My Final Thoughts on This Election
*12-18-09 Read this again. To my delight, it is holding up well*
I'm rapidly running out of ways to criticize Barack Obama. Over the past two years, I've been lamenting at various times (and in no particular order): Obama's inexperience, questionable associations, stated policy goals, inept assessments of world events, pandering to abortion extremists, Chicago-style thug politics, indiscriminate acceptance of donations, effete inability to relate to rural voters, hypocritical vice-presidential pick, nebulous and disingenuous center-left talk and finally his irritatingly frequent mental pauses when off the prompter.
At first, I went with inexperience. Up until the Democrat primaries, I remained convinced that Clinton would get the nomination. This was primarily because I had faith in the commitment to reason of my Democrat countrymen. Quite frankly I believe that a Clinton ticket might have taken on Obama as VP and sailed to victory, while still acknowledging the political realities of our current situation (this isn't to say that I would have supported such a ticket, rather I think it would have simply been less awful). Despite a late comeback from Clinton, Obama walked away with the nod. Despite the same dirty politicking which gave him his Senate seat, and one very memorable use of the race card (Bill Clinton is a racist now?) the Democrat constituency decided to give Obama the opportunity to lead this country.
I thought then, foolishly, that we'd begin to see the press digging through his record in the Senate. They'd form their narrative of his rise to prominence and fill in the gaping holes left by his campaign narrative. Nope. This is a separate issue, but the press has championed this man's candidacy from the start, downplaying serious concerns and trumpeting the story that Obama's people want told. In a year that favors Democrats, with a candidate like John McCain agonizing over how honorable he must be instead of trying to win, and the race being within 4-7 points...imagine today's headlines if the so-called journalists in our news media had deigned to investigate Obama with half as much energy as they devoted to Sarah Palin...or Joe the Plumber. Within days of daring to ask Obama a hard question in which the candidate revealed his socialist leanings, Joe's garbage had been thorougly rifled through. They can't do that to a candidate for President? They won't, and they didn't.
Over the next few months I would identify an issue, follow its progression through the mainstream news and through the blogs, and inevitably watch it die a limping, somewhat befuddled death. So many times, I saw what I thought could not be ignored. I thought each of these issues would finally begin the process of seriously investigating this man who wants to lead a federal government that I know he intends to grow dramatically.
Each issue was glossed over, roundly ignored, outright denied or rationalized. I swear I saw Obama change his position and contradict himself, yet his supporters barely noticed.
The cult of personality which has developed around this man is nothing short of alarming. Do you remember the fainting? The Berlin rally? Try criticizing this man in front of people who have cheered themselves hoarse for a vision they can't even articulate. They're roaring their approval for a cloud, a man who changes shape to become what people want to see.
Nothing, no issue has stuck to him for more than a few days. Not Jeremiah Wright, not his socialism, not the corrupt donation process on his site, not the voter fraud perpetrated on his behalf, not his idiotic foreign policy declarations...nothing. And he is poised to assume the Presidency in what will be an historic, and historically bad, moment.
This election may see a permanent leftward shift in our country. Permanent. You understand, of course, that the more power you give to government the less you have yourself? And what it is given it rarely if ever gives back willingly? This means that if universal healthcare doesn't work, we're stuck with it. This means that if you work hard and become rich, you'll be taxed and your money given to those who don't work or who simply aren't as successful. And you'll be stuck with that.
I believe there has already been a shift in this country. We used to be a nation of independent spirits, distrustful of the government and anyone telling us what to do with our property. We've become, over the past 50 years, a nation of people asking "where's mine?" with an outstretched hand. We've voluntarily sewn ourselves up in red tape. We've seen our taxes increase to our detriment and decrease to our prosperity, yet we've learned nothing.
Maybe Obama really is the president this country wants. Maybe he is the President this country deserves.
Comments
You are probably aware that I thought the Hillary-Obama ticket was unbeatable, but may I remind you that we'd be in the same situation as we cold be with Obama - and for far longer, since he might then ascent to the Presidency eight years from now?
Coincidentally, I came upon your post after just having finished one of my own and shelving it, at least temporarily, as I often do. The main difference it that while I agree with virtually everything you've written, yours is an open-ended lament.
