in increasing numbers. Many of the formerly dissatisfied — like myself — weren’t advocating withdrawal as the media wanted to interpret our unhappiness. We wanted to escalate our involvement to bring it to a successful conclusion. Even during the darkest days in Iraq the country wasn’t clamoring for a Vietnam-like exodus with helicopters hovering over the rooftops of downtown Bagdad. We wanted to stay and fight, and win!
Finally, more than a few Americans see little reason to sit down and chat with the leaders of Iran, Al Queda, or any other people who hate us, particularly if there is nothing immediate to be gained. We recognize that not all people share western values, and some people cannot be trusted. Better to have these petty despots fear us than admire us for our willingness to drop by for tea and cookies.
Obama aspires to be the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Most people in this country appreciate the very real threats that exist in the world today, and are more than a little uncomfortable with his dangerous naïveté when it comes to assuming that mantle of authority.
Reason #5: Obama’s friends and supporters
Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Ludacris, and Tony Rezko. Any one of these associations would have sent the media into a death-watch feeding frenzy if they were even indirectly linked to the Republican Party nominee.
And yet, while the press continues to make excuses for Obama, the American people are starting to take a long hard look at the man about whom the terrorist group Hamas said, “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election.”
In the real world you are known by both your friends and your enemies. In Obama’s case, his friends seem to have several things in common with America’s enemy Hamas: from damning America for its policies and actions, to spewing race- or religious-based hatred, to blowing up government property and killing innocent civilians, to saying stupid and idiotic things in support of his candidacy, to simply being a crook.
With friends like these, Obama doesn’t need any enemies.
Reason #4: 57 States, and counting
Every candidate makes gaffs. Some mangle their words. Others momentarily conjoin similar sounding words (Iran/Iraq). Some even put an “e” at the end of “potato.” Thank God I have spell check on my computer.
If you’re a Republican, this means you’re an idiot. Bush (take your pick — 41 or 43) can’t complete a coherent sentence. Dan Quayle was, and still is, a national laughing stock for his famous misspelling. But Barack Obama can speak about a “bomb” that fell on Pearl Harbor (confusing it with Nagasaki), think he’ll be President for “eight to ten years,” or most famously of all lament that he hasn’t yet visited “all 57 states” and, well, we’re supposed to understand that the guy was tired or having an off day, so give him a break.
The painful fact is that, like the anchors who report the mainstream news, Obama is a good reader and public speaker. Give him a teleprompter with a prepared script by one of his many speechwriters, and the man can turn a captivating phrase. But give him a microphone in an unscripted setting, and he’s as dumb as the proverbial box of rocks.
We can accept personal flaws — and even the occasional peccadillo — in our leaders. But we can’t accept outright stupidity. It’s the reason the nuclear peanut farmer Jimmy Carter lost to the B-movie actor Ronald Reagan. The press in 1980 had little love for the supposedly mentally challenged movie actor who won the Republican Party nomination. But as it turned out, the American people saw that Reagan was no dummy. And even more to the point, they had absolutely no love for retaining the professed super smart White House incumbent who gave us long lines and gasoline rationing, hyper-inflation, American civilians held hostage in Iran, a “national malaise” blamed on the American public, and the boycott of the Moscow Olympics as a substitute for any coherent foreign policy.
Obama is a train wreck waiting to happen, from his tax-happy domestic proposals to his third-grade grasp of international relations. McCain’s recent ad showing him as just another media-created celebutard has resonated with the public because, like so many things that tend to hit home, in addition to being witty and funny, it has the added advantage of being true.
Reason #3: One Messiah is enough for most people
There’s something disturbing about a person who equates his inevitable ascendency to the Office of President of the United States with shimmering light, epiphanies of the spirit, and a command over the world’s oceans.
