Are we really about to elect a far-left president?
It just hit me tonight.
If the Democratic nominee were Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Charles Rangel, or any other left-wing congressman from a left-leaning part of the country, he or she wouldn't stand a chance, not even in a bad year for Republicans. These politicians have never had to moderate their views to win election, the way their brethren in the rural south or west have. However freaky-left they want to be, their constituencies are just as far out there.
Barack Obama is cut from the same cloth. All of his close friends and mentors have been far-left radicals. He won a state senate seat in a heavily Democratic area (eliminating his opponents from the ballot), then swept to a U. S. Senate victory after his primary and general election opponents were driven out of the race by embarrassing and appalling revelations about their private lives. Obama has never before had to compete for the votes of moderate to conservative voters.
Obama is farther left than George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, and Al Gore, all of whom were too far left for a majority of the national electorate.
So why is Obama succeeding where Pelosi et al. would have failed? Let's assume that the media would have been just as in the tank for another Democratic nominee. Where's the difference?
(1) No paper trail. His lack of legislative accomplishments works to his advantage here, as any substantive legislative achievement would almost certainly have been abhorrent in the eyes of middle America.
(2) His cool demeanor and professorial tone of voice doesn't set off alarm bells the way the shrill and strident tones of a typical left-wing moonbat does. The ideas are the same, but the delivery is smoother.
The poster above, and the skinny piggy bank poster below are from The People's Cube, a website that had its origins in the Communists for Kerry movement of 2004, a satirical look at the similarities between left-wing American policies and those of the former Soviet Union.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Are we really about to elect a far-left president?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: https://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4555
Subscribe to this blog's feed:
I think you hit this one square on the head. If the ticket were upended, Biden's history would have been a ball and chain around his ankle and he would have been dismissed quickly. Likewise, Hillary's past would have been equally damaging. Obama's appeal is all about faith in the unknown because the "known" candidates have been found wanting.
It also helps Obama that McCain lost a lot of momentum trying to get various parts of the Republican core to accept him, when he should have been playing to the undecided middle of the electorate who would have welcomed a strong solid leader who had a track record of not blindly following the party.
The media is the reason that Obama is doing well. Obama can be cool and collected because the media does his dirty work for him. The Democratic Party declared him the nominee without an official roll call. We do not know if he actually got the votes. The delegates after the state of NY were not given the chance to vote. When questions have arisen about whether he qualifies to run none in the news media have really taken a look. I am praying that the people will not vote this man in.
My biggest concern is that he won't be strong enough to make good decisions, relying on someone like, say Bill Ayers, or the like, because he "owes" them. From what I understand, it's all about who you owe in Chicago politics.
As always, fine analysis Michael.
Obama is a Far-Left demagogue. Hillary looks like a Goldwater Republican compared to Obama's committed Socialist viewpoint.
The pandering Main Stream Media have given him their total and undying support in his lust for the Presidency. They are his enablers in this campaign.
Senator John McCain is running against both Obama and the Media. Tough mountain to climb.
The abject failure of the Bush presidency is a boat-anchor around John McCain's neck. He should have begun distancing himself from Bush two years ago.
There is no GOP as a Party. The brand is dead.
When Senator Ted Stevens at age 84 decides in his selfish hubris to run for re-election with a multi-count Federal criminal indictment looming, then there is NO party discipline.
When current Alaska Senate Majority Leader Lyda Green, an Alaska Republican Establishment political hack and a long-time Wasilla resident can make repeated, scurilous comments about Alaska GOP Governor Sarah Palin being a "joke" as a candidate for VP, then there is no Party discipline
When GOP Senators Chuck Hagel and Thad Cochran can call GOP Presidential Nominee "tempermentally unsuited" to be Commander in Chief, then there is no Party discipline.
The Republican Party needs a Resurrection. Where is their Transformational Leader?
Sarah Palin?
The bumbling McCain Campaign ruined her appeal of Authenticity.
McCain talks like someone who wants to lose, praising Obama as a "good person" who we should not be afraid of as President.
McCain may not be scared of an Obama presidency.
I sure am.
No. 3 on why Obama is succeeding, and the big, big reason that seems to be overlooked here:
Because George W. Bush was/is a poorly performing president, and voters don't want to take a chance on a possible sequel.
