Posted by Matt on April 28, 2008
Yesterday, much to the disappointment of the “MoveOn.org” branch of the Democratic Party, Sen. Barack Obama finally gave in to Fox News by agreeing to an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. The interview wasn’t anything special, but Sen. Obama’s “giving in” to the evil partisan network is a great example of how the remaining Democratic primaries seems to be boiling down to how well the candidates can court moderate, blue collar, Democratic voters, also known as “Reagan” democrats.
Sen. Obama has had some major success appealing to these voters, but he now is in a current danger of alienating, or losing them completely. Sen. Obama started his presidential campaign trying to appear as the “post partisan” candidate in the race. His rhetoric of national unity was inspiring, and he originally appeared to me as more of a sensible problem solver than a liberal. I remember on one occasion, a little over a year ago, when Sen. Obama attributed many problems of the welfare state to the absence of fathers in urban areas. He also seemed to have somewhat of a commitment to the War on Terror, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His greatest strength with “Reagan” democrats was, as with all other voters, his personality and his inspiring oratory, but when that was peeled away, his appeal to moderate voters really fell away.
Obama’s fall from grace among moderates obviously began with the Jeremiah Wright incident, but his revealing as an extremist doesn’t end there. Recently, It has been recognized that Sen. Obama accepted campaign donations from Bill Ayers, the leader of a domestic terrorist organization in the 1960’s. I would also point to the company that has endorsed Sen. Obama, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Bradley etc. Those guys don’t exactly appeal to moderates. When you’re a liberal, it just isn’t believable when you pretend to be anything other than a liberal.
Sen. Clinton is in good standing with “Reagan” democrats just on account of her last name. Bill Clinton won in 1992 because he was able to convince moderates that he was a “new kind of democrat”. His positions on free trade, and welfare made him a hero among centrist democrats. The Defense Of Marriage Act in 1996 further showed that he could appeal to conservative democrats.
Hillary, however, is a lot more liberal than Bill was. Her voting record may be slightly more conservative than Obama’s, but there really isn’t much of a difference in their positions. Hillary is a modern socialist, and she can’t do much to hide that. She may get some blue collar votes, but she doesn’t resonate with moderates nearly as well as “Good Ol’ Bill” did.
I know I seem to be siding with John McCain on everything these days, but even those who don’t like McCain will agree with me on this. Besides the fact that Sen. McCain is officially a Republican, he is the quintessential “Reagan” democrat. If any group of voters are meant for McCain, then conservative democrats are. (Joe Lieberman anyone?) The now overused “maverick” image should appeal to these voters. Everything that Republican hardliners hate about McCain, should be the same reasons why moderates love him. Campaign finance reform, the way he demonizes private companies, blah blah blah. “Reagan” democrats should like these things about him, even if I don’t.
Posted in Hillary, McCain, Obama | 1 Comment »
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2008
I know that many former Huckabee supporters blame Fred Thompson for Huckabee losing, but I don’t. I respect Fred Thompson a great deal. His great commitment to the concept of federalism really influenced who I am as a conservative. His campaign was a great disappointment, but I can bet that most Huckabee people would rather have him as a nominee right now than McCain. That being said, some people might find this interview interesting. Sen. Thompson speaks out about the election for the first time since he dropped out, check it out.
Posted in Fred Thompson | 1 Comment »
Posted by Matt on April 23, 2008
Back in December, I overheard some of my peers in my U.S History class ask the teacher who he thought would be the next president. Even though I had figured out that the teacher was somewhat politically conservative, I expected him to say either Sens. Clinton or Obama. He said neither. He surprised me when he predicted that John McCain would win the Republican nomination by default, and then go on to win the general election by default. I remember him saying, “People are going to be surprised to learn that the American electorate isn’t nearly as tolerant (Of liberal policies) as they once thought.”
Well, John McCain did win the Republican nomination, and unfortunately, he did seem to win it by default. However, it remains to be seen whether he will win the general election by default, but I am starting to see the familar trend of voters shifting to the right because of their intolerance of liberal political thought.
Hillary Clinton has always been unpopular with a large percentage of the electorate nationally, but unfavorable views of Barack Obama have been a rather recent development. The recent unfavorable coverage of Barack Obama will probably hurt his chances in the fall. Voters have not looked favorably upon Jeremiah Wright, nor the “bitter” comments, in general. Barack Obama is starting to look less like a national unifier, and more like a divisive cultural liberal.
So, will a nation turn its lonely eyes to John McCain? It is beginning to look like they will. According to Rasmussen Reports, ( Who I have found to be very reliable,) Sen. McCain has been leading Sen. Clinton in match-up polls since Febuary 7th, and he has been leading Sen. Obama in the same poll since Febuary 23rd. Sen. McCain is also the only candidate with an overall positive “favorable” rating, him with 52 percent, Sen. Clinton with 43 percent, and Sen. Obama with 46 percent. Hopefully these poll numbers will continue until November, and hopefully they will translate into success in the election.
Posted in McCain | 2 Comments »
Posted by Matt on April 23, 2008
Hillary Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania last night won’t make her the front runner, but it does give her relevance in a discussion that considers which Democrat has a better chance against John McCain in November. Counting Michigan and Florida, Hillary has won five “battleground” states that have been hotly contested in 2000 and 2004. At one time I thought that Hillary would be a worse general election candidate than Sen. Obama, but now I’m not so sure.
Democrats are generally divided into two voting factions, the “Move On.org” faction and the faction that is traditionaly supported by unions. Out of the two factions, the union faction has proven to be the one that can win. The extreme left, just won’t be accepted by American voters, so unless Barack Obama can prove himself to be something different than, say a candidate like John Kerry, he won’t win in a general election.
