Posts filed under 'Campaign Issues'
Well, so much for being a post-racial candidate.
JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.
“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?“
In many ways, its an absolutely brilliant strategy. It is impossible to prove a negative, and no one wants to be branded with the scarlet letter of racism. After far too many years in the country, we have finally reached an age where being a racist has a negative stigma attached to it. Unfortunately, this has also led to the dawn of an era where false accusations of racism can be used as a tool to gain political and financial leverage.
Men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have cried wolf on racism for their own political and financial gain for decades now. It looks like we can add Barack Obama to that list as well.
Senator Obama, it has become very clear that you will say and do anything to become President of the United States of America. And if this is the campaign you choose to run, good for you. Call John McCain a racist until your face turns blue. Call whomever his running mate is a racist. Hell, call me a racist. And, if, by chance, you do happen to get enough votes to achieve your dream of the Presidency, I hope the damage you’ll have done to this country is worth it.
Change You Can Believe In.
Tags: Barack Obama, race
June 21st, 2008
David Brook’s excellent article The Two Obama’s does an excellent job laying out how Senator Obama talks reform and inspiration, but plays old school politics as well as anyone out there…
“God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson…”
“…But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes…”
Brooks goes on to explain Obama’s history of old school politics. That he is smart and calculating, and has laid out a path for himself that any old-school Chigago politician would be proud of…
“…Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.
Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.
Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.
And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.
Full David Brook’s article The Two Obama’s
Tags: change, chicago politics, hope, Obama
June 20th, 2008
Susan Rice’s false statement about the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting leaves open two questions. Are Obama foreign policy advisors up to snuff to guide a candidate and potential president? Are Obama advisors making misleading or false statements in order to win votes? First, Dr. Susan Rice is a Rhodes Scholar, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and has worked on the Kerry and Dukakis campaigns. It seems hard to believe that she would have thought that the Kennedy Khruschchev meeting really resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. If she did, it is a troubling gap in knowledge for such an accomplished international relations scholar.
Consequently, that raises the second question of whether this is a tactic to sway votes by misleading people. Was Susan Rice trying to cash in on the popularity of JFK by assuming most people would not know their history well enough to challenge her? This isn’t Rice’s first misstatement. She has been trying over the last few months to walk back Senator Obama’s statement that he would meet with dictators of rouge nations in the first year of his presidency without preconditions. The tactic being to confuse people with a debate between ‘precondition’ and ‘preparations’. Yet, Dr. Rice expressly stated, “Nobody said he would initiate contacts at the presidential level; that requires due preparation and advance work.” That is false, Senator Obama in a YouTube debate expressly stated he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without preconditions, which drew criticism from people on both sides of the isle. This begs the question is this a bumbling foreign policy, or old school politics. A decission to say anything regardless of its veracity to put your candidate in office.
YouTube Clip of Senator Obama agreeing to meet without preconditions
First published at Purple People Vote
Tags: 2008 election, foreign policy advisor, ignorance, Obama, politics
June 12th, 2008
You all know the drill by now.
Barack Obama uses his famed judgment to associate himself with someone he probably shouldn’t.
Obama’s own words come back to haunt him
Obama’s first response is to dismiss the problem.
Obama supporters come out of the woodwork to support both The Senator and the man responsible for the latest scandal.
Obama throws the problem under the bus, expects everyone to forget it and vote for him based on his judgment.
Rinse. Repeat.
I’m just sad that we didn’t get the standard “[X] is not the man I thought he was.” response.
Tags: Barack Obama, Jim Johnson, judgment, mortgage crisis
June 11th, 2008
Many Dems welcomed the news of Reverend Hagee’s vile remarks and Senator McCain’s rejection of his endorsement as way a to offset the damage done to Senator Obama by Reverend Wright. However, this is a comparison that benefits the McCain campaign. The reason being that there is no tie between Senator McCain’s views and Reverend Hagee’s views. The questions for Senator McCain are about how his campaign seeks endorsements, and if proper vetting occurred. Senator McCain never attended Hagee’s church, and never condoned his remarks, so while the association may be a little unsettling for the campaign it does not speak to who Senator McCain is as a person.
