Email This to a Friend
Should Conservatives Really Want to Run Against Obama?
Obama defeating Clinton won't guarantee a GOP victory in November, but, at this point, many conservatives believe Obama vs. McCain is the best match-up for them.
Back in February, the de facto general of the conservative movement’s 2008 battle strategy, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, launched what he called Operation Chaos: his plan to make the Democratic slugfest between Obama and Hillary Clinton as long and as bloody as possible by getting conservatives to bolster Clinton wherever possible.
At the time, Barack Obama appeared to be growing into a threatening juggernaut. Not only was he raising staggering sums of cash, his post-racial campaign theme was striking a chord that’s near and dear to the American psyche. Here was the “black leader” whose example would repudiate Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, prove that America isn’t a racist country, and put the whole race issue in America’s rear view mirror once and for all.
But early this week, Limbaugh declared an “operational pause” in his combat plan. Limbaugh said it was because of damage that Jeremiah Wright’s jeremiads and the aftermath had done to Barack Obama’s campaign.
Indeed, the beautiful, harmonious dream that was the Obama campaign has been shattered into a thousand pieces.
We have Obama’s anti-white, anti-American spiritual mentor going on a rampage, his supporters are shouting “racism” at the top of their lungs, and threats that black Americans will sit home or even leave the Democratic Party if he isn’t given the nomination. Consider how many of the themes that Obama has run on that have been shattered by this turn of events. Obama claimed to be the post-racial candidate, but his campaign has devolved into an ugly racial scrum that has probably left a lot of white Americans wondering, with good reason, whether Obama is secretly hostile to them. Obama told Americans he could unify the country, but his candidacy and the Reverend Wright issue are tearing the Democratic Party apart. If he hasn’t even been able to bring his own party together yet, how can he possibly unite the country?
Then there’s Obama’s answer to the charges that he’s not qualified to be President. His reply is that his judgment is so sound that what he lacks in experience can be made up by his superior decision-making. Really? The guy who claims that he had no idea Jeremiah Wright was such a radical after spending 20 years sitting in the man’s church has great judgment? If he really had great judgment, he would have moved on to a new church 19 years, 11 months, and 3 weeks ago at best, or would have switched churches before he decided to run for the presidency at worst.
These hammer blows have had great effect on Obama’s campaign and must be giving the super delegates who will decide the race a major case of heartburn because, pretty clearly, it is now Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama who would be the stronger candidate against John McCain in November.
When you look at the demographic groups both candidates are capturing, you’ll find that Barack is dominating amongst black Americans, highly educated white, liberal Americans, and young voters. The first two groups will go heavily for the Democrats in November no matter who the nominee is, and young voters are notoriously unreliable on Election Day.
On the other hand, Hillary has run stronger than Obama in most of the swing states and is winning over older white voters, Hispanics, and female voters, all of which are demographic groups that the Democrats desperately need to do well with in order to win in November.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom –which is that Obama’s voters will defect to McCain or sit home in November if their man loses– has been contradicted in poll after poll. It is Hillary’s voters, not Barack’s voters, who are considerably more likely to become reluctant McCain backers or alternately sleep in on election day if Hillary loses the election.
If Hillary manages to claw her way back from oblivion to capture the Democratic nomination, that act in and of itself will significantly strengthen her candidacy.
After all, Hillary doesn’t have much more experience than Barack, doesn’t have great national security credentials, and is perceived, correctly, with having accomplished almost nothing in her adult life without her husband carrying much of the load. But if she has the tenacity to overcome Barack Obama in a race where the mainstream media and many of the elites in her own party have aligned against her, many Americans would give her a certain amount of much needed credit for toughness, grit, and for showing grace under fire. Even most Clinton-loathing conservatives would be willing to admit at this point that if it came right down to it, they’d rather have her handling national security issues and phone calls at 3 AM than Barack Obama.
These facts have not been lost on Democrats, who in a recent Fox News poll, said Hillary would be a tougher opponent for McCain than Obama by a 48% to 38% margin. Additionally, the latest polls from Gallup, Rasmussen Tracking, and FOX News all show that Democrats now prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama as a candidate.
At this point, Obama still appears to be the favorite to win the nomination, but as it becomes clearer and clearer that Hillary is the more electable of the two candidates. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the superdelegates start to flock towards Clinton.
What it may eventually come down to is whether the superdelegates are willing to suffer personal attacks to select the candidate with the better chance to win in November or whether they’d rather make the netroots and black Democrats happy while simultaneously significantly increasing the chances that John McCain will end up in the White House. That’s why conservatives should root for Obama to put Hillary away once and for all. It wouldn’t guarantee us victory in November, but clearly Obama vs. McCain is the best match-up for us.