Hillary Clinton win in Pennsylvania last night is a great thing for John McCain’s chances in November. I don’t think that she will be the Democratic nominee, but at this rate, she can really damage Barack Obama’s chances. What was once seen to be an inevitable election for Democrats is starting to look really competive for Republicans. My favorite Democrat, James Carville is starting to look like a prophet. A couple of months ago, in a panel with Bill O’Reilly, I recall him sayin something like this; “I have good news for both Democrats and Republicans, the good news for Democrats is that we would really have to screw up to lose the election in 2008, the good news for Republicans is that we could easily do that.”
Posted in Hillary | 2 Comments »
Posted by Matt on April 21, 2008
I’m ashamed. My home state of Georgia has only produced one president in the last 218 years, and we had to get quite possibly the worst out of all of the presidents. Indeed, in
Star Spangled Men by Nathan Miller, President Carter is named the worst out of all of the presidents, unfortunately that book places him in a field with such outstanding leaders as Warren Harding, James Buchanan, and Richard M. Nixon. President Carter had a chance to redeem his legacy by acting as one of the most active “Ex-Presidents” in history, but unfortunately he has now ruined that as well.
For some reason, President Carter sees himself as the beacon of unofficial U.S Foreign Policy. He thinks that his light and goodwill can shine in the darkest places, and apparently he and he alone can change the hearts of tyrants.
As stupid as President Carter’s self-righteousness is, I can find myself to forgive some of his past “peace missions”. Maybe he can convince Fidel Castro to give up communism, I don’t know. However, his latest excursion of self righteousness is just way too much for me to accept.
As most of you probably already know, President Carter is currently in Syria, meeting with leaders of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Apparently he thinks that it is within reason to convince Hamas to accept the sovereignty of the Isreali state. They will not. It is not within the doctrine or ideology of extremists to do so. I don’t know what motive Jimmy Carter has found that makes it acceptable to meet with terrorists, but I don’t see it. As far as I am concerned, he has undermined the honor of the United States of America, and he has answered the attacks of Sept. 11th with appeasement.
The truth is, Jimmy Carter is starting to resemble Neville Chamberlain quite well. He is assuming that terrorists are open to reason, and he is wrong. He has shamed the state of Georgia, and the United States of America with his foolishness. Out of shame, I will never mention Jimmy Carter again on this blog. Hopefully, that will not be too daunting of a task, considering that he is 84 years old, and will probably not be making news for long.
Posted in Jimmy Carter | 6 Comments »
Posted by Matt on April 16, 2008
Yesterday, on April 15, Mike Huckabee launched his new political action committee, which is appropriately named Huck PAC. A lot of people in the “Huckasphere” were wondering what he was the reason behind the countdown on Huckabee’s website,(Some of Hucks’s Catholic supporters were humorously speculating that Gov. Huckabee would convert to Catholicism, on the day of the Pope’s arrival in the U.S.)but anyway, we know now what it was all about. I think that Gov. Huckabee obviously chose to launch Huck PAC on April 15th as a way to publicize the Fair Tax.
Huck PAC is the inevitable tool that Gov. Huckabee is using to build his political future. One of the weaknesses that Gov. Huckabee’s campaign had was a lack of political connections, so Huck PAC will definately help him should he decide to run in 2012. The immediate goals of Huck PAC, however, are to support John McCain and to help win a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. So If you haven’t yet checked out Huck PAC, be sure to give it a visit(www.huckpac.com), and I would urge you to consider supporting Gov. Huckabee financially through Huck PAC. In the next four years, Gov. Huckabee will need early support for a 2012 run, so let’s do what it takes to correct our mistakes, and get this guy in the Oval Office.
Posted in Huckabee | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Matt on April 15, 2008
We are now beginning to see Barack Obama’s true colors come out. In the last few weeks, Sen. Obama has been forced to reveal some ideological skeletons that I’m sure he would have rather left in the closet. First, he had to suffer the consequences of his wife saying, “For the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country.” Then, the whole “Jeremiah Wright” incident came out, which revealed Sen. Obama to be a long time supporter of Black Nationalist teachings. Now, we have what he said in San Francisco last week.
“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
How can anyone take this as anything but an elitist and condescending remark? It’s as if he’s saying, “In hard times, throughout the Clinton and Bush years, these poor folks haven’t had anything better to hold on to than their faith and, oh yeah, their constitutional rights. We gotta give them good social programs, and I’m the only one who can do that.” Not only is Sen. Obama being an elitist, but he is also being extremely arrogant. This is a great example of how Sen. Obama can be one thing to blue collar voters, but once he gets behind closed doors with his fellow liberals, he is a different thing entirely. Goodness, I haven’t felt this disconnected with a politician since John Kerry told reporters that his favorite Red Sox player was “Manny Ortiz”.
But seriously, is Barack Obama really “out of touch” with voters? Or, are Midwestern, small-town voters truly suffering from bitterness? I think that it is a combination of both. Sen. Obama has to be really “out of touch” to say something so glaringly condescending, but he may have been right about the bitterness part. Thousands of Americans should be angry and bitter. The promises of big government have left nothing but brokenness in an already broken world. I foresee a time when the liberal, neo-socialist politicians will be the real “bitter” people in America. There will come a time when they will realize that legislation can’t solve problems in a fallen world. When that day comes, Barack Obama might have to come to terms with the fact that he and his San Francisco friends weren’t as “enlightened” as he once thought, and maybe, just maybe, those poor folks back in Pennsylvania were the ones who had it right all along.
Posted in Obama | 1 Comment »
