Are Political Spouses Fair Game?
A tip for presidential hopefuls: if you want your husband or wife exempt from scrutiny, sending them on the campaign trail as your surrogate or making them a key advisor isn't a good idea.
We have barely established the nominees for the presidential general election battle, but the ground rules are very much up in the air. Not for the candidates, mind you, but for their wives.The Tennessee state GOP recently ran an ad quoting Michelle Obama’s oft-quoted comment that she had never been proud of America until her husband’s campaign. Barack Obama struck back, declaring such a tactic was “low” and “detestable” and everyone should just “lay off” his wife.
When Tennessee’s Republican Senator Bob Corker took Obama’s side and called for the ad to come down some conservatives took exception. Michelle Malkin wrote:
Is it “negative personal campaigning” when candidate spouse Bill Clinton’s public campaign trail remarks are scrutinized, criticized, and analyzed? Are we to shut up about him, too? Will the Republican civility-mongers not stop until the Right is completely disarmed?
Indeed it would seem odd that Obama could claim the benefit of his wife as spokeswoman, surrogate and explainer-in-chief of his personal charms, yet plead that she be exempt from scrutiny. Moreover, we seemed to be entering an Alice in Wonderland of rules since the DNC had just recently criticized Cindy McCain for refusal to release her tax returns (a position shared in more restrained terms by the National Review’s editors).
So what to make of all this? Neither of the presumptive nominees offers “two for the price of one” as Bill Clinton did, and yet wives have become fixtures on the stump. It is not always obvious what is fair game with regard to spouse scrutiny and what is not.
Todd Harris, political consultant and former Fred Thompson Communications Director says: “You walk a very fine line when you start using a candidate’s spouse as a surrogate for the candidate. On the one hand, it’s always been an article of faith that spouses are and should be off limits. But when a campaign starts using the spouse to carry very political, and often negative, messages, that lines really start to get blurred.”
And blurred they have become with Michelle Obama. Her comments about her pride (or lack thereof )in America, her view of her husband’s historic impact on the country and her complaints about their finances have all been much discussed. What they reveal, or confirm, Obama’s critics say, is an elitist, out-of -touch mindset and an arrogance about themselves and her husband’s achievements.
In other words, she simply gave unfavorable testimony about her spouse, testimony the opposing side feels free to use.
Ah, but the Obama defenders say, Michelle isn’t Barack and he doesn’t feel that way so why “drag” her into this? Well if the person closest to the candidate does not represent his views, either one of them is always free to pipe up and explain the differences. (Barbara Bush, for example, made clear she was pro-choice, but that this was her own view.)
And yes, it’s true she said these things not him, but the remarks did, after all, fit a pattern which the candidate established. Weren’t his Bittergate remarks belittling the values and views of average Americans of the same type as Michelle’s denigration of American greatness and her remark that America is mean? In short, had she not embellished on the themes already laid out by her husband her remarks might not have attracted great attention.
So especially with a candidate new on the political scene, about whom relatively little was known before the campaign, it seems reasonable to use a spouse’s comments as insight into the candidate’s views.
Well, the argument goes, why should we get in the middle of a husband-wife relationship and “force” a candidate to criticize his own spouse or distance himself from her remarks? There is an easy solution to that one: if you fear confusion or don’t want your spouse speaking for you, then don’t have her speak for you. Alternatively she can always preface her remarks with “My husband doesn’t agree with me on this.” Otherwise, it is not only fair, but logical, to assume that she is speaking for and about him.
So have we come full circle and declared nothing off limits? Before pangs of guilt overtake us for the invasion of spouses’ “privacy,” it is important to remember that spouses act not only as surrogates but in many cases as advisors on everything from strategy to health policy. If Charlie Black’s lobbying past gets front page coverage by the New York Times shouldn’t we have the right to explore Michelle Obama’s views, associations and finances also?
Larry J. Sabato offers some middle ground. He explains: “First ladies have enormous influence on their husband-Presidents, and so their real views matter. On the other hand they are not candidates. An in-between standard applies. The more involved in policy they are, the more intense the coverage should be.”
In the case of the Clintons this time around an obvious concern for voters was “What’s he going to do?” When the spouse is himself a political figure with policy expertise it is hard to complain about whatever scrutiny comes his way.