Time will tell if the Democratic superdelegates are going to play along.
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.
 |
 |
 |
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.
54 Comments
1. dan:i’ll only reiterate my opinion that obama is a good man and probably the strongest black candidate the USA could field at this point – aside from colin powell – but that he’s possessed by ideas that would be dangerous to direct too much of our attention to at this particular point. i think an obama-mccain or a hilary-mccain contest will result in a mccain victory largely because i believe enough americans will see that the anti-war stance as adopted by the dems is (1) unpractical from any reasonable appreciation of our national interest, and (2) in any case disingenuous because they obviously are not going to be drawing down our troops or rearranging our alliances in any manner at all consistent with the anti-war party’s expectations. that’s it – president mccain here we come. personally i think obama’s definitely a lefty of an annoying 1980s type but i believe the normal patterns of government and social sentiment would bunt their worst affects. but, as giuliani said when asked whether we should address the Don’t Ask Don’t policy, “now is not the time for that.”
May 2, 2008 - 10:28 am 2. dan:*blunt
*Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
friggin typos!
May 2, 2008 - 10:29 am 3. huxley:I can’t fault JH’s logic and overall I agree with him. Deep down I find it hard to believe that Obama, having almost no experience and accomplishments and with such a bizarre hard-left background, could be electable.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t look forward to a matchup between the tall, elegant, young Obama against the squat, bald, old McCain. Obama might very well win, especially with the national mood for change. McCain is 5′7″ — historically speaking, short and bald is a double whammy in presidential elections. Plus, even though I don’t like Obama’s politics, I find myself drawn to him when I see and hear him.
Obama is an appealing figure but I think he would be a terrible president. Hillary would be less bad, so I hope she pulls an upset, even if by JH’s calculations she would be a stronger candidate against McCain.
May 2, 2008 - 10:49 am 4. petroman:The Clinton campaign will stoop to any level for a vote, forget the truth, use the rhetoric, they are not about average working Americans, they could care less about the price of gas at home or foreclosures, loss of jobs, healthcare.
She has been a Senator for how long?
What has she achieved as a Senator for the American people?
1. Energy secuirty? NO
Instead her flip flopping on ethanol (which is a big lie that is it better for the environment and better for energy independence– TOTAL SCAM: more petroleum is needed to produce ethanol) Scientific report have been available long before she voted for increase in biofuels -ethanol)
Oh and tax the oil companies profits ? for what? havent you drained the average American tax payer by taking your salary? Oil companies already pay taxes, and they pay dividends to their stockholders, more profits they have the more they pay out, the stockholders are mostly American individuals, institutional investors such as pension funds for American workers. SO SHE WANTS TO REDUCE THE MONEY PAID TO AMERICANS ON THEIR PENSIONS, SAVINGS, NEST EGGS and those who invest their savings by working hard?
AT the same time her husband pardoned a fugitive criminal who did not pay taxes, did deals with an embargoes nation and fled the country to avoid going to jail for not paying taxes.
2. Healthcare
Achievement: NONE
3. Education: Achievement :None
4. Security: Lied about reading the report and voting for it.
List goes on, wake up people smell the truth.
The gas tax proposal is another nonsensical illogical rhetoric and promotion of voter pandering
Several economists and energy experts are calling it what it is : USELESS
for example say if you buy 60 gallons of gas a month what is the saving? 60X.185=$11.00
The cost to the highway/bridges etc tax =billions
Wont it make it more dangerous for Americans on the road ? less money for fixing roads and bridges?
A few thousand votes is OK over the risk of losing lives?
Cant she do the math? perhaps she is mis-speaking and its not even 3AM .
Hers what is being said: please people spread the words far and wide, let the truth and facts be heard by Americans:
May 2, 2008 - 10:52 am 5. Xdpaul:The steps that Hillary would have to take in order to wrest what appears to be the “rightful” nomination of Obama could very well end up costing her in the general election, especially if it involves the inclusion of faux votes from Florida and Michigan.
I wouldn’t pay very much attention to long-forecasted early general election polls. Not four months ago, both Obama and Clinton were projected to beat any Republican candidate by the same poll. Before that, the only winner projected was President, I mean Nominee, I mean Also-ran, John Edwards.