Now, no one seriously believes that Barack Obama seriously believes that he is the actual messiah. But most people who don’t believe they are the product of the Second Coming avoid speaking about themselves in messianic terms, and therein lies the problem. Whether it’s the serial fainters at his rallies being handed the serial water bottles to revive them, the religious-like metaphors he embraces to talk about a new beginning for all mankind that will arise from his election to office, or the just plain creepy way a number of his supporters liken him to a biblical figure, none of this wears well with the majority of the American public.
We’ve been conditioned by decades of liberal-speak to automatically avoid anyone who wants to mix politics and religion. Google “Obamassiah” and you get a few hundred thousand hits. Google “McCainassiah” and it asks you if you actually meant a different word.
Obama runs the very great risk of alienating the voting public by mixing the presumed inevitability of his election with the pseudo-religious undertones he creates through his own words and actions. Americans don’t want to elect a pope any more than they want to elect a king.
Reason #2: There’s no there, there
Exactly what the hell is “change,” except the coins I get back after giving the coffee shop attendant five bucks for my $3.95 frappuccino?
There are only so many times a candidate can repeat a platitude like “change” before the voting public will eventually require him to define what he means. The problem is, every time Obama tries to put some flesh on his pronouncements he runs into trouble, like he did recently with his on again/off again support for an undivided Jerusalem. After being raked over the coals by Jews and Arabs alike for his equivocal statements, Obama fell back on his best Rodney King impersonation and answered all further questions with his own version of can’t we all just get along? That may work well in Hollywood or the vacuousness of TV news, but Americans normally demand a bit more than empty rhetoric and slogans from their prospective leaders.
Reason #1: 2012
If Obama wins the 2008 election, he’ll undoubtedly run for re-election in 2012. That means Hillary will have to wait until 2016 to make another run for the White House. She’ll be 70 years old — or just two years younger than John McCain is today.
If the Clintons have any desire to return to power, and make no mistake about it power is the only thing the Clintons care about, then Barack Obama cannot be allowed to win. Therefore, except for the surface-only gestures to aid Obama in his presidential quest, Hillary will do nothing to soothe the hurt feelings of all those disenfranchised women invested in her candidacy. Neither will she sing Barack’s praises to the racist Democrat voters who might give Obama a fresh look if she earnestly supported his candidacy. In fact, expect the race-bating whisper campaign to continue that Bill Clinton made famous throughout the Democrat primary process. (All this presumes, of course, that Bill really wants his wife in the Oval Office looking each day at the alcove he and Monica squeezed into when the former President was experimenting with a new use for his cigars, and won’t play a double game himself to sabotage Hillary’s prospects.)
A McCain victory in 2008 not only puts Hillary back in the game in 2012, it gives her “I told you so” bragging rights to help lock up the nomination. The only thing standing between Hillary and the White House is Barack Obama. And that is a very dangerous position to occupy, as the literal and figurative bodies of all former Clinton opponents can testify.
McCain wins in November
Put these ten reasons together, and I contend that even an inept campaign by the current Republican nominee can capture the White House.
The only thing stopping a McCain victory now is an unlikely decision in Denver to take the nomination away from Obama and give it to Hillary. That, of course, could theoretically help Hillary gain the Oval Office, but it would eviscerate the Democrat party in the process. Obama could be 20 points behind McCain at the time of their convention and any decision to treat him like a normal candidate — that is, take away his nomination (think Robert Toricelli in 2002 or Thomas Eagleton in 1972) — would be decried as “racist,” and throw the Democrat party into chaos.
So, even the worst case scenario still has a silver lining.
Phil, one more thing for S & G's
Why , if we are in such dire need of supply , do we still export 1.6 million barrels per day of our own, home drilled, sweet crude?? that is 33% more than we exported last year.
Why are the Republicans against an Oil drilled in America Stays in America campaign. It would make more sense in My book.
You do know that the Oil companies are only drilling on a fraction of the land they currently have leases for ?? why is that ?? Maybe because there are no more rigs to send out, no more ships to transport, and no more capacity at the refineries we have today. have you thought of that, PHIL ??
