Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Tonight I watched the Democrat debate. Same old stuff. Blah, blah, blah, raise taxes...blah,blah...raise taxes only for the rich...blah, blah, unconditional immediate retreat from Iraq. But there was something that did catch my attention. It was a question directed at Hillary about Bill Richardson endorsing Obama. When he did this, Clinton told Richardson that Obama was unelectable. She didn't say why. The moderator asked her about this and Clinton backed away from the remark...a mistake in my mind. She is "clinging" to a fraction of a chance at this nomination and the only hope she has is to convince democrats that Obama is not electable. She missed an opportunity. I would have stood by the comments and reiterated his inexperience in foreign affairs and national defense. McCain is going to hammer him on these issues.

But the electability issue is intriguing, so I looked into it. I post this with little reservation since Obama has virtually wrapped up the nomination. So here goes.

Hillary may have some moronic ideas for America, and would certainly be a disaster for this country if she won, but she is very good at politics (not so much at debate). She played a central role in getting her husband elected twice, that in itself requires substantial talent. So when it comes to playing politics, she knows what she's doing. That's why I thought she may be on to something regarding Obama's electability.

When it comes to winning the presidency, nowadays it basically comes down to three states: Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. All the others are basically solidified as red or blue, with little fluctuation. History has shown that in order to win the White House, these three states are key, and winning the election means winning at least two out of three in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania.

If you look at national polls, you basically see Obama with a slight lead in a head-to-head contest with McCain. The same is true for Hillary. But these polls mean little in the face of the electoral college, where states are the key. And the "big 3" show some early unfavorable numbers for Obama. Here is the head-to-head data based on a conglomerate of independent polls as provided by Real Clear Politics:

In Florida, McCain leads Obama by as much as 15 points. McCain and Clinton are virtually tied.
In Ohio, McCain leads Obama by as many as 8 points. Clinton polls higher by up to 9 points over McCain.

And in Pennsylvania, Obama holds a slim lead depending on which poll you look at while Clinton leads McCain by as many as 11 points.

Basically, Hillary is saying that more of her supporters will vote for McCain over Obama than Obama's supporters would over her, and the polls (albeit early polls) seem to support her claim. Yet, she fails to point this out effectively. As a result, her chance at the nomination is virtually gone and her only hope now is to accept a running mate position which may or may not happen. Whether this will keep Hillary's folks from defecting to McCain is yet another question.

So I think she has a point about Obama's electability and I also think we're seeing a problem with the democrat party as a whole. Americans don't respond well to socialism. They do respond to moderatism. McCain is a moderate conservative, Obama is a socialist. That in itself is enough to question his electability.


Debbie said...

I did not watch, I figured it would be more of the same.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

Dan Trabue said...

Don't be ridiculous. Obama is not a socialist. Come on. Words have meanings, dude. That kind of talk just makes "conservatives" sound nutty and no one outside the extreme right thinks that's anything but looney tune politics sort of talk.

I suspect that once Obama secures the nomination, his numbers will jump even higher. I don't expect that this will be much of a contest. McCain doesn't really have anything but experience on Obama and experience matters ONLY if your experience is considered a positive. If McCain is only going to offer Bush Lite (or worse, Bush on Steroids) Americans will run from him en masse.

That would be my prognosis right now.

Regardless, it's talk like calling Obama a socialist that will only help him when this presidency, so keep up the good work!

John Washburn said...

Dan, he wants state control of retirement, state control of medical care, state control of education, maximum state oversight of corporations. He wants to limit executive salaries, end free trade, endorses labor unions and advocates for the redistribution of wealth. In his lifetime, he has on more than one occasion rubbed elbows with people of deep socialistic views and even his father was known to endorse socialist policy.

Is there anything about him that is not socialistic?


John, Your friend Dan T. ignores the ugly Brand of Socialism, and he also...
very conveniently turns his back on Rev Wright's 'Black Liberation Theology'...his gross 'Lifetime Achievement Award' to Nation of Islam's Louie Obama'a close Chicago association with William Charles Ayres, w/ the unrepentent bombing admission that this freaky radical admitted to the NY Times in 2001, with "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough".

You lie down with dogs, ya get up with fleas.
Obama's burnt toast come November. reb

Dan Trabue said...

You are quite simply wrong. Obama is a capitalist who may want state ASSISTANCE in some matters but that is a whole other thing that saying he is a socialist.

Are you a socialist if you want state control of military, too? How about state-control of building roads?

You are simply wrong, but preach on. It just makes Obama look more and more acceptable and his opponents more nutty.

