Posted on 08/22/2008 5:07:59 AM PDT by kellynla
Why is it a real race now, with John McCain rising in the polls and Barack Obama falling? There are many answers, but here I think is an essential one: The American people have begun paying attention.
It's hard for our political class to remember that Mr. Obama has been famous in America only since the winter of '08. America met him barely six months ago! The political class first interviewed him, or read the interview, in 2003 or '04, when he was a rising star. They know him. Everyone else is still absorbing.
This is what they see:
An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he's hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it's a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No. He's a community organizer (what's that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so's my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).
There is no pre-existing category for him.
Add to that the wear and tear of Jeremiah Wright, secret Muslim rumors, media darling and, this week, abortion.
It took a toll, which led to a readjustment. His uniqueness, once his great power, is now his great problem.
And over there is Mr. McCain, and—well, we know him. He's POW/senator/prickly, irritating John McCain.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Oh I’m quite sure of it, the Dems have already admitted they are “releasing the hounds” on McCain and going to attack him mercilessly at their convention. This will backfire IMHO, and it will be come to be known as Wellstone Funeral Part II. They’ll be cheering and working themselves into frenzies frothing at the mouth and attacking McCain and in the process turn off the bulk of the decent folks in America.
The dems honestly think they are losing because Fauxbama is not attacking McCain hard enough, this is the thought processes of the far left radicals that are running the show, they can’t see that they are failing because their candidate is a complete shlub.
Their entire campain strategy is wrapped up in trying to turn the election into a referendum on Bush, by trying to paint McCain as Bush III. The problem is, the reasonable folks in america aren’t going to buy into this. McCain’s a known entity, he’s not a fauxbama who’s basically done and said nothing and just got off the turnip truck. His fights with Bush and the party are legendary.
This election is turning into a referendum on Fauxbama, and the more rabid they attack, and while the libs try to portray McCain as the one with the unchecked temper, its actually Fauxbama who has let out his temper again and again whenever he is dared to have actually deal with any criticism. The press conference where he finally had to answer a few tough questions, he stomped off after less than 10 questions. His reaction of “the one” ads, his threats that McCain “doesn’t know who he’s dealing with”... etc etc etc. The ugliest thing in the world is an angry leftist.. now imagine an entire convention center full of them feeding each other in the mob mentality... It is going to be Wellstone Funeral II if they stay with their plan.
The election is right now and looks as though its going to remain a referendum on Fauxbama, and that’s an unwinnable strategy for the Dems. Not to mention the more negative Fauxbama goes, the more he’ll lose those fools who actually bought into his early campaign of being a “different kind of politician” etc etc etc.
The Democratic convention will be a bitter madhouse, sure the themes will be “hope” and “change” but the actual actions of it will be rabidly agressive anger. The R’s will have theirs and look once again like the adults, leaving the Ds to have looked like bitter children by comparison.
Yes the press is in Fauxbama’s back pocket and have been for 4 months, and even that can’t keep him afloat. He’ll get his convention bounce, and that will be the last time his numbers go up, between now and Nov.
And Grant (at Appomattox, one of them noted that they had last met in Mexico).
and US Grant!
Sherman may have served with Zachary Taylor in the other American army invading Mexico. Not sure.
______________________________________
She grew up within walking distance of Jerry Seinfeld, Alec Baldwin, Joey Buttafucco and the Carlo Gambino mafioso complex.....that would make anybody a bit weird.
Every one says Captain Robert E Lee.
Some Say Lt Ulusses Grant.
There were a host of others who served on both sides in the Civil War
In my mind, General Tommy Franks may have had Winfield Scott in mind when he attacked cross country to Baghdad the capital, leaving supply lines behind.
Only two?
R.E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Thomas Jackson, George McClellan, P.G.T. Beauregard, James Longstreet, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston and George Picket readily come to mind.
Sherman spent the (Mexican) war stationed in San Francisco, which in fact, was one of the factors that led to his dissatisfaction with the Army prompting him to resign and go into banking. He was there at the very onset of the gold rush and had occaision to meet John Sutter (of Sutter's mill fame).
Thanks, Joe!
Peggy has an irritating habit of pretending to reject the "perception" of an issue or leader as put forth by the mainstream media -- while at the same time (and sometimes in the same sentence) BUYING INTO that exact same false perception.
This, in a nutshell, is at the heart of slanted liberal media bias.
Good analysis, Peggy.
Another book I've recently finished is:
" Nothing earth shattering in its scholarship, but kind of a unique focus putting the human dimension behind the men who actually drew the arrows on the map. To paraphrase a line from the book, Grant saw problems for their simplicity; Sherman understood them in their complexity. It was on the bargain shelf at B&N and well worth every penny of the $7.95 I spent on it ;-)
Thanks, Joe; I’ll look for it!
Obama Mama vs. Big Daddy 'Cain
"It should come as no surprise that Democrat voters prefer a feminine man to a masculine woman, although both are infinitely preferable to a manly man.
It is odd that one of our two major parties has no room for one of the three modes of humanness, manliness (as opposed to mannishness), but it's true. It looks like the coming campaign, underneath it all, will be a contest between male and female energy (as well as child vs. adult). [...]
"Now normally, change is associated with anxiety and apprehension, so how does Obama encircle that square and remove its sharp corners? By promising that this change will not be in the direction of growth, maturity, or independence, but in the opposite direction: a regression toward the maternal realm of entitlement vs. merit, rights vs. expectations, pleasure principle vs. reality principle, Mother vs. Father, Yes vs. No.
Words are analogous to the collapse of the wave function in quantum physics, in that they reduce the infinite potential of consciousness to particularized meaning. If you are something, you can no longer be anything and everything. So the mantra "Yes we can" is an exercise in pure infantile omnipotence.
In this regard, the campaign is a closed circle of unconscious-to-unconscious communication, a mother-infant dyad from which father is excluded. The campaign is not about anything but itself. Yes we can. But how? No, you can't ask that. The whole point is to remain in the realm of the oceanic can, not to come ashore to the dry land of do. So we could also say that the campaign will come down to a lot of cant about Can vs. Can-do.
Because behind all the can, someone still has to actually do. Government doesn't actually produce anything. Free healthcare is not free. Someone else just pays for it. ..." ~ Robert Godwin
So who is Noonan writing to? The informed people who read her columns already know that the Republican party is known as "the daddy party" - ("this is what it takes to solve the problem, so I'll do it even if it ain't pretty.") - and the Democrat Party is known as "the mommy party" - ("how I feel about the problem and my good intentions are what counts even if my 'solutions' have never worked.")
Each of us has a voice in one of the two viable political parties. The party we choose reflects how we personally make important life decisions. Do we allow our unstable emotions (feelings) to trump common sense? ie: Do we allow our hearts to RULE our heads?
If so, our home is in the DemocRAT party.
Noonan already knows the answer is "no" to the question of "specifics grounded in a political philosophy". Of course, it isn't as if 'RAT candidates don't know precisely / specifically what they plan to do if elected, they don't dare reveal their true intentions. 'RATS can only win by stealth and they know it.
I especially liked that comment, too. It’s basic and simple and quite on the mark. I shared it with friends and intend to use it in discussion should the need arise.
imho 2112 begins to look like romney vs warner
McCain can turn a phrase, and his handlers are badasses.
Can't wait.
Perhaps. But, it will not be remembered by the main stream media until election night.
He is an empty head on top of an empty suit.
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.