My fingers will be crossed for the next four years. Can't do any worse than the far-RIGHT one we had for the last EIGHT years. :-P
Michael and others,
Roger Kimball speaks for me today. I've been mouthing this for months, even before Obama was nominated and it looked like Hillary might be the candidate.
For all of Obama's unknowns, thin skin, big turn to the left, and well documented horrid associations with racists and radicals, these issues along with the further appointment of an activist court concern me the most:
Roger Kimball (in part):
What I find depressing about this–as, indeed, about the whole Obama juggernaut–is the extent to which it represents a return of bad ideas that have already been tried time and again, have failed and made people poorer and less stalwart, and yet seem poised to make a sorry comeback once again.
LINK:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/10/28/obama-and-the-eternal-return/
Unlike Paul from above, I do think things can be worse; much worse as I experienced as a teenager when a man named Jimmy Carter was President. If you are under 45, you have never experienced a really bad economy and the 'malaise' of an entire nation. But you are getting ready to I predict.
I agree with w. People are voting against Bush/Republicans, not for Obama. Where would Obama would be had it not been for the economy/credit crisis?
One more item that I just ran across. In the process of bible study I ran across this item.
The Hebrew used for the word "blessed" in Genesis 28:1 is "barak". The definition is "to kneel. By implication to bless God." I have an interlinear bible with the literal Hebrew text of the old testament and the definitions of the Hebrew words. This is from a software package I purchased at a local bookstore.
Its more of a factoid, but I found it interesting.
Jimmy Carter did not govern in vacuum. History will absolve Carter eventually. He inherited the sorry state of 70's economy from sins of his predecessors.
Then, again, da brothaa ain't no Jimmy either. But, my fingers will still be crossed.
If Allan Greenspan was wrong, can we expect much more from anyone else? I think NOT.
[Jimmy Carter did not govern in vacuum. History will absolve Carter eventually...]
Reads to me like history has judged Jimmy Carter of not only being an abysmal failure as a President, but is well on its way of absolving Jimmy of having any redeeming character period.
You can only buddy up with Yasser and Hugo for so long before even the dimmest of historical bulbs begins to wonder WTH?
Michael, Obama is a far-left candidate only by Oklahoma standards. Consider this - every Democratic presidential candidate since Humphrey has been labeled as 'far left' by your party. John Kerry was "the most liberal man in the Senate" four years ago, yet now we're supposed to believe that Barak Obama is the most liberal. While Lincoln was right in saying that you can fool some of the people all the time, don't you think that at least some of them are fully aware of the hyperbole and hypocrisy dished out by both parties? And the ever-wilder accusations coming from the McCain camp are merely turning those voters off. Maybe, just maybe, negative campaign tactics have finally run out of steam. Maybe we'll see candidates debating real issues like the economy, war, and peace rather than fluff like who's wearing a lapel pin.
Four years ago, Obama wasn't yet in the Senate. So yes, it's possible for Kerry to have been the most liberal four years ago and Obama to be the most liberal this year.
Ed, I am talking about the economy, war, and peace: On those issues, and many others, Obama is farther to the left than any major party candidate for president ever.
If Jimmy Carter was such a failure, it was because of jerks like Nixon, LBJ, JFK, and Ike who prop up dictators like the damn Shah. The hostage crisis was set in motion way before Watergate.
Once the compound was overrun, NO military operation in the world could have rescue anyone. Go ask the Mossad. Not even the Isreali Special Forces would touch it. Entebbe is was NOT. Do your research, General Douglas McArthur.
Once the compound was overrun, NO military operation in the world could have rescue anyone. Go ask the Mossad. Not even the Isreali Special Forces would touch it. Entebbe is was NOT. Do your research, General Douglas McArthur.
General McArthur has done his research and remembers two distinctions, contrary to the private's opinion.
First, the hostages were magically released after 444 days immediately upon a man named Ronald Reagan taking office - obviously the Ayatollah thought somebody was going to get rescued very quickly or he was going to be taking a very long dirt nap. Second, the rescue attempt was a bungled mess; mainly because it was poorly planned and supported and that was the opinion of those who were involved in the rescue.
Oh, fo' shure. Who wouldn't buckle under the threat of nukes? No wonder Iran now wants 'em.
The rescue attempt was organized by amateurs, simply because the pros knew better and passed.