The albatross could now be on the other neck

With last night's results in North Carolina and Indiana, only the most stalwart Hillary supporters can think anything but that Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee for POTUS. A more accurate analysis of the fall general election race can finally begin. For both parties, their nominees are at best a mixed bag.

Obama has a ton of money (about $274 million) through a very successful small donor campaign. He is also an extremely powerful orator. He is running in an election with a very shaky economy, record gas prices, a war and an unpopular incumbent of the opposite party. Not a bad set of pluses in Obama's column.

On the minus side, though, Obama has positions that are far, far to the left of the American mainstream and a terrifying set of political associates, led by Michelle Obama, William Ayers and the repudiated Jeremiah Wright, with a distinct hostility to the very country and very people Obama would be charged with protecting. The power of these negatives should not be underestimated.

For John McCain, his negatives are considerable. He is short of cash and would have to rely on public financing to even bring him to the $84 million mark -- and Obama can block even that, as the FEC cannot release those funds without a quorum and Obama is blocking a GOP nominee to the FEC that would produce that quorum. McCain is 71, and while he is a good speaker, he is not Obama. McCain is a Republican, like the unpopular incumbent, and has always been a strong supporter of the war that has not gone the way any of its supporters had planned. His most noted accomplishment has been driving his own party to intense anger against him with positions inconsistent with the GOP base, and an apparent willingness to turn his considerable rhetorical guns against his own party at least as much as he is against the Dems. His message does not seem to be inspiring, not the least of all to the base, which may hinder GOTV efforts.

On the plus side, that distance from the GOP mainstream enables McCain to distance himself from the unpopular incumbent. McCain is a war hero; his survival in a North Vietnamese prison (where he endured physical torture that caused permanent injuries) suggests he is as personally tough as they come. The Keating Five notwithstanding (for which he has expressed remorse), he is seen as an honest public servant who tells you what he thinks. His general political positions, while at odds with the GOP base at times, are far more consistent with the American mainstream than Obama. This last point deserves some elaboration.

What the Republicans need is not an abandonment of conservative principles, but a smarter, more articulate defense of even more conservatism, not less.

E.g., Gas Prices? More nuclear power, hydro-, refineries, clean coal, drilling off coasts and in ANWR. And why? As a necessary bridge to next-generation cleaner and non-petroleum energy so that in the time lag, we don't empower our enemies, demand that others abroad who are less environmentally sound produce the oil we consume, and watch our hard-won way of life decline.

Taxes? Not hikes, since revenues went up, not down with past cuts, but more fiscal discipline to end the deficits. The problem was not tax-cutting, but wild-eyed spending that ran up debt and discredited tax cuts.

The border? Close it, not out nativism or racism, but out of respect for the rule of law, the tradition of national sovereignty, the need to promote integration and assimilation, the need to be more concerned with American entry-level low-paid workers, and a desire to help Mexico wean itself off remittances and make the tough-love decisions to modernize its archaic government and economy.

Judges? We need constitutionalists, because they alone follow the rules of the legislative branch and what is written in the Constitution, do not turn rarified, laboratory theory into the law that millions must suffer under, and bring respect to the judiciary sorely damaged by aristocratic elitists on the bench.

National Security? Not more U.N.ism, but careful explanations that both Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt jihadism, taken out odious regimes, and with patience will make the region safer.We need more reasoned and inspired explanation of just how the U.S. military allows the present globalized system of commerce and communications to survive, rather than asleep at the wheel reaction to cheap attacks on our foreign policy.

Ethics? Republicans by consensus in Washington need to be less tolerant of sleeze than Democrats, since conservatism and traditionalism are moral precepts. When they engage in tawdry sex, bribery, and influence peddling, they suffer the double wage of hypocrisy — in the manner supposedly men-of-the-people liberals like Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and the Clintons talk one way and live like 18th-century French kings.

To the degree McCain can articulate the above, he will win; to the degree that he either cannot or believes the latest gurus that he must abandon them, he will lose. Moving toward a lite version of the Obamian/European "bipartisan"and socialist view of government and calling it a new conservatism is a prescription for utter disaster. While McCain has voted with the Republican Senate caucus 88% of the time, McCain has angered a lot of rank-in-file Republicans. Their issues with him are fairly well-known:

McCain-Feingold the Gang of 14 illegal immigration amnesty global warming opposition to drilling in ANWR a socially moderate-to-liberal agenda, such as it is. If you compare the two lists, you will find that there is not a lot of overlap. There is overlap -- illegal immigration and ANWR, to be precise -- but largely there is very little. This is an agenda that McCain mostly supports already.