And in the end the public opinion will determine when a campaign goes too far or when the spouse seems to be taking the fall for what should be barbs directed at her spouse. Harris explains, “I think the public’s level of outrage over spousal criticism will be in direct proportion to how political the spouse is. For example, Elizabeth Edwards is extremely political and the public would probably view her as fair game. But God help the person who ever tries to take shots at Laura Bush because the public would never stand for it.”
So the bottom line: if you don’t want your spouse scrutinized, don’t employ her as a key surrogate or make clear she is a top advisor. And if you don’t want her criticized, then suggest she not defame the country or cry crocodile tears over how to meet expenses on a seven-figure income. Then everyone would agree to “lay off” the wife.
PJM’s special DC correspondent Jennifer Rubin is a writer living in Virginia. She is a regular contributor to Human Events, American Spectator and the New York Observer and blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
57 Comments
1. vb:The First Lady has traditionally had a representational function, be it at White House dinners or on trips abroad. There are things in Michelle’s comments that cause me worry. She seems more focussed on America’s faults than on its strengths. She seems to lack an appreciation of what America has given all of us. In fact, she seems at imes bitter. Why is this off the table?
May 21, 2008 - 1:44 am 2. Believer:So the “rules” began with his big ears.
Will it end with her big mouth?
I think not.
May 21, 2008 - 2:29 am 3. Jim from Pittsburgh:I have researched Michelle Obama a little bit given her high profile appearances in the media and have found her be at the least a race zealot. To say that she would not have a substantial impact beyond bolstering her husbands resolve and changing the color of the drapes is naive. This is a woman whose graduate thesis focuses exclusively on the social aspect of racism, and she would clearly advocate democratic socialism and judicial activism during a term that will be active in selecting a substantial part of the judicial arm of our government. With state and local government power already waning, we can ill afford more abstract interpretation of our supposedly “living” constitution. I encourage the media to lock and load.
May 21, 2008 - 2:48 am 4. Ed Wallis:There have been “active” first ladies since at least FDR’s wife, Eleanor (sp?), who have gotten in the stagelight. That is to say, this is nothing new…other than that this time it is prior to the candidate being elected. Of course it is correct to scrutinize this woman; she campaigns for the candidate. Fabulous related article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/barry_honey_can_we_talk.html
May 21, 2008 - 2:49 am 5. lee:“I was never proud of my country before my husband ran for the president” is such an outlandishly self serving statement. If she was dissatified with the country for legitimite reasons she would recognize how the issues are complex and defy easy solutions, much less from one individual. Reverend Wright might accuse her of selling out to her husband.
May 21, 2008 - 2:52 am 6. Sheila:I know this is shallow in light of the article and the other posters’ comments….but while we’re on the subject of Michelle, will someone please find her a good stylist!
May 21, 2008 - 3:43 am 7. Chris in Toronto:@Sheila:
Sorry, but I disagree. I think she’s gorgeous as is, as much as I hate what she says.
May 21, 2008 - 5:11 am 8. John Samford:Yes, Remember the Checkers speech? I do. If a dog is fair, then a wife is fair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkers_speech
Or, as President Johnson was wont to say; “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
If Colin Powell was running for President, he would have won the nomination and have a 20+ point lead in the polls now.
Powell isn’t going to run because his wife understands that she, her kids, and the family pets are fair game and refuses to be subjected to the abuse. That is why Condi isn’t running either.
Boycott the MSM!
May 21, 2008 - 5:26 am 9. TomJW:If a spouse is speaking publicly at a campaign event, as Michelle did and continues to do, then her speeches are fair game. As noted, any Bill Clinton’s comment are automatically fair game. The Obamas are true whiners. We are in for a rough ride.
May 21, 2008 - 5:39 am 10. Jack salami:She could have more clearly articulated her affirmative action slogan by saying, “It’s about time”. In other words, a Black should have been president long ago based upon some her quota system.
May 21, 2008 - 5:54 am 11. Evelyn:What a handy way for Obama to shut up any criticism or scrutiny of what he believes in, and what influences him. Just say “Hands off!” Ridiculous. Of course Michelle is fair game. She’s campaigning with him. She’s very verbal. She says controversial things. (Not that the media will ever put either one of them in their sights, which I find just as repugnant as Obama’s “forbidden list”.)