Looks like Sam found a friend.
I'd try to explain to him that you lease land to explore it to see if there is oil. No oil (or oil too difficult to recover), and no drilling. But I think the point would be lost on him.
I'd also explain that the Democrats prohibit slant drilling in ANWR, but again this point would be lost on Sam … I mean Taguba.
Finally, the winner of the presidential election is the guy who gets the most electoral votes, not the “most votes”. But again there’s only so much you can explain to an idiot.
Out of 1.5 million acres leased by oil companies, only 4.4% are being used ??
I know facts will get your head spinning, but it will make you a more informed blogger.
You are welcome AGAIN
Oh, let the name calling begin??
So the oil Companies are so bad at what they do, they lease Land with NO OIL under it? sounds like good sound corporate policy.. LOLAY Phil.
Why did you ignore the rest of the FACTS i posted from your own GOP run department of energy?
I know Bile is the simpletons way to debate, but i prefer FACTS.
Before you continue i will say that Americans have lowered their gas use by 26 % from last year. So dont falsly claim that the mere suggestion that we will drill in Yellowstone, Yosemite, and ANWR ( the GOP dream tir-fecta)is lowering the price because that is BS.
NO comment on the exporting either?? So sad.
No comment on the Oil drilled in America Stays in America Slogan ?? you guys love the slogans, i thought you would be parroting that one in no time.
It's still a futile exercise to discuss real issues with an idiot. Even if he writes repeated messages and types in caps.
Speaking of those pesky "facts", a company identifies a potentially attractive area to drill, either onshore (i.e., on land) or offshore (i.e., in the ocean). This area could be attractive because it’s near another major discovery, or because it used to be an operating well that has now dried up, or because government has released some data that suggest the presence of hydrocarbons (i.e., gas and oil).
Next, the company and/or the government conducts initial surveys, such as seismic mapping to better understand the presence and availability of hydrocarbons under the surface. At this point, the company considers a number of factors in its decision about whether to drill a well: How deep are the hydrocarbons? What rock formations are beneath the rock and above it? Is there porous rock which might serve as a "sponge", soaking up an oil? How big might a potential hydrocarbon discovery be?
There is no way to know for certain how much oil either (a) exists, or (b) is recoverable in a cost-effective manner, at the time the initial lease is acquired. This is what the “exploration” phase of the lease and exploration process means.
Only an idiot would focus on the fact that since land is leased, it therefore means that oil automatically exists and is recoverable. Which again is why it’s impossible to have a productive discussion with an idiot.
Ah, the tried and true name calling of the "Intellectual" conservative ?? I guess since you are so well versed on oil recovery why do they lease so many acres and only find it on a miniscule percentage ?? They have 68 MILLION acres that have NO OIL ON IT ?? sounds like you are the idiot that has the common sense of an ocean sponge.
Phillip, you keep ignoring this
In its May 2008 "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," the EIA concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade: "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018" [emphasis added]. Further, the report says: "This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018." Further, based on its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report, EIA estimated that the opening of ANWR would reduce the price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil by $0.75 per barrel in 2025 (in the "mean oil resource case"), from a predicted reference case price of $64.49. As of the close of trading on August 13, the price of oil settled at $116 per barrel.
Drill here, Drill in ten years, save pennies
OWNED !!!
And that was only one of your assinine "reasons" .
I prefer a candidate that people, the press, and the world LIKE, as well as a President who will re-gain our honor, credibility, and respect in the world community.
Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to instill fear in the mighty American war machine and make the terrorists think twice about attacking us. Insted, the bush/Mccain war plan has made us the laughing stock of the planet and emboldened the enemy. We have zero credibility, we now are the torturers, we are the ones with secret USSR like prisons, we are the ones who refuse fair trials, we are the ones who spy on our own citizens.
This is what Obama brings to the table If its CHANGE from Bush/ McCain failed policies thats all we need.
