Political pandering is an insult to our intellect, but unfortunately, too many of us let our emotions cloud our judgment and leave us susceptible to falling for empty promises and half-baked plans.
Take the proposed temporary federal gas tax repeal, please. Both Clinton and McCain are using this to curry favor with put-upon gas pumpers. Only Obama has been honest enough to admit that such a plan is a fool’s errand that won’t guarantee lower gas prices, but will guarantee less money to build and maintain roads. I’m sure that Obama’s team figured out how to position him on this issue to maximum political capital, but he gets credit for both being correct and for appealing to sober voters.
I was less impressed with his response to Tim Russert’s question about the country’s ethanol policy, which Obama eventually admitted may need to be reworked, but only after he listed several other problems that are causing high fuel prices. He wasn’t wrong about these other problems, but the question was about ethanol and he hedged a bit too much in deference to those farmers and their damn subsidies. Obama also didn’t address the direct effect ethanol is having on beer prices and thus neglected to appeal to non-sober voters.
I’m all for alternative fuels and believe that once the incentive is great enough, someone will develop one that is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly than what we’re currently filling-up with, but ethanol doesn’t seem to be that alternative.
So will Obama’s common sense approach and respect for the voters’ intelligence on this issue propel him to the presidency? At this point, we don’t know.
When last I wrote about presidential politics, I was of the opinion that it was the Democrats office to lose and that Clinton would be the one not to lose it. Now, not only does it looks like she has lost it, but it doesn’t appear that the Democratic candidate will taking the cake walk to the White House that many of us expected after two terms of Bush. I think much of McCain’s current appeal among moderates and independents is a direct result of the damage that Clinton and Obama are inflicting upon each other. That will likely change in the fall, but I wouldn’t be completely shocked if McCain won, something that would have shocked me a good piece six months ago.
I’ve read some interesting analysis on this race that suggests that either Democratic candidate would be better off not winning the nomination. The thinking goes that McCain would beat either one and that the one that doesn’t lose in the general election will live to run again. Party people don’t like to give a second chance to nominees that fail them in November. That last part is probably true, although I don’t think that a McCain victory is inevitable.
Now for the audience participation part of this blog: Putting your preferences aside, if you were going to place a bet on the outcome of the presidential election, who would you lay your money on? Clinton’s already been compared to Eight Belles. So who’s Big Brown?**
*this title is meant to demonstrate how difficult it can be to write witty or meaningful titles
**no racial overtones should be read into this metaphor.
Loading ...
Obama is done.
There are too many people in this country who wouldn’t vote for “a Negro,” and there are too many people who wouldn’t vote for him “because he’s a Muslim” (RickMonday, I’m looking in your direction) despite the overwhelming proof to the contrary.
The Riggity-Reverend Wright debacle is what’s shoveled the dirt into the metaphorical grave.
Clinton can’t win because too many people think she’s “mentally ill,” the polite version of how she’s described by the mouth-breathers.
So the easy money is on McCain, merely by default.
Anonymous Communist | May 6, 2008 | Reply
AC,
That is a mean spirited comment. And I take offense. I have never referred to him as a muslim and have never made any derogatory statements about his race. Go ahead and put words in my mouth, it seems that liberals, like you, like to do that when they have no ideas.
Yes, I have been harsh on Obama after he made the racist statements about his own grandmother being a “typical white woman” and when he referred to people who believe in God and the 2nd amendment as “bitter” people who cling to those crutches. (code words: poor white people are stupid)
I, honestly, at one time felt he might have been able to bring this country together. I overlooked the fact that he was the most liberal Senator. I was impressed with his kickoff speech in Springfield last year and did indeed have hope that he could reach across the aisle and bring this increasingly devisive country together.
However, over the lengthy campaign, I have not seen one instance where he has tried to reach across. So, I deduced that he cannot bring this country together, despite my wishes. I had to therefore make a new decision based on new information and now cannot vote or support him.
The fact that he sat in a pew for 20 years while soaking in the non-stop conspiracy theory, hate America, racist remarks that Wright proclaimed on a continuous basis makes me believe that Obama was not outraged about Wright. In fact, I respect Wright because at least he holds true to his views. Obama, on the other hand, allows this guy to marry him and baptize his kids and then, for his own personal political gain, throws Wright under the bus, just like his own grandmother who raised him.
So getting back to the question at hand. I think Obama wins the primary and McCain has a landslide victory. I too thought this was impossible. We have a lousy economy and a very unpopular president. In those situations, the rival party has always retaken the White House. However, I dont think that America is as liberal as alot of people seem to believe.
I have to give credit to Hillary for staying in the race and exposing Obama’s true character.
RickMonday | May 6, 2008 | Reply
Rick: You’re right. My comment was mean-spirited and uncalled for. Sorry. But I’ve seen your comments on sj-r.com, and unless someone’s impostoring you…
But I agree re: the McCain landslide victory.