May 21, 2008 - 6:40 am 12. Gringo:Michelle is not exactly Bess Truman or Mamie Eisenhower, little wifey in the kitchen baking toll house cookies. Nobody put Mamie or Bess to task for minimal participation in the political arena. Laura Bush primarily confined her public speaking to uncontroversial areas in which she had some professional expertise: libraries and reading. Michelle Obama has degrees from Ivy League schools. She holds a $300k job. She loves to hear herself giving speeches talking about a “mean” America she finds it difficult to be proud of- unless America makes her first lady. Michelle’s speeches are excellent advertisements for McCain.
If Barack had any political sense, he would inform his wife that for the next 5 1/2 months, her primary duty is to bake 20 dozen toll house cookies daily. If Michelle and Barack can’t stand the political heat from her big mouth, perhaps Michelle should stay in the kitchen. As a McCain supporter, I wish that Michelle would give five speeches daily.
May 21, 2008 - 7:11 am 13. tanstaafl:Exempt from scrutiny ?
If Michelle Obama will quit speechifying and/or lecturing me from an assumed vantage point that “me and Barack” are qualified to instruct as to the nature (and shortcomings) of this country, then I will “lay off” her somewhat arrogant and myopic observations.
Not to mention the lousy grammar.
May 21, 2008 - 7:14 am 14. j clark:First Ladies were always off limits until Hillary Clinton made herself co-President then the gloves came off. If Michelle ” I hate whitey” Obama wants to continue shooting her mouth off then she is now political game. This family is pack of crybabies. What were not supposed to question everything that this guy and his wife espouse? forget it they are both to be grilled and scrutinized.She is nothing more then a power crazed weirdo like Hillary.
May 21, 2008 - 7:18 am 15. tanstaafl:(Michelle) Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of “cynics, sloths, and complacents.”
Complacent isn’t even a noun.
Please, if you want me to take you seriously, at the very least criticize me grammatically.
May 21, 2008 - 7:28 am 16. cfbleachers:If the belief system and worldview of the candidate is not of foremost importance, it is hard to find something that surpasses them.
Sen. Obama’s belief system and his worldview have been shaped by some extremely strident anti-America voices. It appears that Michelle’s has as well.
They are bathed in deep criticism of America, racially, economically, geo-politically…they really do not like Middle America very much and have consistently been harshly critical of those who reside there.
When Michelle spews out her harsh condemnations about us being mean, slothful, angry, and tellingly reveals that she has lacked pride in us, she isn’t fibbing. She is giving it to us straight and hard. She doesn’t like us. WE are “them” to her, her entire life.
When, in private moments…Sen. Obama is less guarded and uber-prepared, he says Middle America are gun-clingers and religion-clingers. That “clinger stuff” clangs off our ears.
But if your worldview and belief system had been formed and shaped by the likes of “Frank” Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers & Bernardine Dorhn…if you were pummelled each week with the racial bile from TUCC with its anti-capitalist underpinnings…perhaps your belief system and worldview would be as angry, hostile, filled with loathing and suspicion and resentment.
To the extent that she offers up those statements as a surrogate for Sen. Obama, then they are of paramount importance to examine. Because, heaven knows…the “in the bag” deadwood media won’t examine them.
Not only has Michelle given us a glimpse into their shared worldview and their very consistent belief system shared for two decades at TUCC…but she has advised us that she views corporate America as an unworthy goal, that Sen. Obama will force us to change, and he has indicated that we are too interested in being capitalist consumers with SUV’s and too much food and adjusted thermostats. “Other countries” won’t feel good about us if we are “haves” and they are “have nots”.
This paints the picture that we ought to be recognizing by now. He is not running to change OUR country FOR US…he is doing it because in his (and her) worldview…they never liked us very much anyway. When Sen. Obama went off to college, “Frank” Marshall Davis told him not to believe in the myth of what America was all about, and to not forget “his people”. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan say that you people are evil. William Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn say that capitalism is evil and needs to be overthrown.