And i have not even started on the fine GOP run economy.
Dow from 10868 when Bush stole office to what today?? a mere 11615 ..LOL pathetic !!!
Under Clinton the dow went from 3310 to 10868 .
Just one example for you to stew on tonight, Phillip.
What is it about Obama supporters who can’t seem to write a literate sentence?
I have no intention of writing another chapter in my Looney Liberal Chronicles at this time, no matter how tempting the invitation you’ve extended. Sorry.
Better luck next time.
Dr. Jackson:
At first I was rather put off to see you call someone an idiot, but then I read the ongoing series of random, self-contradictory and childishly misinformed comments from Taguba, and I have to admit that sometimes a simple phrase like that is the most accurate way to convey a point. No need to waste any further words.
All these "intellectuals" and still no reply to this?
In its May 2008 "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," the EIA concluded that oil drilling in ANWR would not impact the U.S. oil supply for at least a decade: "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018" [emphasis added]. Further, the report says: "This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018." Further, based on its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 report, EIA estimated that the opening of ANWR would reduce the price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil by $0.75 per barrel in 2025 (in the "mean oil resource case"), from a predicted reference case price of $64.49. As of the close of trading on August 13, the price of oil settled at $116 per barrel.
Must be that Sean Hannity school of debate. claim vistory while ignoring all the facts, logic, and history.
Good essay. I would add/argue a few things.
I think something worth pointing out is that its possible that the number of people who don't vote for Obama on race could be turned into a wash (if that's the right way to phrase that) when compared to the people who will vote for him because of his race – the desire to move beyond anyone ever saying "a black man can't win" and be done with it. A post race boost that may have as much to do with concervatives just getting fed up with seeing Al Sharpton on TV and hoping that at least an Obama presidency might pull the rug out on all that as it does with anything else.
Also, something for me that really ought to have been included in reason #5: the rank and file supporters of Obama who I would basically refer to as his "fanatics". I'm far more turned off by people like Sam and Taguba than I am by Obama (or for that matter most actual Democratic politicians). Its certainly true that the right has its share of rank and file idiots, but they don't seem to lurk in nearly the same numbers picking pointless fights on Lefty websites. Its impossible to read an online essay saying anything remotely negative about Obama without a bunch of angry Obama fans trying to attack the intelligence of the author.
Finally, I think that the whole "Messiah thing" cannot be overstated as a huge potential problem for Obama. Last night CNN ran a big thing on Obama as the Anti-Christ because his people keep referring to him in Messianic terms. I'd be shocked if any sane person really, actually, honestly thinks he is the Anti-Christ – though they did some funny interviews with people explaining why he couldn't be – but the fact remains that its super creepy. I'm not sure your average left-wing aetheist has any idea how disturbing that type of language can come across to many people of any faith – even to liberal ones! I think they think that they are co-opting language that the Right has had a stranglehold on, but I'm not sure they they realize the potential (being realized I think already) that it has of backfiring big time. In my book (you know the one I'm theoretically writing), the number one way that evangelicals are going to get energized this election is by constantly hearing Obama = Messiah references.
Clinton (Bill mostly, but also Hillary) used Biblical language very successfully because he referred to it to add emphasis to what he was saying. Someone who didn't know the Bible might never have noticed it, but if you knew the Bible you got the reference. Bush (the current Bush) does the same thing with far less subtlety, and it only serves to reinforce to the Left that he's an evangelical Christian carrying all the baggage (for them) that comes with that. Obama's religious rhetoric I think is a bit of both. I'm not sure that someone with no familiarity of the Bible realizes how thick he (and his campaign and his fanatics) sometimes lay it on. I think to them, its just rhetoric. To a Christian, honestly, it may come across sometimes as almost blasphemous.