But with respect to the second list -- the one that angers Republicans -- the sad truth they must face is that only two of those issues has any chance to enter the minds of the great middle this November: illegal immigration and ANWR. The former because voters actually care about that issue and want border enforcement (by about a four-to-one margin, according to most polls), and the latter simply because of high gas prices, otherwise it would not enter voters' minds.

As for the rest? McCain-Feingold is seen as affecting the political class, not the average voter. No one even knows about or understands the Gang of 14. The public does not care about global warming as a political issue so long as it does not inconvenience them through something hideous like Kyoto.

Full disclosure: I am a security conservative, not an economic or a social conservative. I care more about security -- defense, foreign policy and law enforcement -- than any other issue. I am like most people in the respect that I am "conservative" on some issues and "liberal" on others, social issues to be precise. That probably makes me a "moderate." So understand where I'm coming from.

I mention this particular aspect because McCain's social policy may be easily seen as a plus, not a minus, in the coming election, much as it angers the Republican base.

It is probably no accident that the Republicans who are the most popular at the national level (not the GOP primary) are McCain and Rudy Giuliani, neither of whom are social conservatives, by which I mean they are ambivalent or even supportive of gay mariage or abortion rights and largely do not care about "family values" issues.

As much as in may pain social conservatives, their agenda has largely been repudiated by the general public. While a particular issue here and there may win -- a ban on gay marriage in Ohio, for example -- the public does not want anyone telling them how to live their lives, conservatives or liberals.

The GOP understands that aspect, but misplaces their remedy, trying to capitalize on that feeling through attacks on federal regulation. The public largely does not deal with federal regulation, so this argument has no meaning for them. A Bible-thumping preacher telling them that the Constitution needs to be brought in line with God's law does -- yes, I'm looking at you, Mike Huckabee. And they do not like it. Which is one reason why, outside of Huckabee's evangelical circles, most Republicans were horrified by his rise in the primary and went to McCain instead.

The general rule is that there is a reason why the town in Footloose was seen as an unhappy place, run by the bad guys. People don't want to live in the town in Footloose, but the image that social conservatives project by their stated desire to impose a social agenda is that they seek to do just that. It is not a vote getter, except for the other side.

Now, this year you have John McCain, who the public sees has having repudiated just those aspects of the GOP that the public dislikes most. Not a bad thing.

On the other side, you have Barack Obama. How would his wife Michelle explain him? Let's go back to her February speech at UCLA:

"In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that isolation we fear one another. We don't know our neighbors. We don't talk. We believe that our pain is our own. We don't realize that the struggles and challenges of all us are the same. We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as 'them' and 'they' as opposed to us. We don't engage because we are still too cynical.

"Americans are in debt not because they live frivolously, but because someone got sick. And even with insurance, the deductibles and premiums are so high that people are still putting medication treatments on credit cards. And they can't get out from under. I could go on and on and on, but this is how we're living, people, in 2008. And things have gotten progressively worse. Throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn't gotten better for regular folks.

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy we have a mutual obligation to one another. That we cannot measure our greatness in this society by the strongest and richest of us. But we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here. Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

"Because we say we're ready for change, we say we're ready for change but see change is hard. Change will always be hard. And it doesn't happen from the top down. We do not get universal health care, we do not get better schools, because somebody else in the White House. We get change because folks from the grass roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be. When they decide to roll up their sleeves and work. And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your division. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed. (Emphasis mine.)

As Mr. Mackey would say, "Mmmmmmmm-kay?" Now who is trying to tell us how to live our lives? Now who is morally preening? It is not the GOP, not in the form of John McCain.

[I]t's the notion that only Barack Obama can save our souls that is the most offensive part of the speech, by far. Government doesn't exist to save souls; it exists to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. If I feel my soul needs saving, the very last place I'd look (in the US) for a savior would be Washington DC or Capitol Hill. I'll trust God and Jesus Christ with my soul, and I'm not going to mistake Barack Obama for either one.

This, though, is the religion of statism distilled to its essence. Only a government can rescue people from the consequences of their own decisions. Only government programs can provide for your every need, and only government can use your money wisely enough to ensure that your needs get covered. Individuals cannot possibly manage to help their neighbors through their churches or community organizations, let alone encourage people to do for themselves. Sister Toldjah:

This is, in a nutshell, the radicalized, stripped-bare-of-the-platitudes version of any speech you’ll hear her husband make. America sucks, we’re not “sacrificing” enough for each other, our souls need be “healed,” and the only man who can do it is … Barack Obama. He is the “only man” in the race who has dealt with the toughness of the “streets” as a “community organizer.” Syd And Vaughn:

We wish to offend no one with the opinion that this speech is going to damage her husband's political future. It was not how she said it. It was what was said. You can read it for yourselves, and follow the link above to hear the audio. There is no mistaking what her intention is. It is clear to us [...] that this smacks of fascism.