May 2, 2008 - 11:00 am 6. Javelin:People seem to forget that McCain has a lot of appeal on both sides as a maverick, which is good for middle roaders or right of center people who aren’t ideologues like Mr. Hawkins. If Obama wins the nomination, a lot of people who had some independent(non talk show or classic liberal) ideas but are repelled at Obama’s black racialist nonsense background might go for McCain.
May 2, 2008 - 11:12 am 7. My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Should Conservatives Really Want to Run Against Obama?:[...] Ray wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama defeating Clinton won’t guarantee a GOP victory in November but, at this point, Obama vs. McCain is the best match-up as far as the right is concerned. [...]
May 2, 2008 - 11:13 am 8. IB Bill:I agree with this analysis, especially the part about folks coming to respect Hillary’s toughness.
But I support her for the Democratic nomination simply because I’d rather have her as president than Obama. In other words, I don’t think we should be rooting for the weaker candidate in the fall — but the better. That way, if we lose, the country won’t be as bad off.
The Clintons talk left, but at the end of the day, they’ll do most anything to get and remain in power. Even if it’s the right thing to do, or the conservative thing. Remember triangulation? That was when the GOP got what it wanted and Clinton got the credit. I was like, here, have the credit.
My two cents. YMMV.
May 2, 2008 - 11:32 am 9. ER:This is ridiculous crap from the right. Obama is the stronger candidate. McCain would have a much better chance against Clinton because she is such a despised figure among Republicans. This is the best-kept secret of the conservative media this primary season: secretly pushing Clinton so McCain doesn’t get kicked in the teeth by Obama in November.
Hillary cannot win statistically. Sorry, Republicans, your time has come to an end.
May 2, 2008 - 11:33 am 10. Sleepyhead:The Republicans only need to worry if these two make up and unite the ticket. Don’t see how they could do that, given the way they’ve treated each other. Don’t see how they can avoid it, given the electoral calculus mentioned above.
May 2, 2008 - 11:36 am 11. JBB:One of the reasons why McCain is the better candidate is his willingness to try and work with the other side. Out of all three candidates he’s the only one who has even tried to work with the other side. That is why he is trying to repair so much of the rift created him and the core conservatives. He’s the real agent of compromise when it comes to some of these issues and even though I don’t like some of his stances like campaign reform and illegal immigration at least he tries to get something accomplished while others just talk or duck the issues all together. Obama and Clinton are no different then the others. They will only tow the party line and Obama we’re just now finding out about who this guy is and the picture isn’t pretty.
May 2, 2008 - 11:47 am 12. JBB:#&%?>! BETWEEN him and the core conservatives
May 2, 2008 - 11:50 am 13. test » Blog Archive » Should Conservatives Really Want to Run Against Obama?:[...] James G. Poulos wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptObama defeating Clinton won’t guarantee a GOP victory in November but, at this point, Obama vs. McCain is the best match-up as far as the right is concerned. Read the rest of this great post here [...]
May 2, 2008 - 11:50 am 14. Rob:Hey ER! What’s this nonsense about secretly pushing Clinton. The loudest conservative media voice is very openly promoting Hillary. The idea is too prolong the Dims nominating process so they can continue to bloody each other. It’s called operation Chaos and appears to be succeeding brilliantly.
May 2, 2008 - 11:50 am 15. Rob:Never underestimate the gullibility of the American voter.
In 1976 Jimmah Chatah ran on little more than assurances of his integrity and honesty. “I will never lie to you” he told us, but he did. We believed him and elected the hands down uncontested worst President of at least the last 150 years.
Now we have two Democrat candidates with resumes about as thin as Carter’s and both just as lacking in character. Some choice!
May 2, 2008 - 12:08 pm 16. John the Libertarian:The Dems have no chance this election. And they know it. And they’re freaking.
May 2, 2008 - 12:31 pm 17. Ed Nol:Let’s pretend you are a sitting white male Dem Member of Congress and you have been winning elections over the Republicans by a slim margin. And let’s also pretend a State Senator who happens to be an African-American woman decides to run against you in the Primary.
Remember Super Delegates tend to be elected officials, and Democratic party Professionals so the pretends might be pretty accurate.
Now lets pretend as to which side is most likely to keep you in position of power?
Oh and we can also pretend the decision may mean the gain or loss of the House and the Senate.
If these pretensions are any where near correct a lot more is at stake than just the Presidential nomination.
May 2, 2008 - 12:58 pm 18. The Dude:It’s fun to watch though, isn’t it?
May 2, 2008 - 1:04 pm 19. ic:It doesn’t matter which one to run against as long as they keep up their fights in their convention.