Anonymous Communist | May 6, 2008 | Reply
I’m sticking to my guns here. No landslide anywhere. Obama narrowly takes the democratic nomination and narrowly takes the office.
I have to admit to being woefully uneducated on all aspects of alternative energy solutions and proposals, so I’ll bow out of that discussion.
However, the Rev. Wright issue does give me some pause. I thought the SJR’s editorial today was very good. Frankly, it does concern me that Obama denounced Wright so late in the game (like, 20 years late). At first, it did seem like pandering. But now that Wright has determined to fuel the fire a lttle more, I think Obama’s attempt to distance himself from Wright is all very sincere.
Furthermore, I don’t agree that endorsements by like-minded white racist ministers endorsing McCain is the same thing as the Obama/Wright relationship.
RM, AC is right. Your comments on the SJR board are a little less measured than in this give-and-take format, but nonetheless are always enjoyable.
nancy | May 6, 2008 | Reply
Nancy, AC,
No problem. Peace
Yes, I agree that on SJR I like to go over the top. But honestly, most times it is to get a reaction from the wackos out there. I do it for a laugh.
On these blogs, I try not to resort to name calling and try to have better thought out points on why I take my positions. I also try to respect others positions. After all, we all come from different experiences and thus our view of things can be quite different. It is no secret I am conservative but what does that mean. To some people, frankly, they believe conservatives are like the gestapo. That isnt the case at all. Some people think liberals are the flower children of the 60’s, which isnt true either.
Look, I dont hate Obama. I am sure he is a good guy with good intentions. And I am no huge fan of McCain either. I think my problem is that I just like to debate politics. On the SJR, with only 150 words, it is difficult to make a coherent persuasive argument and I fall prey to the quick zingers sometimes. But, I know he is not a muslim and though you might think that I have gone there, I really havent. Nor have I discussed his race as being something bad. Heck, I would vote for Powell or maybe even Condi…..Plus I did vote for Alan Keyes in the last Illinois Senate Race.
Ok, back to Dan’s post. I will try to tackle ethanol. Both Obama and Durbin cater to the midwest farmers who have seen corn prices quadruple to almost $6/bushel. I think a good farmer can get anywhere from 150-200 bushels per acre. (not sure just an estimate). So being a Senator from Illinois, I guess you are suppose to back the farmer.
However, I think that ethanol is a false solution that does way more harm than good. First, it is not a long term solution at all. I read somewhere that if were to cover the entire US in corn and convert that to ethanol it would cover only about 10% of our fuel needs. Why? Ethanol is not a plus energy for us. This means that it takes almost the same amount of energy to create it as it produces. So we are getting zero net energy benefit and we are driving up the corn prices.
What happens when corn prices go up? Cow feed goes up, then milk goes up, then the price of cereal and bread go up. We are basically burning our food. To top it all off, the emissions burned during the conversion process doesnt really help the global warming situation either. So why are these supposedly bright Senators endorsing it? They may be helping the Illinois farmer but they are hurting the rest of America, big time.
I wish someone could take the other side and defend corn based ethanol (as opposed to the Brazillian sugar cane based ethanol, which is an overall good thing and net energy plus). I would like to see how they think ethanol is an answer.
So, to me, we panicked and started backing ethanol without looking at the long term view and the damage that it has done to our economy.
RickMonday | May 6, 2008 | Reply
Obama will handily take down one of the weakest Republican candidates in decades. Unless something dramatic happens, President Obama will be sworn in next January.
Dave | May 6, 2008 | Reply
Wow, I’m scared. I agree with Rick re: ethanol.
Anonymous Communist | May 7, 2008 | Reply
It looks like you are no loner top Naumovich on the block anymore:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=XJp&q=naumovich&btnG=Search
sorry | May 7, 2008 | Reply
Sorry,
Yeah, I noticed that last week. I’m a has-been.
Dan
Dan | May 7, 2008 | Reply
RM – You took offense to AC’s “mean spirited comment” and accused him of putting words in your mouth, which is something you indict liberals for doing because “they have no ideas” (now THAT comment is mean spirited, and I take offense to it. But I digress . . .)
You then went on to (immediately) say that Senator Obama referred to people who believe in God and the 2nd amendment as “bitter” people who cling to those crutches, which is a deliberate and malicious misquotation (bad enough, but to be expected I guess, so no surprise there). However, what is most ludicrous and HYPOCRITICAL is your last little parenthetical phrase – “code words: poor white people are stupid.” That is the most atrocious example of someone (RickMonday, I’m looking in your direction) putting words in someone else’s mouth . . . So, clearly, the lack of original thought spans across the isle, and all the way to RM’s house . . .
Rock-Robster | May 8, 2008 | Reply
Rock Robster, eternal blogkill.
nancy | May 10, 2008 | Reply