Eight years from now, at the end of President Obama's second term, you will see that the state has not assumed ownership of everything. Not even health care.

John Washburn said...

I'm not aware of a single position of Obama's that could not be considered socialist. You call it government "assistance"..well, I guess that's one way to put it.

I support gov't control of the military because that is the only gov't funded "social program" mandated by the Constitution. There is nothing in our governing document requiring gov't control or regulation of education, healthcare and industry.

As for roads, I'm actually against gov't control. I think the private sector can do it better, cheaper, faster and more efficiently...just like everything else. I say eliminate the city, county, state and federal taxes that go to highway maintenance and transition to 100% toll roads under private sector control (with a possible exception for the interstates, which were built for military transport in the event of an attack on the mainland). Pay as you "go"...right?

Plus, it's not fair for someone who doesn't drive very much to pay the same taxes as someone who commutes 100 miles a day, just like it isn't fair for someone without children to pay high property taxes to fund schools. That's one reason why I support vouchers.

Free market, baby! It's a wonderful thing!

Dan Trabue said...

I support gov't control of the military because that is the only gov't funded "social program" mandated by the Constitution. There is nothing in our governing document requiring gov't control or regulation of education, healthcare and industry.

Nor is there nothing in our Constitution prohibiting such. It is all in the hands of We, the People. If we decide we want to pool our resources to pay for roads, we are not socialists for wanting to do so. If we want to pool our resources for education or prisons - if we think it the best way to manage these things - the Constitution does not stop this.

That's the thing, one can be in favor of gov't funding for various plans and NOT be a socialist. It happens every day. By your definition, Bush, Reagan, and tens or hundreds of millions of Americans are socialists. It just ain't so.

Dan Trabue said...

Nor is there anything in our Constitution mandating a military such as what we have. That was the decision of we, the people, too. The founding fathers, by their own testimony, would have found our current military a severe threat to democracy.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.

~George Washington

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

~James Madison


War, with only brief lapses of peace, has been a continuum for the 5000 years of man's recorded history. The first written Law, the ancient Hammurabi Code surfaced in 1800 BC, in Babylon,
followed by the Ten Commandments.

Law, Rules Governing Conduct...has
yet to achieve avoidence of War.

James Madison was our fourth president... of a newly evolving nation..."bringing many under the domination of a few". Here, in the USA, Dan? Or, were you thinking of
despotic nations, w/ Kings, Dictators, or Grand Ayatollahs?

Some nations, like Adoph Hitler's Nazi Germany dreamed of a 1000 year
Reich controlling the entire planet. He came incredibly close! Germany was first with Jets, and
Weaponized Rockets, and a Secret Heavy-water Plant in Norway!

In the 21st century, a whole new
untested generation faces the prospect of their own loss of Liberty to a brute, suicidal Theology. They have been conned into believing that war is simply unnecessary, and that if we just ignore people that fly planes into buildings & strap bombs on their kids, then it will all somehow just fade away. That confronting this radical form of Wahhabi Islam or the Iranian Shia Mullahs is pure folly. We've all been told that our leaders are incompetent...right?

Or, should we believe that we are led by men that do understand the mindset of a culture that chops heads & hands, and stones to death women or young girls who are only merely suspected of wantonly committing "sexual sins!" It's called 'Honor Killings' in some parts of the muslim world....and
we've heard, they are enriching Uranium (U-235)

Our 'Public Liberty' was in mortal jeopardy in WWII. The United States was the "Arsenal of Democracy" and safely secure because of two vast Oceans, and as an unprepared nation, we geared up for war. Nearly a half-million brave American troops died before
that conflict ended. We had a unity of purpose then, behind FDR and Winston Churchill, and they led the Allied Nations to confront pure evil. Forty million died.

Today, there is no real thirst for understanding of History, because
it's untaught in our High Schools.

'Baby-boomers' grew up w/ Beatles,
Stones, Grateful Dead, Weed & Dr
Tim Leary's mantra of "Tune in, Turn On and Drop Out", and sadly millions did.

Many kids (not all) grew up, selfish and unaware, with Hip-Hop, Rap-Crap, Pierced Noses, Tongues, & Ears and a tattoo on an obese butt...and Mom & Sis Go to the Mall, talking Jibberish into their Cell-Phones.

They Love Peace, really hate war, and whimper if the Hwy Patrol gives them a ticket for 85 in a 55 mph zone. It's just more "Gubmunt Hassle"...more Dubya Bush harrassment! Then the 'dirty cops' go to Dunkin Donuts!