Reverend Wright is a different story. Senator Obama attended his church for 20 years, and after seeing Reverend Wright’s recent press conference it is virtually impossible to believe that Senator Obama did not know the types of sermon’s he was giving. Attending Reverend Wright’s church for such an extended period of time shows a willingness for Senator Obama to either condone or accept the views of Reverend Wright. Senator Obama even graced the cover of the ‘Trumpet’ the church newsletter, the content of which provides more evidence that Reverend Wright’s extremist views were not isolated speeches, but were part of the doctrine of his church. The questions for Senator Obama center around who he is as a person, what he believes, and the manner in which he conducts himself. The primary question being whether he joined the Trinity Church for political gain, or if he actually subscribes to the ‘Black Liberation’ theology that the church openly preaches.
While the two candidates may both now have ties to an embarrassing pastor, the similarities stop there. There is a real reason why Senator Obama has not been able to shake the Reverend Wright issue because it leaves open questions about Senator Obama as a person. The reason Reverend Hagee has caused significantly less trouble for Senator McCain is because the questions aren’t about him as a person, they are about whether his staff did enough research.
Picture from Bizzy Blog
Article First Posted at NH 4 McCain
Tags: controversy, hagee wright, mccain, nh, oabama trumpet picture, Obama, obama picture, obama trumpet, Pastor Wright, reverend hagee, reverend wright, trumpet
May 23rd, 2008
The back and forth between the McCain and Obama camps about negotiations between the future president and the leaders of foreign dictatorships, such as Ahmadinejad in Iran and Castro in Cuba, addresses a real substantive difference in foreign for these two candidates. This clip from the CNN YouTube debate answers the question if Senator Obama will meet with dictators in the first year of his presidency.
Senator Obama has also stated that he wouldn’t require pre-conditions before negotiating with these dictators, but later stated that there would be preparations. There are several troubling things about this. First, as Senator Clinton pointed out in the debate, a president shouldn’t guarantee a meeting in their first year as they could be used as a pawn for propaganda purposes. Second, the comparisons between Iran and the Soviet Union are weak. The situations are very different, and not recognizing that is deeply troubling. Third, citing that ‘preparations’ but not ‘pre-conditions’ are needed for a presidential meeting is political tap dancing. What does that mean? Most everything in life requires preparation. He’s either trying to back out of a policy that even Democrats agree is foolish, or he’s still believes in this policy and is instead trying to push the question aside.
The Obama campaign instead of clarifying its own position has muddled the issue by attacking Senator McCain. First, Senator McCain was accused of saying that he would meet with Hamas without pre-conditions. This was proven untrue. The statement from Senator McCain said that since Hamas was elected by the Palestinians that they would have to be ‘dealt with’ as the leader of that government. That was not a promise of negotiations. Second, they accused Senator McCain of supporting normalization in relations with Cuba. However, Senator McCain stated that this was to happen only if Cuba took steps to embrace Democracy (a pre-condition). Finally, throughout this back and forth examples have been given where the U.S. government engages in diplomacy at lower levels of government. This however, is not the issue. Senator McCain’s point wasn’t that there should be no diplomatic relations; it was that the President of the United States should not be guaranteeing meetings without preconditions. Senator Obama has stated that Senator McCain’s views are naïve and that one shouldn’t be afraid to meet with foreign leaders. This may be what really shows how ‘in the weeds’ Senator Obama is in regards foreign policy. Numerous people from both sides of the isle have noted how foolish Senator Obama’s diplomacy policy is; yet he still accuses Senator McCain of naiveté. Now there may be some criticisms that the Obama campaign will be able to make stick to Senator McCain, but it’s hard to believe that calling him scared and naïve will ring true with anyone.
Tags: Ahmadinejad, candidate, Clinton, Democrats, dictators, foreign policy, Hamas, Iran, mccain, Obama, president, Senator Obama
May 21st, 2008
Senator McCain made the following remarks during a speech today in Chicago…
“Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but “tiny.”
“Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
“This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.”