Anyway, good read. Oh and one final-final point. I think something that has gone unsaid mostly is the fact that the country still remains basically divided in half when it comes to an election. Why would anyone expect this election to be a blowout after the last two? It wouldn't suprise me if someone wins handily, but a blowout? Not likely. My pick: if Obama isn't leading by at least 10 points on election day… he's cooked. The Bradley effect is alive and well.
Phillip Ellis Corsi, where are you ?? I'm waiting for your reply. try and keep away from the bile, RNC slogans, and GOP talking points please.
Taguba: Would you mind referencing your assertions? I see from note 65 that you are excellent at spitting out spin without substance. FYI had Clinton signed drilling in ANWAR we would just about be on line now. Funny how times pass. As for refining, our refineries, operate at 90% capacity, 10% down time for required maintenance. The lefty's haven't allowed a refinery in about 30 some years, and yes to your earlier assertion, right now we can't put enough rigs on line because they are not available. Do you have a clue as to the percentage of profits of the oil company that your side cries about wanting to take, the Marxist's you really are? It's 10.1% Shall we nationalize Microsoft, Apple, the Drug companies? Face it, your understanding of economics as it pertains to getting the U.S. out of the mess that both sides have put us in can be simply stated. You wouldn't have a clue if you were carpet bombed with them. cao!
Taguba: Would you mind referencing your assertions? I see from note 65 that you are excellent at spitting out spin without substance. FYI had Clinton signed drilling in ANWAR we would just about be on line now. Funny how times pass. As for refining, our refineries, operate at 90% capacity, 10% down time for required maintenance. The lefty's haven't allowed a refinery in about 30 some years, and yes to your earlier assertion, right now we can't put enough rigs on line because they are not available. Do you have a clue as to the percentage of profits of the oil company that your side cries about wanting to take, the Marxist's you really are? It's 10.1% Shall we nationalize Microsoft, Apple, the Drug companies? Face it, your understanding of economics as it pertains to getting the U.S. out of the mess that both sides have put us in can be simply stated. You wouldn't have a clue if you were carpet bombed with them. cao!
Taguba: Would you mind referencing your assertions? I see from note 65 that you are excellent at spitting out spin without substance. FYI had Clinton signed drilling in ANWAR we would just about be on line now. Funny how times pass. As for refining, our refineries, operate at 90% capacity, 10% down time for required maintenance. The lefty's haven't allowed a refinery in about 30 some years, and yes to your earlier assertion, right now we can't put enough rigs on line because they are not available. Do you have a clue as to the percentage of profits of the oil company that your side cries about wanting to take, the Marxist's you really are? It's 10.1% Shall we nationalize Microsoft, Apple, the Drug companies? Face it, your understanding of economics as it pertains to getting the U.S. out of the mess that both sides have put us in can be simply stated. You wouldn't have a clue if you were carpet bombed with them. cao!
Taguba: Would you mind referencing your assertions? I see from note 65 that you are excellent at spitting out spin without substance. FYI had Clinton signed drilling in ANWAR we would just about be on line now. Funny how times pass. As for refining, our refineries, operate at 90% capacity, 10% down time for required maintenance. The lefty's haven't allowed a refinery in about 30 some years, and yes to your earlier assertion, right now we can't put enough rigs on line because they are not available. Do you have a clue as to the percentage of profits of the oil company that your side cries about wanting to take, the Marxist's you really are? It's 10.1% Shall we nationalize Microsoft, Apple, the Drug companies? Face it, your understanding of economics as it pertains to getting the U.S. out of the mess that both sides have put us in can be simply stated. You wouldn't have a clue if you were carpet bombed with them. cao!
jcscuba:
It's a wikipedia entry that doesn't discuss the fact that
that the EIS has been noticeably and embarrassingly unreliable in its statistical analyses. Its projections routinely differ from actual oil prices — and not just by a few points, but substantially. They have a bad history of internally inconsistent and routinely incorrect forecasts where oil prices are far too low. Since 1998, for example, 42 of the 45 annual forecasts from the EIA have significantly under-predicted the price of oil.
