Posted on 08/21/2008 10:42:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Democrats are having their flop-sweat moment. Barack Obama should be way out in front. The Republicans are in terrible shape. There hasn't been a more battered brand name since Bart Simpson swallowed a jagged metal "O" from his box of Krusty-O's cereal. The GOP has nominated an old white-haired dude, in Paris Hilton's words, who makes Dick Cheney look like a lambada champion. He'll be the kind of president who will yell from the Oval Office window, "You kids get off my lawn!" The economy isn't roadkill quite yet; it's sort of like wounded roadkill, flopping around, unable to get going but unwilling to lay down and die.
And yet, John McCain is pulling ahead of Obama. The latest Reuters poll has Grandpa Munster up five percentage points over our secular messiah. The Real Clear Politics average of polls has Obama and McCain in a virtual tie. And, according to RCP, if the race were held today and McCain took the toss-up states where he's currently ahead, he'd be the next president.
Yes, it's early. McCain has had a good couple weeks. But these were McCain's first good couple weeks since he secured the nomination. Meanwhile, with the exception of the Jeremiah Wright unpleasantness, Obama has had a good couple years.
The winds at the Democrats' backs are hurricane-force gales, and yet there's Obama holding steady, like a young Dan Rather in his schoolgirl rain slicker, immobile and unmovable.
Ask the typical Obama supporter why this should be so and you'll get a range of answers. Some just stare at the poll numbers the way my late basset hound would look at me when I tried to feed him a grape: with pure unblinking incomprehension. Others act like the guy who sits alone with his shopping bags at the public library, muttering about Fox News conspiracies and how Karl Rove-like aliens are doing terrible things with probes of proctological exactitude. Still others just shake their heads at the racism of anyone who could possibly have a problem with a very left-wing politician with almost no experience, who often sounds like his campaign slogan is: "People of Earth! Stop Your Bickering. I Am From Harvard, And I'm Here To Help."
Perhaps therein lies the answer to this supposed mystery. Indeed, perhaps there's no mystery at all, and Obama's problems are the same problems Democrats always have at the presidential level: He's an elitist.
Oh, I know. Upon reading that, some liberal spluttered herbal chai tea from her nose at the injustice of this whole elitist canard, and the earnest Ivy League interns at some liberal magazine have burst into laughter, offering the appropriate bons mots from Balzac at the preposterousness of such a suggestion, saying: "Don't you conservatives understand? Democrats care about the little guy. They're on the side of the proletariat - I mean workers - and as Obama has so eloquently put it, if the workers would only stop clinging to their silly sky god and guns, they'd understand that."
Liberalism is often a problem at the presidential level. Cultural liberalism is a burden. Haughty cultural liberalism is a disaster in the making. For good or ill, the presidency is a cultural institution as much as it is a political institution. And it's fundamentally a culturally conservative one. Fair or not, many perceive Obama as a cultural outsider. This week, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said of Obama's friendship with former left-wing domestic terrorist Bill Ayers: "They're friends. So what?"
Psephologist and columnist Michael Barone noticed during the primaries that, with the exception of the black vote, Obama's support within the Democratic Party is comprised almost entirely of cultural liberals. He dubbed this intra-Democratic split a divide between "academics and Jacksonians." The Jacksonians are working-class, culturally conservative whites. The academics are the same people who formed the base for Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, George McGovern and other successful presidents in the anti-matter universe where Spock has a goatee.
In this universe, however, you need Jacksonians more than you need academics to win a general election, which is one reason why no non-Southern Democrat has won the presidency in nearly a half-century. It's not that voters love Southerners, either. Rather, Southern Democrats simply seem more Jacksonian (even so, only Jimmy Carter won with a majority of the popular vote).
Obama may still win, of course, proving that America is not only ready for a black president, but a cultural liberal as well. If he loses, though, you can be sure Democrats will claim he lost not because he is a black and more charming Michael Dukakis, but simply because he is black. Because liberals are never wrong.
The argument from the Obamarobots that he’s losing in polls because Americans are racist has to stop.
They hail Robert “I’m an idiot from inbred stock” Byrd as one of the heroes of the party for his opposition to the war, easily glossing over his racist KKK past.
How can the party that has a former KKK member as a sitting senator (and a former majority leader and judiciary committee chairman, at that) fling accusations of racism at Republicans without appearing to be extremely hypocritical? Well I guess the media helps with that. Drink up, latte liberals, because your boy is headed to defeat.
LOL
Absolutely true in 92 and there is no incumbent President running as there was in 96. I would love to see the Democrats go down in flames They are so cocky this time it would kill them.