But the speech above lacks the warm fuzziness of such socialism. It literally reeks of fascism. Empowered youth, with nary a clue about their government; how it works, how they can help make it work, or how to clean it up. Listening to the crowds cheer her is reminiscent of a Nazi rally, especially the end of it. Anyone who espouses that government can fix your soul is either extremely narcissistic, painfully naive, or simply unintelligent. There is but one who can fix a man's soul, and He is not of this Earth. (Yes, that is a philisophical belief we share. We are Catholic, and happily so.) But when goverment, or those who will be mouthpieces in a prospective administration, begin "preaching" that they can fix souls, it causes common sense people to become concerned.

If this is what Senator Barack Obama truly believes, if this is the message he has for America, then it is something we are not interested in. Nor is the majority of the nation. She is not talking about a democracy. She is literally giving us a vision of a "socialist utopia" that would make President Franklin Roosevelt jealous. She is not speaking of a respect for human life, freedom, and the rule of law. She is talking about a future where the government is king, and can fix any problem that arises. In such societies of the past, fixing "problems" has become bloody very quickly; be it direct violence, or later, being rounded up as a social agitator.

The American people have a right to speak up and decide their lives for themselves. It is not the government's job to do this. What she speaks of is not America. It would be her husband's twisted vision of America, and we will have no part of it. John McCain represents a repudiation of the idea of telling everyone how to live. If Michelle Obama's speech is any indication, Barack Obama is quite happy to fill the void. And the GOP should be happy to let him fill it.

Because the people are just as likely to repudiate Obama's social engineering as they have social conservatism.

Seeing ‘albatross’ and ‘neck’, I have to post this song.

Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7acZy0To3eg

Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SYmSduYoL7A

Iron Maiden - Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Sorry, I had to.

You are quite wrong to call McCain “a Republican”—he is most certainly NOT! He’s voted with the Libs on many issues, the most important to conservatives being Amnesty. In fact, he’s authored Amnesty bills. While the MNM who loves him calls him “a maverick”, we know it’s just a buzzword for “pro-war liberal”.

That Obama is a Socialist and, along with his wife, totally unacceptable. But so is McCain and his AZ mafia don’s daughter-wife. There are even Vietnam vets who believe that McCain was no hero. But what IS important is what he is TODAY.

To many conservatives, McCain is as unacceptable no matter “who” he picks as his VP. Fortunately, a real conservative just trounced Alan Keyes for the nomination of The Constitution Party—Rev. Chuck Baldwin. He’s tougher on illegal aliens than Tancredo and Hunter put together and he’s even tougher on Red China and the U.N. than Hunter. While he has no chance of winning, he CA be a beacon for those disaffected conservatives looking for a political home.

I agree with pretty much this whole article and truly hope that he’s right about the general public not letting either side tell them how to live their lives.

Everything depends on whether the majority of people can see through the smooth, honeyed delivery to the reality of Obama’s intentions, as quite clearly enunciated by his wife.

Obama has a ton of money (about $274 million) through a very successful small donor campaign [...] For John McCain, his negatives are considerable. He is short of cash and would have to rely on public financing to even bring him to the $84 million mark

Hmmmmmmm. Let's see, now:

Party "A" - is running candidate "in touch" with the needs and desires of his party's voting base, and publicly advocates the implementation of same.

Party "B" - is running candidate openly contemptuous of his party's voting base, with a lengthy history of actively working against their needs and desires.

Party "A" war chest: $274 million. Party "B" war chest: less than $84 million.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Wonder if there's any sort of connection...?

>>>While the MNM who loves him calls him “a maverick”, we know it’s just a buzzword for “pro-war liberal”.

McCain is a moderate conservative, and while you may not like that it’s where most voters live. McCain has been wrong on some of the big ones, but the “liberal” meme gets unreal. From memory I think the lowest McCain ever got in his ACU score was in the 60s. Compare that to actual liberal politicians.

American Conservative Union Ratings for the Likely 2008 Presidential Candidates

Senator John McCain (AZ)
83 Lifetime

80 2005

Senator Hillary Clinton (NY)
9 Lifetime

12 2005

Former Vice President Al Gore (TN)
9 Lifetime

N/A

Senator Barack Obama (IL)
8 Lifetime

8 2005

Senator John Kerry (MA)
5 Lifetime

8 2005

http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.