May 2, 2008 - 1:17 pm 20. Sophie:Obama has lost his oomph.
May 2, 2008 - 1:24 pm 21. Sophie:Whereas Clinton is going 100mph.
May 2, 2008 - 1:24 pm 22. Bryan:ER:
Umm…this conservative actually would much prefer Hillary. Now, I do think her to be the manipulative, calculating, ruthless “Richard Nixon” of the Democratic party, but I think that wouldn’t be a bad thing to have on the national stage dealing with the middle east.
Obambi, on the other hand, is more like a weak, accommodating, vacillating “Jimmy Carter”.
Either way, if a Dem end up as president, I will not like the outcome. But I sure as heck prefer ruthless over vacillating.
May 2, 2008 - 1:58 pm 23. DO:Conservatives shouldn’t root for Obama to “put Hillary away once and for all”. They should root for him to continue limping to the end of the primary season – losing as many states as possible but not by enough to change the overall dynamic of the race. Preferably Hillary would have a popular vote lead and be close enough in pledged delegates that the Florida/Michigan result WOULD HAVE put her in the lead.
Conservatives should then hope that it is the DNC that continues to deny Florida/Michigan and the superdelegates will put him over the top. This will have the result of pissing off Hillary supporters in the maximum way possible and make them more likely to turn to McCain than had Obama won legitimately.
May 2, 2008 - 2:00 pm 24. Egfrow:On the surface it may look like putting the weaker candidate up against McCain may be a desired outcome. I think it’s a long term mistake to dilute the principals of conservatism by choosing a weak horse candidate on the opposing party. We are essentially weakening the conservative party overall by lowering our standards in hopes of a weak opposition.
The conservative candidate needs to earn the presidency by aspiring to conservative principals, and if he loses to a Leftist liberal then it’s better to absorb the lessons and revamp the party than to continue on the road to mediocrity. We keep lowering our expectations in hopes that the opposition is just inept. This is the wrong approach. The strongest candidate the Democrats have should go against McCain. Conservatives should embrace this if we truly believe in our own principles.
May 2, 2008 - 2:53 pm 25. ron:Obama is more electable
Go Obama / Edwards 08
May 2, 2008 - 7:56 pm 26. Ed:Indeed, conservatives should want Obama ultimately to become the candidate, but to take the longest amount of time possible being confirmed as the Democratic nominee (such as following multiple convention ballots). That’s the ideal scenario.
May 2, 2008 - 9:44 pm 27. Ed:Egfrow @ 2:53
Unfortunately, it’s too late for your scenario in 2008, as Republicans have already passed the torch to McCain, who does not appear to believe in aspiring to conservative principles with any appreciable conviction. McCain is a weak candidate who needs a weaker candidate in order to win. Every now and then I indulge the fantasy that there might be some way for McCain, Obama, and Clinton all to lose, but actually I realize all too well that it’s already too late for mainstream conservatism with McCain being the Republican standard-bearer in the 2008 presidential election.
May 2, 2008 - 9:54 pm 28. Nicolo M.:“McCain is a weak candidate who needs a weaker candidate in order to win.”
Ah, the ideologue. Thank God, most of the world isn’t like them. To the rest of us McCain is the only Republican who might possibly win in a heavily Democratic year, but he does not have enough “principles” for dear Ed, whatever they might be. Never mind that McCain is the strongest national defense candidate in many years and has been the strongest advocate against earmarks in the Congress. It’s not enough for Ed. Nothing ever will be, I’m afraid.
May 2, 2008 - 10:11 pm 29. Ed:“Dear Ed,” huh? I’m glad you find me “Dear.” I’m not an ideologue. I just see no end to the spend, spend, spend addiction that has grabbed hold of the Republican party in the Bush era. We had good candidates but they all lost, partly because certain states allowed Democrats to vote in Republican primaries.
1) McCain is an economic ignoramus. The useless quick-fix “gas tax holiday” is but one example. Conservatives know that we need to start drilling in ANWR, like, yesterday — we should have started during the Clinton era, but Clinton vetoed AK drilling in the mid-90s. Gas prices have no hope of going down this year and are going to stay high from now on unless we can strengthen the dollar; but drilling where there is an enormity of proven reserves will also help us down the road; we must think long-term, and rectify past egregious mistakes on energy policy which have bequeathed us today’s gasoline calamity, but McCain has been against ANWR drilling;
2) McCain buys into “Global Warming” (see the McCain-Lieberman Climate Change Legislation) which has the potential to take more money out of Americans’ pockets, based on pure scientific ignorance, than any left-wing proposal on the planet.