YOU are the problem. YOU are angry, hostile, mean, slothful, …YOU are the reason to not be proud of America. YOU cling to religion. YOU cling to guns. YOU wear flag pins on your lapels and engage in the wrong type of patriotism. YOU drive SUV’s and eat too much food and keep your thermostat at 72 degrees.
The change they have been waiting for…is away from YOU.
How dare you connect the dots between what they say and do…and what their worldview and belief systems are. Those are distractions away from the real issue. YOU.
May 21, 2008 - 8:11 am 17. Larry J:If Democrats believe that the candidate’s wife is off limits, why did so many of the attack Laura Bush in 2000 for the auto accident she had as a teenager?
Sounds like the same old “Heads I win, tails you lose” argument from the Democrats. Sorry, but I refuse to play, especially when Obama’s wife isn’t just a background figure but instead is an active member of his campaign.
May 21, 2008 - 8:28 am 18. Dave:Uhh…since when is hypocrisy from the left anything new?
Let me criticize your spouse if they are hurting me politically, but keep your mouth shut about mine if you don’t like what she is saying.
BTW, since when can ANY citizen criticize and vent against AMERICA, (which Michelle has done in the “benefit” of Barack) and not expect to be judged, commented on, and talked about…
It’s ridiculous in the extreme that just because her husband is the candidate and not her…that WE as voters, or even members of a political party or campaign, must “lay off” her comments about US and OUR country! The hubris is neck high here and the elitism is reeking out of all pores…!
May 21, 2008 - 9:01 am 19. The Wednesday Winkie Edition « Obi’s Sister:[...] Are political spouses fair game? You betcha…. [...]
May 21, 2008 - 9:33 am 20. mary:Michelle will have the title, position, and responsibilities of First Lady if Obama is elected, so her profile and character are every bit as significant a factor. And frankly, I kringe at the thought of having a woman who rails against “Whitey” from Pastor Wright’s pulpit as our ambassador-of-anything. And on the other hand, we have Cindy, who take a babe-in-dire-need from the hands of Mother Theresa, no less, to raise as her own! As for Cindy’s personal financial info, she has a prenup and her own stellar career separate and apart from John’s…the IRS has more than vetted her! But you might want to ask Michelle about her contributions and relations with El-Hady and Kindheart, an Islamic group shut down by the government in 2006 for its direct ties and money chain to terrorist groups like HAMAS.
May 21, 2008 - 9:38 am 21. tanstaafl:“Other countries” won’t feel good about us if we are “haves” and they are “have nots”.
If you listen closely to Barry, his shtick on any topic at all revolves around a notion of “fairness”.
For example, in his direct questioning of General Petraeus last month in Senate hearings, Barry wondered if certain Iraqis who have switched sides (for money) from “the terrorists” to the Iraqi gov’t were being treated “fairly” as they were heavily scrutinized (and then rejected) for officially joining the Iraqi police force.
Who defines “fairness” ? Barry, of course. And Michelle.
Barry was very tentative and trying to be in control with his questioning of Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker. Hillary seemed like an abashed little girl.
I don’t think either of these individuals running for President of the US really “gets it”.
YOU drive SUV’s and eat too much food and keep your thermostat at 72 degrees.
If Barry says we keep our thermostats too high, I would ask him all about his own huge expenditure of money and resources (and jet fuel
) throughout this too-many-years-long campaign.
It is correct that the Obamas know better for us than we know for ourselves. As does (huge government and “we attach your salary if you don’t purchase healthcare”) Hillary.
May 21, 2008 - 9:46 am 22. mary:and by the way, cfbleachers and others, your comments are terrific!
May 21, 2008 - 9:47 am 23. schnargley:Although normally I find macho-man behavior quite phony, primitive, offensive and denigrating to womens equality, in this case I think it is justified, and even commendable. I suppose these backwards religious-zealot tobaco-chewing Republicans from the remote hills of Tennessee were trying to recreate the specter of white plantation owners who raped their female slaves by jumping all over her. No wonder Michelle is bitter and angry at Amerikkka! She’s right!
Now instead of raping Obama´s wife, let us focus on the real issues of this campaign- Hope and Change for America, our national soul´s survival and redemption from 200 years of evil oppresive imperialism and oppression of minorities and the poor.