You're taking this guy too seriously. His only interest is to jump around the various threads at IC and say dumb things, and see who will react. See the comments to the essay on "Why John Edwards’ Affair Matters".
Take care, Phil
Taguba:
“Under Clinton the dow [sic] went from 3310 to 10868…”
If the president could control the economy like you think, then Clinton is responsible for the recession of 2001. As he exited the White House at the end of his second term, he threw the “Economy” switch from “Prosperity” to “Recession” to make Bush look bad. He then ripped out the wiring so Bush couldn’t throw the switch back to “Prosperity”.
Under Clinton if Hillary hadn't lost both houses of Congress we would have had a stock market that tanked. Let's not forget after promising not to raise taxes, he bestowed upon the American Taxpayer the largest tax increase in history. For whatever reason, and it's unclear to even the analysts under Democratic administrations with the exception of two administrations have always done better than under Republican administrations. Thanks to Newt and the Contract with America, Well Fair as we know it was put to bed, taxes were cut, spending went down, all those things lead to a ripping market. Clinton was the best Republican president of his time. In order to get reelected he did the wonderful job of triangulation, ran to the middle and signed any things the Republicans wanted. Under Bush I believe we have had 58 and possibly 59 consecutive quarters of increased GDP, a recession that does not make. With all that has come down on his watch, it's pretty clear that cuts in marginal tax rates work. Bush lost it when he had both the House and Senate and never vetoed a bill, thus acting like a Democrat, resulting in loss of the House and Senate. That's the great thing about our Constitution, we self correct. If Obama wins and that a big if in my mind, and he is able to get much of anything done the first two years, the American people will rise up and throw liberals out of office. Fortunately the Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally sane, and though the Senate will have the numbers, most likely on issues that count, they won't have the votes to send more pork for the quick change artist to sign in to law.
Excellent article! And a very enjoyable comments thread, made even more interesting by the pitiful though it was participation of a couple of trolltards (even intellectuals sometimes need to call a spade a spade :-). Thanks for not letting them poop the party. The 10-reason analysis is heartening. NObama!
"None-of-the-Above"-ers please consider this: The relevance of Juan McRino's positions on amnesty and gullible warming pale in consideration of his rock solid record on core principles of the Reagan coalition:
#1 – National Defense [War on Terror]
#2 – Fiscal Conservatism
#3 – Pro Life
Its hard to fathom how any conservative voter could see any alternative but to support John McCain at this point.
Ebenezer, I didn't see your comments the first time they appeared. Very good points, particularly about the impact of Obama supporters themselves. Wish I thought of that too, particularly in light of Sam and his friends reinforcing the point in this comment section!
Compugor: "gullible warming" has become my new favorite phrase!
Oh, thanks Phillip. they are just wrong. thanks for the intellectual response. LOLAY.
Did not get it from wikipedia, but keep up the lies. they make me giggle. Why is it that the oil prices keep coming down and we have not implemented the great "Drill in national refuges of the country" Plan yet??
COuld it be that we have cut our use by 26% from last year ?? does that have anything to do with DRILL DRILL DRILL???
So Phillip, is the pope "gullible" ?? he believes in Global Warming and that we should be good stewards of Gods creation. You and your ilk can keep pizzing on it, if you like, i choose to help the POPE.
I'm calling you out Tugba….You want a fact based discussion on global climate change and the fact that man has virtually nothing to so with it and that CO2 is the biggest hoax perpetrated on ignorant lemmings like yourself. Let's go give it your best shot…I love shredding ignorant morons like yourself. So you begin big guy, spit out your platitudes and I'm taking you down. FYI what the hell does the pope have to do with with Global Warming? Is he a scientist? Do you know anything about the scientific method. Heres a chance for you to show us what you got. Advice, do show up at a gun fight with a knife. Here are the rules of engagement. You state a fact as you see it, I'll prove you wrong. Or maybe I'll let my junior high school daughter do it for you. Sleep well lemming.