These Pinheads Think Obama is Cute, and really, really Awesome,
and will give them some CHANGE, and a "New Direction", and at political rallies you can see their
giggling faces chanting, "Yes We Can!...Yes We Can!...Yes We Can!

Many of these youngsters will vote...and they don't have a clue.

They've never read the 1st Amendment, and never will; or read about Thomas Jefferson, or WWII, or about cruel Wahhabism, or the Matahwa (the Piety Police) in Saudi Arabia.

They will never know what Liberty means, until they've lost it.

Please, say it isn't so, Dan. reb

Dan Trabue said...


What's your point? That you think a large number of Americans are too stupid to vote? That black folk and kids will just vote for a perty face regardless of his positions?

Bash the American people all you want. Sometimes we choose poorly, sometimes we do better. I feel confident that THIS time, we will choose better and President Obama will have a chance to turn around the GRAND MESS that Bush has made of our country.

John Washburn said...

Dan, your logic is fascinating and brilliant. You can just about rationalize anything by saying the Constitution does not prohibit it. What an amazing way of interpreting our governing document. I'm gonna give it a shot:

Let's see, the Constitution does not specifically ban abortion, nor does it prohibit us from establishing a law doing just that, so when the people collectively come together and decide...oh wait, that wasn't allowed to happen.

Okay, the Constitution does not ban gay marriage nor does it prohibit us from passing a law to do just that. So when the people collectively come together and...oh wait, that was killed also.

Okay, the Constitution does not create a presidential line item veto, nor does it prohibit us from creating one. So when the people decide...oops, that didn't work either.

Well, I guess your logic only works for certain issues. I'll keep trying. I'm sure I can find one that doesn't just benefit the Left side of things.

John Washburn said...

Dan, the point is that the fouding fathers did not, nor could they ever, address every single issue in the Constitution. However, they DID have the wisdom to recognize that they could never anticipate every issue so the added an all-encompassing amendment. The 10th Amendment. I call it the anti-socialism, ant-marxism, federalist amendment. It basically says that any issue not specifically addressed will be decided by the individual states. Clearly they did NOT want a large federal gov't. But I guess some will interpret that another way.

Dan Trabue said...

Clearly they did not want a large military, such as we have. I'm not so sure that your case that they did not want responsible gov't to deal with stuff as needed and as the people see fit is sturdy, though.

I'll say this: I'm with you in that I think that most stuff should be dealt with at the local level where it's possible.

It remains that those who want to implement policies that you disagree with aren't socialists merely because they disagree with you. Again, by your definition, Reagan and Bush and most americans are socialists and that's just not the reality on the ground in the US.



My point? My point brother Dan, was simply that an American Electorate that had a fundamental knowledge of WWII history (see S/H
History Post, July 4th, 2006), and
basic history of Islam, the history
of Saudi Wahhabism, and you'll develop a thinking, mature, and appreciative voting public!

Then expose these people to the words of some unhappy guests from CAIR (Council of American-Islamic Relations) and the stated goals of Chairman Omar Ahmad:


"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to be dominant!

The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."


As the poor, the elderly, the black, brown and white kids will grow in understanding, if we reestablish an accurate and mandatory nation-wide course, teaching about the real world, past and present. Basic American High School level history, including how we developed the greatest, most productive, most inventive nation on earth. Also, our unprecedented genorosity among the disadvantaged, among the third-world nations.

Accentuate the positive, minimize the negative, develop some pride in our accomplishments. Stow away the negativity, and George Soros manufactured hatred. When we are at war, let's confront the enemy rather than harrass the elected leadership. When Divided, our fine troops have a more difficult task.

Know your enemy; some of them are here, creating distortion and negativity. IGNOR-ANCE of complex
problems, and playing emotional, political games has no value, whatsoever. Be true, and fiercely loyal to the greatest nation in history.

Dan, You Point To A Better Nation, with more humane set of laws; I'll be happy to travel there, to check it out. Consider that a challenge. reb

Dan Trabue said...

I'd be very happy if we'd just obey our own laws and quit committing war crimes; that we allow congress to make the decision WHEN to go to war - not the president; that we quit hiring and praising war criminals, etc, etc.

I love our ideals, I just want and expect us to abide by them. America WILL not remain great by abandoning what we stand for.

We have nothing to fear but fear (and fear-mongering) itself.

Anonymous said...

Snake Hunters Ask,

Dan, We noticed that you rarely mention any of this nation's positive qualities. Why is that true? Again, which nation do you most admire and respect? reb __________________________________

Anonymous said...

Mr. Snake Hunter will wait a long
time for Mr. Tradue to answer that one. Don't hold your breath.