May 21, 2008 - 10:00 am 24. john:schnargley:
“I suppose these backwards religious-zealot tobaco-chewing Republicans from the remote hills of Tennessee were trying to recreate the specter of white plantation owners who raped their female slaves by jumping all over her”
They would have probably been Democrats since that party has been in charge during and have been responsible for some of the most racist
May 21, 2008 - 10:20 am 25. Just for you, Kevin (our latest commenter)…Are Political Spouses Fair Game? « Tizona’s Weblog:crap in this country. Just look under the hooded sheets of the past and you would likely have found a Democrat. The racism of The Democratic party has beed swept under the rug or blamed on the Republicans.
[...] the rest of this story at Pajamas Media [...]
May 21, 2008 - 10:30 am 26. gordo:You can tell alot about a man based on the people he surrounds himself with. Seems to me that would include his wife given that she is on the stump. Total fair game, just needs to be handled well, otherwise she becomes a “victim,” which is a mantle she wears well and proudly.
May 21, 2008 - 10:53 am 27. abu al-fin:Am I the only one who can see the dark scarlet glowing letters etched into Michelle Obama’s forehead? They haunt me, they haunt G.D. Amerikkka. What do they say? They look like two A’s next to each other. Could they have a double meaning?
May 21, 2008 - 11:05 am 28. Believer:If you think that mouth won’t keep flapping should he be elected, think again.
And if you think she won’t give us a piece of her mind should we reject any part of their program, think again.
Buyer’s remorse will set in real early. As much a nightmare as most of us think he will be, she, alone, could seal his fate to one term.
That is, if we’re still here in 2012. If you don’t share:
Michelle’s opinion of Americans,
Wright’s opinion of Whites and Jews,
Ayers’ and Dohrn’s radicalism,
Marxist/Communist leanings,
Activist judges (making laws to reflect their values, not yours),
TUCC/Black Liberation Theology teachings,
America relinquishing her sovereignty,
and if you love Israel about as much as you love America – you better get yourself to the voting booth in November.
Because he will bring change to America. And you’ll not like it one little bit.
Remember: he’ll have both houses of congress on his side. It probably won’t be long before he’ll have the Supreme Court on his side too. That’s all three branches of government…
That’s when – if you’ve never prayed before – you’ll be on your knees. We’ll be needing some major help down here.
May 21, 2008 - 11:24 am 29. jerry:I remember a question put to Boris Yeltsin during his visit to the US early in the Clinton administration. An earnest reporter asked him if he consulted wife on important decisions. His answer to the startled reported were “the Russian people elected me to office not my wife.” Perhaps all Presidential candidates should pay attention to Boris and tell their spouses to sit down and shut up.
May 21, 2008 - 11:49 am 30. Maisy P:If a candidate’s wife is out making speeches on her own, as a de facto representative of the candidate, her words are fair game.
May 21, 2008 - 11:49 am 31. AJ:Typical double standards from the Democrats and their media. Michelle Obama is an angry, racist, hypocritical, lying witch. She goes around the country brainwashing students and crowds on behalf of her naive husband, so why the heck is she off limits? I smell a typical leftist agenda.
Cindy McCain is barely visible, exudes class, yet is slammed by the left-wing slander/libel machines—ditto Laura Bush.
Just ONCE, it would be nice if the Dems played by fair rules.
Meanwhile, a good compilation of Obama’s gaffes here:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/
If a GOPer said ONE of these things, he’d be demonized and Keith Olbermann would lead with it. But here? Nothing of the sort.
May 21, 2008 - 11:54 am 32. Texas Gal:I thought the TN GOP ad was a little amateurish but the theme was effective. I just would have produced a more sophisticated version.
But I tell you, the GOP and the Republicans better be willing to get down in the dirt and fight with everything we’ve got or we are going to loose this election. High road be damned!
Of course, candidate’s wives are fair game especially when they put themselves out there on the stump. What is remarkable about the things that have come from Michelle Obama’s mouth is how easily they roll, without hesitation or even a second thought … unlike her husband who lets his true thoughts be known behind closed doors.
I mean really, if Laura Bush had said the things that Michelle Obama has said back during the 2000 election, the DNC would have nailed her to a cross and lit the fire.