@Taguba: Offer retracted to debate you on climate change. I noted from my above post I was a bit of my game last night. I realize this morning that discussing anything with a liberal is futile. Your points are emotion based, not based on facts or science. It's like teaching the pig to sing, you just get the pig frustrated, and in the process you just get irritated. Should you come up with and ideas, and my junior high school daughter has the interest in taking you apart, so be it. In closing, there is "no science" to the "science" of global warming. It's all retrospective data, that in many cases has been analyzed improperly. Suggest you spend some time reading both sides of the issue, once you do if you are capable of evaluating what is put forth, you will no longer be a lemming following Al Gore into a fake proposed rising sea. Something to think about. Why will Al Gore not allow the media at any of his speeches, or any questions? Why does he refuse to debate his slide show? Because he can't. Over and out.. please try to add something to the site other than your banal remarks.
To determine if a Democrat like Al Gore is honest about solving a "problem," first ask yourself if he would consider a solution that doesn't involve his controlling the people.
jcscuba — debate with a liberal is possible. I've done it repeatedly in my Looney Liberal Chronicles. Debate with a moron isn't, which is why you were wise in withdrawing the offer.
The MO of a moron is to toss out a bunch of idiotic statements about the popular vote electing presidents, the lease/exploration process (which he neither understands nor wants to understand), the infallibility of a government bureaucracy with a horrible researchable record of predictions and projections, etc. Strike one down and he’ll ignore that and toss in another, like say, the Pope as an expert on global warming. Show how stupid that reasoning is, and he’ll jump to another topic like Bush stole the 2000 election, or Dick Morris is a douchebag.
Tag boy is just trying to get into my Looney Liberal Chronicles by his sophomoric attempts to “debate” (no disrespect intended to sophomores). But I told him I had no intention of writing another LLC chapter, since most of what he’s said has already been covered. There’s just simply nothing new, or interesting, about a guy whose intellectual arsenal is condensed to "Freeretardlic dirty stinking Adulterous vermin douchebag. When facts dont match your rhetoric, resort to a ploy. More Filth, douchebag. Kick your ‘intellectual’ teeth in. Doh!!"
A certain scene from an old Monty Python movie comes to mind when I read this stuff.
The value of these comments are in their comedic relief, not their substance (or lack thereof).
You know, somebody ought to write an article about that …
jccuba, Running scared before the fun even begins. I guess calling the POPE a liar was a little much for you. NOt to mention ALL the peer reviewed studies on climate change Agree that People DO CONTRIBUTE to it. Not half or three quarters of all peer reviewed studies, ALL OF THEM. 100% agree. You can find your big oil paid weather men and faux news paid "climate shills" to claim different, but the scientific communtiy says otherwise. So does that LIAR (as you call him) the Pope.
Remember Al Gore is just the spokesman, not the scientist you boob.
Riddle me this Buttman, Do you really think all the factories, all the cars, all the ships, trains, and trucks ont he planet dont contribute ?? seriously ??
Once again that pesky United States Department of Energy agrees with us kookalas
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change". Department of Energy (DOE) researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) contributed to this achievement. 'Tom Wilbanks, David Greene, Paul Hanson, Virginia Dale and Gregg Marland contributed to several reports of IPCC's four assessments. Wilbanks was a coordinating lead author of a chapter in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerabilities. Greene was a lead author for the "Transport" chapter of the IPCC Fourth Assessment mitigation report. Marland was a lead author of one of the first chapters on land use change and forestry and contributor to chapters for the panel's first three assessments.
I guess that "substance" scares poor Phillip Corsi Jackson
"jccuba": Seriously. I mean seriously. I mean REALLY seriously!! And you know I mean it because i use double the punctuation and capitalize important words, like POPE.
Seriously!!
Oh, and Doh !! We cant't forget about Doh!!