3) McCain is just not trustworthy on illegal immigration; he *says* he’s heard us loud and clear on the subject, but his stubbornness on McCain-Kennedy removes any reliability by McCain on this issue. Bottom line: people in this country should not be allowed to ignore American laws without penalty; I wish McCain would learn that, because he was willing to sell American citizenships for $5000 each a year ago.
4) McCain has consistently been a fly in the ointment for years on item after item of the conservative domestic agenda. Example: voting against the Bush Tax Cuts was wrong, period, no matter how much he tries to cover up for it now.
5) McCain is a carefree overregulator, which is also an attitude that mainstream conservatives oppose; McCain-Feingold is an orgy of overregulationan ongoing violation of the First Amendment and limits the ability of groups not associated with the Democrat or Republican parties from participating in the democratic process.
6) McCain’s Gang of 14 deal undercut the promotions of conservative judgments and dismayed conservatives far and wide by McCain’s willingness to cut backroom deals that kneecap Republican initiatives.
Shall I go on?
No, it’s safe to say, Nicolo, that it IS “not enough for me.” McCain is a significant part of the reason why Republicans lost the Senate in ‘06; McCain undercut the Republican party on many critical issues and greatly damaged the party’s unity and effectiveness on Capitol Hill. This is not just on one issue but on issue after issue. Once you get past national defense issues, he is not to be trusted by conservatives and indeed is a WEAK Republican. I could name many, many Republicans whom I and countless other conservatives would be much happier with.
One final point, Nicolo — why do you think the Republicans are having such a hard time fundraising with McCain as their standard-bearer in the 08 race? (See above…)
May 3, 2008 - 12:41 am 30. don L:Dear Ed.
Like you said only I would add that have a problem with a man who has no problem with killing preborns for medical experimenting purposes and I fear his arrogance and instability might just prove hime to be what libs have accused every GOP pres of for years – a gunslinger (think nuke button and temper) I also fear his addiction to media attention and his childish need to seek approval with the left. This could go hogwild at the international level – which enemy will he seek the favor of as president? Will he tell us all to go to hellas he did his conservative base on the immigration issue? All of the later shows his disloyalty. Yes they are mere priciples Nicolo M. – something too many in the GOP as in the lib wing of America, have no problem loathing.
As if America wasn’t founded upon principle instead of winning at any coast.
May 3, 2008 - 4:09 am 31. B.B.:The author (as many other political “analysts”) uses polls as objective facts to confirm his electoral fantasies. In our “scientific” times polls have replaced astrology. The kings and all ancient politicians, before beginning any important busyness, asked their official astrologers which consulted the planets. So the astrology was a very serious and “objective” science, based on the observation of the movements of the celestial corps and not on capricious “opinions” of “average” individuals. So if I had to make a choice between polls and astrology I would choose astrology. Fortunately, I am not a news paper’s writer or politician. So I need not make this choice. It would be interesting to know what American astrologers say about… about the possibility of a gay becoming US President. Why not, if St. Obamus (who, as some say, makes miracles) has all probabilities (according to astrologers) to realize his father’s dream (what dream, they don’t specify)?
May 3, 2008 - 4:32 am 32. Egfrow:Ed: 9:54 pm
I do realize that this is what is desired, but I think it’s better for Conservatives if McCain looses to a Leftist, and the USA find’s out really what Liberalism truly means to the future of a free nation. I remind other’s here that the founding Fathers were also Ideologues of the extremest measure. Idealogues who can concretize ideas into results. Ideas and action are what move the world while the masses kick and scream bloody murder.
May 3, 2008 - 5:24 am 33. John Samford:“Several economists and energy experts are calling it what it is : USELESS
for example say if you buy 60 gallons of gas a month what is the saving? 60X.185=$11.00″
464 gallons per capita per annum is the national average.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_per_capita.html
Data from Energy Information Administration, which I have never heard of. I assume it’s some sort of DoE offshoot, but I could be wrong.
May 3, 2008 - 7:46 am 34. Christine:Now to those economists and energy experts who claim it’s useless, I suggest they send the rest of us a check to cover the difference. After all, the money is nothing, correct? So they won’t miss it, correct?
Socialists. It’s always easy when some poor taxpayer gets handed the bill. Try paying it yourself this time. Keep track of your gas usage and every quarter, send the road Department a check. That will make the DoT happy, you happy and Me happy.
Meanwhil, I will put as much carbon in the air as I can.
You see, I know what a neutrino is and understand what it means when the sun’s neutrino production declines. The global warming moroooons are about to get blind sided.