Remember: he’ll have both houses of congress on his side. It probably won’t be long before he’ll have the Supreme Court on his side too. That’s all three branches of government…
YEP!
And all those holier-than-thou conservatives that just CAN’T bring themselves to vote for McCain, need to take a good serious look at the real likelihood of a consolidation of all 3 branches in Democratic control. This is their 4-year plan with a sole source renewable option that will be ensured by the increased foot soldiers in the booth in November.
May 21, 2008 - 1:08 pm 33. Grover Pillsbury:I remember when Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine was running (I think for VP) that he created a scene in front of the Manchester NH Union Leader about disparaging remarks about his wife. That action cost him dearly. His campaign stalled; he never did recover. NOBODY LIKES A CRYBABY!
May 21, 2008 - 2:13 pm 34. Larry Sheldon:Strawman question.
If a person speaks up for or against a person or question, what ever that person says is subject to review.
May 21, 2008 - 2:13 pm 35. Rufus Mubatu:Michelle Obama is off limits! You white people don’t have the right to judge a black woman.
May 21, 2008 - 3:49 pm 36. Night Owl:Ditto Larry Sheldon.
RE: Believer:
“Remember: he’ll have both houses of congress on his side. It probably won’t be long before he’ll have the Supreme Court on his side too. That’s all three branches of government…”
You’ve touched on the independent voter’s worst nightmare.
Let’s see: A man with a cult-like following in the WH, with party majorities in the House & Senate, that will rubber-stamp his court appointments. And an enabling, fawning media. Checks & balances? Who needs them. The people demand change, dammit!
If Obama wins, given the scenario above, we probably will get changed, whether we like it or not.
May 21, 2008 - 4:00 pm 37. AnnaS:Gringo,
May 21, 2008 - 6:42 pm 38. venividivici:Bess and Mamie had a lot more opinions then given credit. They just knew to keep quiet in public. J. Clark is right, when Hillary became part of the administration she opened herself up to scrutiny, as has Michelle Obama. If the candidate’s wife does not want public scrutiny she should not make public political statements.
Michelle Obama is off limits! You white people don’t have the right to judge a black woman.
That may have seemed true once, but it isn’t any more. This is 2008 and I reserve the right to judge anyone and anything. Deal with it.
May 22, 2008 - 4:38 am 39. TomJW:YEP! May 21, 2008 – 1:08 pm
May 22, 2008 - 5:04 am 40. Sheila:Yes. I’m holier than you. I fear losing the sovereignty of my country to McCain and his LaRaza crowd. I fear McCain wrecking the economy with global warming policies. I fear that the senate and house will be sweep fairly clean of conservatives, then it doesn’t matter who is president, marxist or cross-the-aisle-liberal, all the retarded programs will be enacted.
But it’s good to hear that only party matters to you, not what that party stands for.
venividivici
I have chosen to believe that Rufus Mubatu was being sarcastic in his post….otherwise he/she is just a racist idiot.
May 22, 2008 - 5:45 am 41. Barry Pryor:If you open your mouth expect it to fill with flies…
May 22, 2008 - 6:12 am 42. Texas Gal:But it’s good to hear that only party matters to you, not what that party stands for.
May 22, 2008 – 5:04 am
I consider myself a conservative, have been one ever since I out grew my idealistic youth and became a pragmatic adult. Quite frankly I care more about my country than the GOP but you on the other hand accuse me of only caring about the Party and then go on to whine about the Party’s chosen candidate. It is the narcissism of the holier-than-thou conservatives that cause them to be hypocritical. They care more about making the GOP in their image than they care about our country.
May 22, 2008 - 6:50 am 43. TomJW:Texas Gal:
May 22, 2008 - 8:45 am 44. Texas Gal:We care about keeping this country operating under the exisitng constitution. McCain and the present Repub party won’t do it. Pushing the whole country further to the left (which is what Repubs have been doing since Bush I) doesn’t work. I find it hypocritical to be claim to be conservative and vote for lefties.
TomJW:
We care about keeping this country operating under the exisitng constitution.
No you don’t. You care about teaching the GOP a lesson. If you cared about keeping our country operating under the existing constitution you would realize that the greatest threat are the appointments to the SCOTUS under an Obama administration, especially with both the House and Senate in the hands of his puppet masters.