Tags: 2008 election, Democrats, independents, Iran, iranian, mccain, national threat, nuclear threat, Obama, persia, republicans, threat
May 19th, 2008
Ethanol provides an interesting lesson in government subsidies, why they cause problems and why free trade works better. It’s understandable how in the late ’70’s ethanol subsidies started. There was an interest in finding energy alternatives, and the idea of corn based ethanol held promise. Today there is still a desire to find clean energy alternatives, and ethanol still holds promise. Yet these subsidies, even if well intentioned, create more problems than they resolve. Problem number one, subsidizing corn based ethanol creates an obvious focus on corn. However, the promise ethanol now lays in numerous sources such as switch grass, sugar, or a host of other natural products. Pushing corn slows the development of ethanol from these alternate sources. Second, subsidizing corn ethanol creates an unnatural shortage of corn. Hence food prices rise; not only corn based products, but the cost to feed farm animals increases making the price of meat and dairy products increase too. The working class and those already struggling financially are hurt the most as the price of necessities increase.
Finally, the last problem with ethanol subsidies is they are hard to illiminate. Senator McCain made a very gutsy decision to be the only candidate to go into the Iowa primary stating that he opposed ethanol subsidies. Telling farmers that it is no longer good economics to regulate and subsidize corn ethanol is hard, but necessary. Eliminating these subsidies will help with food prices. It will help allow other sources of ethanol to develop, and will even allow the US to purchase cheaper ethanol from other countries such as Brazil who has plenty. Regulation and subsidies are often well intended, but as is the case with ethanol, problems often arise when free trade isn’t practiced.
Also posted at McCain Independents
Tags: agriculture, ethanol subsidies, free trade, free trade practices, iowa ethanol, mccain economics, mccain regulation, mccain subsidies, subsidized ethanol
May 14th, 2008
The political commentariat is now operating under the assumption that Sen. Obama has at long last clinched the Democratic nomination by his landslide victory in the North Carolina primary and his near upset of Sen. Clinton in Indiana. This is wrong from the standpoint that Sen. Obama was effectively assured of the nomination following his string of victories following Super Tuesday, long before this past Tuesday. Indiana and North Carolina did not change anything except convince many of what was already, for all intents and purposes, inevitable.
Sen. Clinton intends to carry on, of course, because she is Sen. Clinton. As David Kahane writes, “She’s not going to quit because she has nowhere else to go, and nothing else to do. She lives for this, and without it, she has no life. In fact, without it, she doesn’t exist at all.” Since her husband raised his right hand in ‘93 she has been preparing for the day that she could raise hers. Until Sen. Obama’s nomination is official, she is not going to let that go.
Though it is all but inevitable at this point, it is only all but inevitable. That is how she will view the situation at least. She will look forward to large victories in the upcoming Kentucky and West Virginia primaries, hoping significant margins there will stoke further discussion of Sen. Obama’s inability to win over white, blue-collar voters and give Democratic super-delegates further pause as they size up the strength of Sen. Obama as a general election candidate. She will also continue to push for the seating of Michigan’s and Florida’s delegates at the convention (she sent a letter to Sen. Obama today laughably urging him to support that effort), arguing–not without some semblance of a point–that to deny those delegates seats would be to disenfranchise Democratic voters in those respective states and harm Democrats politically in what will be two pivotal battlegrounds in the fall.
Ultimately, these efforts will fail and Sen. Obama, warts and all, will accept the nomination in Denver this August. All that is really left to be decided is whether Sen. Clinton can and even wants to muscle herself onto the ticket and how exactly such a ticket would play in the fall. The race for the Democratic nomination is essentially decided and has been decided for sometime, but the saga and theater shall continue hence.
Tags: Clinton, Democrats, General Election, Obama
May 8th, 2008
Senator Obama is not happy that Senator McCain pointed out that Hamas stated they would like to see an Obama presidency.
“This is offensive, and I think it’s disappointing,” Obama told Blitzer, when asked his thoughts about McCain’s comments that the terrorist organization Hamas wants Obama to be president. “Because John McCain always says ‘I am not going to run that kind of politics,’ and to engage in that kind of smear is unfortunate, particularly because my policy toward Hamas has been no different than his.
A smear would indicate that comments were either false or misleading, but that is not the case. Hamas made a telling statement and Senator Obama may not want people to know about it, but crying foul over a statement of fact is pretty weak.
Tags: election politics, General Election, glass jaw, Hamas, obama mccain, smear, statements, terrorists, touchy
May 8th, 2008
Older Posts