What are you going to do about it? That was the theme of my piece - I blame conservatives for not holding their own accountable. had we done that at any point before now and the Dems took over earlier than they have, arguably things would be less bad than they will be under Obama.
Had we battled back then, we might not be whining at leisure now. So all one can do at this point is to accept what is and be determined to improve on it. That takes more activism, more fight, not less.
Community organizing, you mean :)?
I don't think it's happened quite yet, but it's happening with this election. I wish I could tell you how many people my age and a bit older I've spoken to who don't see anything wrong with socialism. I feel like in the past people just understood what was wrong with socialism and avoided it, but now it seems for want of "change" they are willing to embrace this idea that has been tried and found wanting.
How flawed? Tragically flawed.
What's most striking to me is the number of young people who are unabashed bigots who are unrestrained in expressing their hatred.
Yeah. How about that "artist" in West Hollywood who hung an effigy of Sarah Palin outside his house? Imagine if he had satirized Barack Obama in such a fashion.
Has that been a common refrain this year? "Imagine if they had said that about Obama..."
Ted,
Obama's pattern has always been that he stands loftily above the fray while his thuggish supporters perpetrate all manner of indecent commentary or action on his behalf. He then makes a perfunctory statement to denounce his supporter's action, reaping the benefits of the dirty politics but maintaining the illusion that he is above them.
While this Palin effigy is not remotely part of the "official campaign" sludge, the things done for his actual campaigns have been just as nasty. Blair Hull and Jack Ryan both had their sealed divorce records conveniently opened, leaving Obama only Alan Keyes to oppose him in the Senate race. And Sarah Palin's welcome onto the national stage, after the Democrats collected themselves, was extraordinarily vicious. But Obama can't be responsible for the tone of his campaign surrogates, can he? Not after his perfunctory denunciation!
Rush calls him the first Black Clinton (among other apt descriptions), and that's a perfect characterization. Clinton did exactly the same things you ascribe to Obama, and Obama has built upon them.
McCain has demonstrated that the guy at the top does direct the tone. To his detriment, he has refused to pursue legitimate avenues of attack because of personal misgivings. and he has been far too quick to chastise others for pursuing those avenues themselves.
Back on Obama, what he's done is a common lawyers' tactic where, in court, they voice something outrageous knowing that it will be objected to, and that the judge will sustain the objection and order jurors to disregard it. But the thing is out there, and hopefully, some damage is done.
If you want to place blame for the current tactics,at least some of it should go to the Republicans who taught the Democrats that you have to fight dirty to win.
John
Cleland, Gore, and Kerry were all treated fairly, but thanks for finally confirming you're a full-fledged liberal wacko.
McCain had a single gripe, and Bush denounced those who did it.
But now, your justifying horrendous behavior by pointing to other unacceptable behavior? Priceless. Who deserves at least some of the blame for the way you turned out?
John
It has been eye opening to see some of the behavior of the far left in this election and it keeps getting scarier. Sarah Palin has been attacked mainly because of her conservative Christian values. What has she done that would deserve such hatred?
It makes me feel threatened as a Christian woman with a family and appalled that Sarah's children have to be exposed to this. When it is all over what are they going to think of their country?
There are obviously forces much larger than we can see behind this unexplainable rise to power not only in our county but even in Europe. In the 50s and 60s they would have called it a Communist conspiracy. We don't use those words any more, but the agenda they warned about way back then is happening. The young people don't recognize it because our educational institutions have been steadily filling their minds with far left thinking.
If Barrack is able to appoint several lifetime judges and the legislation he is planning to pass goes through, I believe we may actually see persecution of dissenters (Christians? Conservatives?) in our lifetime.
To be very honest with you, I was not politically aware of the 2000 race because I was 16. I have no opinion on it of my own; the only one I could form would be based on the experiences of other people. What I do remember is that Al Gore was boring and Darrell Hammond nailed him on SNL. Will Ferrell did a great Bush, and a likeable one at that.
I didn't even know who Max Cleland was until I read your wiki article, and I fail to see how Saxby Chambliss helps your case. The article even mentions John McCain calling for the offending ad to be pulled, something he did again this year to his own campaign.