With regards to McCain; No, he is not the perfect, far-right, conservative Republican. #1. Not all people who vote Republican, are far-right. There are a lot of people in the center, including myself. But, even for center of the road people, McCain is not perfect.
On the other hand, going left at this time in history, is a huge mistake. Without serious national security principles, the rest of the issues have no meaning. For any conservative to actually “wish” for an Obama/Clinton white house, to diss McCain, is risking suicide, literally.
Far too many Republicans are standing on principles at the moment and it is truly the wrong moment for this action.
Think safety first. No wusses in the white house.
May 3, 2008 - 8:18 am 35. Guy Launiere:Obama is a preacher: He’s a talker not a dooer. He have no solution for the problem he created in Michigan/Florida by remouving his name from the ballot, no solution for the fighting in démocratic party by refusing to be on the same ticket with Hillary as she proposed (no she did not said who should be président) His running mate will be a black person. , no solution as an immédiate releaf from high price gas. I don’t think he is aweare of thoses problems any more he’s got no problems he délivered his sermont , he’s a talker not a problem solver. I say the blacks peoples are racists when they vote for Obama at 92% I say 40% of them are voting for him only because he is black ,and that is racisinm. His speach is only talk , his pastor told us so and Obama told us also when he told Canadian that his talk about free trade was just to get votes. The real problem is the économy ant to strethten that one out you have to solve the war first. If you want to continue to play war you can forget médicare etc. I am sorry to see that the three candidates are on the same opinion on that. Hillary said she will end the war THE WRIGHT WAY , she also said she can’t let go free those threatening the U.S. Obama said he will stop the war in IRAK and Afghanistan is an other matter , He will also go for Bin Laden . As for McLain he said he want BinLaden and he will get him. They all saying we will be there maybe for 50 or 100 years. You’r crédit card is already full ,you are now charging your fantasy on you’r childrens crédit cards. You have to enderstand that 9/11 was désert storm, it was rétaliation for the butcher war of Bush the father. It has nothing to do with this war witch is not a war but only a game. Forget about BinLaden and get out of Irak and Afghanistan , in a month. Like Donald Trump said (I travel all over the world and évery body hates us, just déclare that we won and get out) By the way you can’t win, fir that you’l have to find the W.M.D. that does not exist. But in the end you will have and I wish you the président that you déserved.
May 3, 2008 - 10:12 am 36. petroman:“John Samford:
“Several economists and energy experts are calling it what it is : USELESS
for example say if you buy 60 gallons of gas a month what is the saving? 60X.185=$11.00″
464 gallons per capita per annum is the national average.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_per_capita.html
Data from Energy Information Administration, which I have never heard of. I assume it’s some sort of DoE offshoot, but I could be wrong.”
If the per capita per annum national average is 464 gallons, then at that rate, the annual savings with the gas tax holiday will be 464X0.185=$85 or $7 per month and for 3 months of summer $21
May 3, 2008 - 10:42 am 37. Night Owl:SO where is the true economic benefit to the gas consumer?
To me, it seems that the most negative fallout for Obama from the Wright issue, is that many people will now be more closely scrutinizing him and his record; especially the fence-sitting, non-rabid Obama supporters who initially saw him as someone new, fresh, relatively scandal-free, and as the article states, an added plus – a man of color.
This scrutiny may not be a good thing for someone with a record more left than Mrs. Clinton, who needs to attract moderates. And people who initially saw his “newness” appealing may now see it as undesirable inexperience.
In short, while the halo was on him, Obama seemed unstoppable. For many, the halo is gone, and he is only human after all; and hence just as fallible as Mrs. Clinton. A good thing in general, since we should scrutinize all candidates equally; a bad thing for Obama and Democrats. Bottom-line: I would hate to be a Dem superdelegate.
May 3, 2008 - 2:21 pm 38. Night Owl:I previously said:
“In short, while the halo was on him, Obama seemed unstoppable. For many, the halo is gone, and he is only human after all; and hence just as fallible as Mrs. Clinton.”
BTW, I should add as fallible as John McCain as well, hence anyone conclude I find McCain flawless.
May 3, 2008 - 2:27 pm 39. pete e:It’s true that Clinton is a better candidate than Obama and harder to beat. It’s also true the either one of them may end up president. Which candidate are you more comfortable with in that case?
For conservatives, there are two questions: how can we get our guy as president and how can we keep America safe?