I find it hypocritical to be claim to be conservative and vote for lefties.
See this is where your narcissism comes in. You don’t get to define the criteria for conservative, but you think you do. Because I care more about our country than the Party you accuse me of voting for lefties. The fact of the matter is, McCain is not my preference, but the majority of those who call themselves Republicans have selected him through our process to represent the GOP in ’08. Rather than feeling like I need to punish them for their decision and suffer the consequences, I accept their decision because I care about our country and I’m deeply concerned about irreversible harm that will be done by an Obama administration.
As Believer says: “Remember: he’ll have both houses of congress on his side. It probably won’t be long before he’ll have the Supreme Court on his side too. That’s all three branches of government…”
That’s the reality.
May 22, 2008 - 9:30 am 45. TomJW:John is going to replace the 3 outgoing liberal judges with who? Alito clones? No. He didn’t want him. He will reach across the aisle and give us some Dem approved liberal judges. That’s how the Supreme Court stays even.
May 22, 2008 - 10:45 am 46. TomJW:Repubs as well as conservatives will get tired of the liberal Repubs they put in office. They will realize that the Repub elite keep moving to the left John will not get reelected.
After 4 years and Hillary gets the nomination for the Dems and gets elected with a bigger majority of Dem senators and representatives. Then the conservative judges start to retire. That’s were the hold-your-nose-crowd-and-vote-Repub fails. They look at 1 election season at a time.
The damage from amnesty by John or Obama will be bad enough. We will get a liberal bench if we don’t stop voting liberal now.
“That’s the reality.”
May 22, 2008 - 10:52 am 47. LCSusan:No. John won’t nominate constitutional judges. He said he was against Roberts and Alito when their nominations came up. He will work across the aisle as he always has to get a judge approved by the liberal senate. Those judges will be liberal, but will at least only replace the 3 most likely judges to resigned, who are also liberal.
After amnesty and other ‘reach across the aisle’ legistration, he will not be reelected. hillary is waiting in the wings for Obama to fail so she can be nominated in 2012. That’s when she gets elected and constitutional judges start retiring. That’s when it will all fall apart.
We can’t move this country to the right by voting left.
Mrs. Obama is an intelligent, attractive and well spoken woman, she will clearly be one of the Senator’s biggest assets; however, she may also become one of the campaign’s biggest liabilities just as former President Clinton became for HRC.
http://strictlyanecdotal.com/2008/02/26/michelle-obama-crystallizes-my-view-point-about-the-obama-campaign.aspx
May 22, 2008 - 10:56 am 48. Believer:Forgive me, TomJW,
I see you sitting in your highchair spitting peas.
You see yourself as the Amazing Kreskin.
What are you going to do other than cry?
May 22, 2008 - 11:27 am 49. TomJW:Believer:
May 22, 2008 - 12:03 pm 50. Believer:Nice gibberish. Should I surrender to left as you have?
Haven’t others already spoken of supporting any local conservatives running in their area. This is not the first time this situation has been spoken of and you shouldn’t act like it is.
I live in the Republic of Rhode Island and rarely have a chance to support a conservative candidates. Foretunately, when Steve Laffey run in primary against RINO Lincoln Chafee in 2006, the Repub party in their wisdom decided to interfere in the state primary and funded Chafee to the hilt. If you run as a conservative, you run against the GOP in this state. Chafee went down against Whitehouse without conservative support. This is expected in many senate in house runs this year for the Repubs as well. They always lose congress seats when they don’t run on conservative issues.
What is your solution as the Repubs give further ground in congress and maybe get their liberal candidate elected?
TomJW:
I know your frustration more than you might imagine. I live in Hawaii…
From the outset, I wasn’t happy with any GOP candidate and McCain was probably my last choice. I was fit to be tied on the eve of the Florida primary. Remember what McCain pulled? I said I would NEVER cast a vote for him should he be the nominee. I would sit it out. It’s pointless to vote here anyway.
But then I began learning more about Obama. Especially as his nomination looked more likely. The prospect of the damage he could do in the few years he might be President is something I’m not willing to take a chance on. He’s that bad. And times are that critical.