That REALLY says it all. And i mean it. Seriously !!
NOTE TO EVERYONE: (and i'm really serious about this, because i'm capitalizing my words and using serious words, like serious!!).
The POPE is now a recognized scientific authority. All of you supporting a woman's right to abort her child must now define human life as the POPE does as the moment of conception. Tagboy will be turning all of you pro-aborts over to the authorities for condoning or participating in the MURDER of a human being through elective abortion.
This is serious!! SERIOUSLY!! If you doubt what the POPE (notice i'm capitalizing that word for emphasis) says about scientific matters like the moment life begins, you're a LIAR and a douchbag stinking retarded vermin with a nose full of coke, or something like that (see “Why John Edwards’ Affair Matters”). And I say this because i’m SERIOUS. Really!! SERIOUSLY!
And i still don’t know why the guys won’t take me seriously when i debate. SERIOUSLY!!
Doh !!
Taguba: The reason I decided not to waste time on you is that in order for me to help you see the light I would need to perform a procedure that you wouldn't be capable of understanding. I'd use a scalpel make a cut under your adams apple if you really have one, it's called a tracheotomy. Not to help you breathe, but you head is so far up your butt that it might let the light shine in. Al Gore is a whore, won't allow people to ask questions at talks, won't allow the press, and won't debate the veracity of his slide show. Follow him into the rising seas. ROTFLOL. In closing the IPCC is a total joke, the vast majority of those how signed the document were only signing on the paragraph they included. Most have recanted their position when they saw they were being used as political pons.
jcscuba: but Tagboy said ALL OF THEM (he even capitalized the words to show he's serious — SERIOUSLY!!) ALL OF THEM agree 100%. EVERY peer reviewed article, EVERY ONE!! NO EXCEPTIONS!!
And yet you still doubt the piercing analysis and evidence he’s offered?? This is SERIOUS!! SERIOUSLY!! What would the POPE say now that you’ve called him a LIAR?? What?? You didn’t read his peer-reviewed article?? SERIOUSLY!!
And — Doh!!
i still can’t understand why no one takes tagboy seriously??
Er, pssst — try not to think about the fact that "cause" and "contribute to" are two different concepts. People contribute to lots of things without necessarily "causing" something, or even being the primary contributor. One good Mexican meal won't hold a candle to your average bovine flatulence, in terms of carbon-based natural methane production.
And you don’t even need a 100% peer reviewed article to understand this. Well, most of us understand this, anyway. Seriously.
Phillip nobody takes him seriously because they are laughing at him. He's a textbook Gore suck up. "There is no Debate" "There is consensus" I say we ignore him and he will go away. His comments add nothing to the discussion.
Oh on his seriously question. Can he answer a simple question. What part of atmospheric and tropospheric gasses are made up of CO? I'll be shocked if he actually can come up with the answer.
jc: Yeah, this is only good for it's comedic value. I love watching the sanctimonious Left become unhinged. Only a complete idiot could view something like cyclical climate change from the perspective where people are the constant, and nature is the independent variable in looking at the notion of causality. Seriously!!
@Phillip just a brief comment, Seriously, you would sound more intelligent and intellectual if you said seriously more often in you comments, seriously. Also, would you consider some " far out mans"? Seriously. This is a Serious topic, we are taking advantage of an under educated pimple faced thumb sucking socialist, seriously we must be nicer to him, seriously, we don't want him or her, probably a girly-boy to cry, seriously. This is from http://www.jcscuba.com seriously. P.S. if he hasn't crawled back out from his rock, seriously your meanness and constant shredding of his well thought our talking points has probably made him dial up for in patient care on a psyche ward some place, seriously.
jcscuba: i am shamed for picking on one of the POPE'S key supporters. Seriously!! You are right, seriously. And i mean that, Doh!!
Seriously!!
[...] http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/06/why-obama-lost-the-2008-election/ [...]