May 3, 2008 - 4:00 pm 40. Concerned Citizen:Obama = Unelectable
He has near zero experience, shows poor judgement of character and his rhetoric is full of empty, meaningless phrases.
He has one of the most liberal voting records in congress. His voting record in IL was mostly “present”, a complete wimp out.
He hasn’t spent more than a handful of months doing anything for his constituency, unless you count running for the next higher office helping his constituency.
He considers most red state gun owning, church going people to be rubes — and there’s no denying this one, it’s all on tape.
These are the people who voted for George Bush and while many don’t like W now, there is no way they’ll go as liberal as Obama in November.
If he gets the nomination, he’ll be lucky to win more than a handful of states.
You heard it here first.
May 3, 2008 - 5:14 pm 41. Jack Goldenberg:Obama has realized something that most conservatives will never understand, that the War does not make us safer and it does hurt our economy. I’m sure Obama is smart enough to keep a small force in the area, but they’ll be deployed away from the action.
May 3, 2008 - 6:27 pm 42. huxley:Obama has also “realized” that he can run for president as one least experienced and accomplished candidate since William Jennings Bryan, and without doing anything to head off his predictable problems with Wright, his church and his associates in the Weather Underground. Who knows what else will blow up on him in the next month.
Obama campaigns on hope and hope is not a plan.
May 3, 2008 - 11:54 pm 43. Believer:Obama, it now seems, has seized the opportunity to make a case against Clinton – and effectively, McCain – on her(their) proposal to eliminate the gas tax over the summer. I agree it probably is a silly idea.
But Obama thinks this has legs. That his pointing out the foolishness of its efficacy will earn him points as one who, unlike the usual politician given to “gimmicks”, stands head and shoulders above them.
Russert asked him, “So you think this is a pander?” “Yes,” he replied.
Well, I’ll take an election year pander to the American voter any day over a 20-year pander to domestic terrorists.
I’m referring to Ayers/Dohrn of course. You see, that “tangential” relationship may even predate the one with the good Rev.
Check out “hinzsightreport.com” for the particulars.
May 4, 2008 - 12:08 pm 44. Cranky:“Obama thinks this has legs.”
Obama wouldn’t know a leg if it came up and kicked him in the rear end. For many of the reasons already described in this blog, I’m deeply concerned about the possibility of an Obama presidency. Fortunately, I believe the alienated Clinton supporters who consider themselves more “middle of the road” politically will find some common ground with McCain.
At least, I hope so.
May 4, 2008 - 2:20 pm 45. Valerie T. Hutchins:Limbaugh is a drunken crack-head! Anyone who values his opinion is a ignorant illiterate redneck! The only reason he didn’t go to jail for obtaining drugs illegaly in Florida is because the sheriff’s department is run by his redneck supporters. This fat, criminal bigot couldn’t walk in Obamas shoes… if his fat-ass could fit!
May 4, 2008 - 10:22 pm 46. Valerie T. Hutchins:Obama is in the lead and on his way to the White House! Suck it Up! Americans are hopping on the change train. The old ways are over … welcome to the New World Order.
May 4, 2008 - 10:26 pm 47. Surabol:Playing the centrist who appeals to the middle is a lot more effective than you think. Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger. A couple years after winning the recall his initaitives bombed hard and his popularity among Californians nearly fell to George Bush level.
But during reelction Arnold decided to hijack certain “democrat” issues (like global warming) as well playing up traditional GOP values (tough on crime, strong economy). Phil Angelides ran multiple ads depicting scenes of Arnold making speeches for President Bush, but he eventually lost in a landslide. A considerable number of democrats ended up voting for Arnold.
During the midterm elections the GOP failed to attract the center and the moderate voters. Barack Obama (and his pastor) is too radical for some voters. Americans who disline Bush but distrust the Obama / Clinton ticket hold the key for Mccain.
May 4, 2008 - 10:52 pm 48. Believer:Funny, I was thinking earlier today, if Obama doesn’t do too well on Tuesday, do you think he’ll be calling up Rush and begging to chat a while? After all, that’s what he did when Pennsylvania didn’t go so well – he wasted no time getting together with Chris Wallace.
But I just dropped by to say I’d read some wonderful stuff about Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal in the Washington Times. The young Republican (naturally) is determined to turn things around; he has the smarts and list of accomplishments to be successful.
So it occured to me that the young Jindal is most likely the man Obama fancies himself to be. And with the modesty that accompanies greatness. The talk now is that the pressure may be on him to join McCain’s ticket, even though he sincerely wants to stay in LA. to do as much as he can.
Bet that never would have occured to Obama.