"...For the advocates of this perverse militant egalitarianism, reasoned argument is replaced by a conditioned reflex as Obama's legions of lickspittle automatons mindlessly parrot as "evidence" whatever Obama himself has written in any one of his own self-serving books. You see this has never been about the free interchange of ideas or even the ascertainment of truth, this is all about entitlement and nothing not even freedom or liberty is going to get in the way...."
Yep there is no Ross Perot and I don’t think anyone would fall for it a second time. The biggest mistake is they mis-define why they should be winning. They don’t define why they should be winning because their policies are so good. They define it in terms of “change”, “hope”, “first black man who could be President”, “image”, “speeches” but they don’t define it in terms of their substance.
Barrack Obama is hugely in support of Gay activism but you’ll never get him to answer that question straight, the same thing with abortion, the same thing with taxes. That reluctance to do as McCain has and just answer the questions directly always hurts liberals and it will hurt Obama even worse than most because the veil is coming off. He had a huge battle with Hillary and his venerabilities are identified and new ones are appearing daily. The more he talks the worse they become. McCain made a flub about Houses and such but that doesn’t resonate like the condescension that we should learn Spanish not the immigrates or the simpleton suggestion that pumping up your tires will offset increasing energy needs.
Obama is in a pickle. He has a convention that is designed to be train wreck. It may not happen but I wouldn’t bet on it. He is angry and when liberals get angry they get ugly and even more stupid than their policies.
Can you imagine the gnashing of teeth the day after the election if the Demoncrats lose? The atmosphere of gloom and depression will be so thick you you will need to turn on your windshield wipers to drive down the street.
It would be great. What would be better is if they lost the House and Senate too, but that is a long...long shot.
“They are so cocky..”
No truer statement was ever made.
Saving The Planet Pelosi, This War Is Lost Reid and their ilk need a reality check.
And perhaps Barry could run for Chancellor of Germany.
Bite your tongue.
When the libs say that, the immediate reaction is for people to recoil and think "I'M not a racist!" Then, after a minute of thought, one realizes this is a desperation tactic, and one thinks "Do I want THAT mentality in charge of this country?"
I think Obama's slide in the polls is due in LARGE part to this "You'd better like him or you're a racist" crap backfiring.
Barrack Obama is hugely in support of Gay activism
____________
“Michelle Obama is headed to Hollywood to court gay and lesbian support. Tom Ford is among the expected co-hosts of a Sept. 3 benefit at the home of CAA agent Bryan Lourd. The same night, she’ll head over to Samuel L. Jackson’s place for another fund-raiser, reports WilshireandWashington.com.”
Barone is the best. Very astute observation and helps explain why Obambi has been frantically trying to demonstrate he is a "man of faith".
It's starting to look like the American people aren't going to fall for it though.
I agree with that projection, and take no glee from it because it indicates a deep infection.
See here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNjMzRiNzYzZjYxMjI3YjNkMTJiZDdkYzQyNDJmZmM=
G.K. Cheston make an observation about literature that I think applies to politics as well. He said that all over the world the old, popular literature is the same. It consists of very dignified sorrow and very undignified fun. Its sad tales are of broken hearts, and its happy tales are of broken heads.
In the case of the crazy lefties, it is a mixture of the two kinds of tales. The lefty has a broken head and is always laughable. But because he has a broken head and can't think straight, he causes much damage to those around him. That damage he causes is where the sorrow comes in.
Yes, that is a long shot. But I think the gains of Democrats in Congress is going to be much less than most predicted even a month ago. Republicans have a powerful message with off-shore drilling. They need to repeat this loud and often.
Pelosi has to be making enemies with her high handed ways and opposition to drilling with gas prices so high. The Democrats don’t look good.
Yes, I agree that Pelosi has alienated a lot of people. I don't want to count the chickens before they are hatched, but I think Republicans will do better than expected. Drill, drill, drill!
I don’t understand your (maybe Chesterton’s) point. My lack of glee isn’t because a small fraction of the population is nuts and/or irrational, it’s because a substantial fraction (maybe a majority) advocates more government by self-anointed superiors than is healthy for a society of free people.
“...McCain made a flub about Houses...”
I don’t think so. A key to understanding McCain is that he was a boxer as a young man and a life-long devotee of the sport. The commentary about not knowing how many houses he owned was a “rope-a-dope” feint to lure Obama into a discussion about real estate, a place the “O-man” should’ve judiciously avoided. But instead, Obama took the bait and will be subjected to vicious body blows over his “real estate” dealings with convicted Chicago crook Tony Rezko. McCain is a genuinely tough guy and the rib cracking will commence shortly..”my friend.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.