I think we have no choice but to work like crazy to make sure the lesser of two “evils” wins. And then make sure all pressure is brought to bear on him to be as conservative as possible. And on congressmen around the country too. Remember, if our primaries were only open to Republicans he might not be our candidate. Get that changed!
But I’m with you. We lose more than just in the literal sense when we don’t run strong conservatives. There is the young Bobby Jindal who might be our candidate in 2012. If McCain thinks he can run for a second term after playing the liberal, we can work to throw him overboard.
What do you do? You tell the truth. You tell it straight. You educate. Why do we have problems – because we’ve been caving to liberals. We have to make the case for our values. And, hopefully, Jindal will prove the case for the conservative over the next few years as he rolls up his sleeves and turns that mess in Louisiana around. We’ll point to that.
And I have no problem telling anyone right now that George Bush’s playing nice with the libs is why he’s so unpopular. The libs would like us to think it’s because of the war. No it’s not. It’s because he’s been acting like a lib. It’s a loser every time.
McCain had better figure that out if he wins. I hope he’s been playing more liberal than he’ll actually be just to get elected. Though I don’t respect him much if that’s the case. You say who you are and what you’ll do and trust that the voter understands yours is the better way.
The Dems have been running a more conservative candidate for Congress lately, which may explain why they beat our last few candidates. We have to hope they’ll cross over and vote with us from time to time. I know how pathetic that sounds.
I’ve got the same plate of two vegetables before me, and I don’t like them either. But I hope I’ve grown up enough now to know I’ve got to choose one, because that’s all I’ll be getting the next four years.
You didn’t answer my question, by the way. What are you going to do? Will you keep spitting out those peas?
May 22, 2008 - 5:38 pm 51. TomJW:I’m not spitting peas, I’m telling the truth, as you seem to admit.
May 23, 2008 - 3:57 am 52. Heartland, PA:I remember Clinton’s first term. He had a Dem house and they couldn’t work with him. I only have the hope that Dems stay as disorganized and rebellious. With McCain I fear the country club Repubs and RINOs will get all the support they need from Dems when McCain reaches across the aisle. More conservatives and Repub get disillusioned and 2012 then becomes a disaster for conservatives. This is after McCain opens the borders for Mexicans and terrorists alike. I’m downwind of NYC and will indirectly feel that mistake.
Hey gang, “The Michelle” is so “on the table”: she is the ALPHA (vicious being: chronically maligning our country) individual in that relationship; Barry is the OMEGA (weakling) character who lost control of her belligerence. She will be the force vs. authoritarian in the presidency……if he wins! So “get ready” folks, Michelle, covertly, will be our president.
When “The Michelle” became a hugh part-of Barry’s campaign; when she became a provocative, anti-American, hate spewing surrogate…….SHE JUMPED on every TABLE IN EVERY STATE AND COMMONWEALTH in America.
May 23, 2008 - 1:05 pm 53. Ken Hahn:Michelle Obama is a serious campaigner. She deserves the respect of serious criticism.
May 23, 2008 - 3:52 pm 54. Michael Spurlock:Sorry, but it’s a dumb question.
May 23, 2008 - 9:16 pm 55. Nahanni:A SPOUSE IS RUNNING!
Duh.
She has no business being in politics and the only reason she is, is that she used to pretend to be Bubba’s wife.
And look at what the lefties have tried to do to Laura Bush.
Hands off?
Hypocrites.
Michelle Obama has doing her best Evita wannabe act and therefore she is fair game.
It appears that both you and your husband can dish it out but can not take it. If you can’t handle getting hit then you should have not get on the field and I guarantee you the hits both of you are going to be taking after the convention will make what has transpired so far look like love taps.
This ain’t Chicago, honey, where the Democratic party machine “anoints” candidates and they magically get elected.
May 24, 2008 - 5:53 am 56. David P:I would say a historic pattern of ‘America hating’ by a candidate’s spouse might be something we should examine further.
May 24, 2008 - 3:31 pm 57. Commentary » Blog Archive » Flotsam and Jetsam:[...] Michelle Obama is her husband’s most important advisor, it seems all of her views, associations, and earmark requests are fair game. That’s the standard for John [...]
Aug 13, 2008 - 6:59 am