May 4, 2008 - 11:49 pm 49. Believer:Oh, and for those who haven’t heard the latest, it’s Christmas morning again: Michelle opened her mouth.
This time, she’s telling us her husband is working hard to keep his focus on the ultimate good he wants to accomplish rather than show us all how angry and impatient he’s becoming with this fussing and fighting he’s had to endure with Clinton.
He just wants to get to McCain, she says. I’ll bet he does.
So the cool and collected one is seething with anger underneath it all? Haven’t we all learned it’s the quiet ones we should fear? Kinda makes McCain’s letting off steam now and then look pretty good…
May 5, 2008 - 12:23 am 50. jake:Actually, I’d be pretty happy with Obama, Clinton or McCain. They’re all infinitely better than the present occupant. Hopefully one of these three will be able to somehow pull us out of this recession. It’s so bad here it’s almost comical. I see people in my small town here walking miles to work now or riding two people on one scooter. Never in my life saw that before. I mean our country is becoming a laughing stock, moving into third world category. So, everyone cheer up! No matter who we elect, it can’t be worse.
May 5, 2008 - 1:17 am 51. Alan:I personally think that while the polls have told a lot over the course of the election (though not 100% accurate) they are not enough alone to decide the candidate. After all, the candidates themselves are the Superdelegates’ focus. What’s important here is Obama’s relation to Ayers, something that the mainstream media has not so much as made reference to. That relationship could be a helluva lot more damaging than the Wright controversy. I do not even want to risk the possibility of a radical entering the White House. I’ll vote Hillary long before I will even consider Obama.
Valerie- The least you can do is say something constructive. If there is something really BAD about Limbaugh, tell us. He has a lot more brain cells than you will ever hope to have anyway, especially if you keep talking like that.
May 5, 2008 - 6:57 pm 52. Believer:I’m with Cranky and Alan.
Alot of conservatives think we have three democrats to choose from at this point. Obama the most liberal, and McCain the least.
There are no guarantees that McCain will beat either of the other two in the general. Especially when you consider the recently exposed voter fraud in Washington state. No telling how pervasive it might be – affecting other states as well.
So, I think it’s best to take out the least desirable of the three and then move on to the next. As much as I distrust and dislike Hillary, Obama has earned his place as least trustworthy.
His association with radicals is present-day and of a long term nature. Even from youth. Hers was short-lived and some 30 yrs. ago.
May 5, 2008 - 9:48 pm 53. Believer:Prescience? “voter fraud…No telling how pervasive it might be…”
My, my, my — the fraud in Washington state was attributed to Obama campaign workers, I believe.
And now the upset in Indiana may come from the strangely belated voter counts in the county right outside Chicago…
I hope Obama wasn’t too impatient to get this contest with Hillary behind him. She’s going to smell a rat. And not keep quiet about it.
May 6, 2008 - 9:06 pm 54. John Samford:“the annual savings with the gas tax holiday will be 464X0.185=$85 or $7 per month and for 3 months of summer $21
SO where is the true economic benefit to the gas consumer?”
I sold enough Toyotas to get my own dealership.
I know what a ‘reduction to the absurd’ close looks like. I have used it hundreds of times. It won’t work on me and I’m not letting you change the subject.
The real benefit comes from that 7 bucks multiplied by the 200 million or so drivers. That is another 1.4 BILLION added back into the economy. Then there is the trickle down effect. All those business that need fuel to get their product to market will be saving that 18.5 cents per gal. Most will pass part of it on.
Who do you think pays that?
As a former business owner, I assure you that no business pays any taxes. They collect the taxes from the taxpayer (consumer) and pass it on to the government.
Transportation costs (including fuel taxes) are part of what the consumer pays at the POS. Not just once either, since they are paying sales tax on the included cost of the fuel tax.
Remember also that the fuel tax is paid many times all up and down the food chain. Not just from the factory to the store but transporting raw materials to that factory, producing the raw materials, etc..
Very few taxes are as regressive as the fuel tax. I will include this URL, even though all you guys are ‘experts’ and already know this stuff. Right?
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/taxation.html
Skipping all that econ101 stuff, it is the Taxpayer’s money, NOT the Government’s money.
May 7, 2008 - 10:39 pmAnybody that is against dropping the fuel tax IS A SOCIALIST.
If you want money to spend on bridges and roads, PUT UP A TOLL BOOTH. Let those that use them pay for them. The Government should not be building bridges and roads anyway. Private enterprise would do a MUCH better job of it.
When is the last time a Toll Bridge fell down? See?