As for 2004...John Kerry did himself a disservice by tossing his medals (or were they his?) and then running on his war record. Kind of opportunistic in an unattractive way. A group of former military men, perhaps angered by his characterization of them in the 1970s hearing took it upon themselves to take the bloom of his war-hero rose. Totally fair and justified in my view. He offered a conflicting vision of his war experiences and he got called on it.
And he further pissed me off as a Catholic by saying he respected the bishops who took a stand against his abortion views, but he disagreed with them..."as do many" he said. As if my Church is a democracy and the bishops were idiots for not knowing that. Presuming to lecture Church authorities said it all for me.
So yeah, I honestly didn't like John Kerry and don't believe he was smeared in the same fashion that Obama smears his opponents. And I certainly don't believe that coverage of Obama is being held to the same standard as that of Kerry, rather I think he is being actively preserved from harm.
Sorry, forgot this part.
John, you're a smart man and you have a concept of history. Go look at what Jefferson and Adams were saying about each other. Dirty politics isn't a Republican or Democrat invention.
Who started the current round of dirt? I don't know, but I sure as hell know that McCain surrogates weren't making insinuations about possible incest in the Biden family or sending teams of "truth squads" to issue legal challenges in Missouri or sending rafts of lawyers out to Alaska to dig up dirt on Smokin' Joe Hairplugs. Or delaying the World Series with an infomercial! So we can definitely say which side has gone lower this time around.
Thank you so much for this post. It's a refreshing reprieve from the onslaught of overtly liberal opinion that has weighed down this entire election. I could rehash several issues that have already brought up (i.e. the absolute degradation of Sarah Palin, the treatment of Joe the Plumber and the fact that Obama's campaign seems to be slathered in Teflon) but I won't. I'll just repeat my thank you that there are some sane Americans left in this country.
Al was boring (and wearing clown-like make-up), but that shouldn’t bar him from the Presidency. The “Al Gore claimed he invented the internet” lie was created to make him look like a liar and a serial exaggerator, and it worked like a charm. Bush even riffed off the line during one of the debates (“I guess you invented the calculator, too” when Gore called him on some specious math). It was an extension of Reagan’s “there you go again” bit that made Carter look most untruthful when he was being the most honest. And it worked, which is the lesson that the Democratic party learned. People say they want a clean election, but they vote based on the slurs.
Questioning a person’s patriotism doesn’t count as a smear? Here’s the ad, so judge for yourself. And while it is true that McCain has acted against some of the more egregious falsehoods (e.g., "Obama is a Muslim"), he has yet to tell Palin that serving on one board with Ayers and a group of Republicans hardly constitutes "palling around with terrorists" (unless his opinion of the GOP is lower than I thought).
Except that coterie of military men were motivated by something other than wanting to set the record straight. Especially as most of them never served with Kerry. It would be like my saying “I served during Granada [1] and so did Joe Smith [2]. Trust me when I say that Joe Smith isn’t fit to lead”, even though I spent all of my time stateside and never saw battle (the case for a surprising number of “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” members).
Which we have discussed elsewhere. By your rules, every Catholic should be barred from public office as they could not honestly take the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” as you claim that the primate in Rome has an overriding call on their allegiance. How can you defend the Constitution when your boss tells you not to enforce some law that has been held to be Constitutional? Someone once said "a man cannot serve two masters"; nor can he swear allegiance to two leaders. As the USA is not, and never was, a Christian nation, my preference is for the President to swear allegiance to the Constitution.
Much as was the case for Bush during his runs. Remember the flap over Bush’s service during Viet Nam, or the allegations of his perjury, or the questions over his business deals? All of those came and went in about the same amount of time as the Reverend Wright flap. Questions over Obama’s links to Acorn have stuck around a bit longer, but not that much.
True – remember that Adams spread a rumor that Thomas Jefferson had died a month before the election to draw attention to the fact that abolitionist Jefferson owned slaves.
However, my point isn’t that one side or the other invented dirty tricks [3]. It is that it is somewhat hypocritical for one side to complain that they are being used when they themselves employed the same tricks in previous elections. To paraphrase Franklin, what we have is a case where the Democrats are never right and the Republicans are always wrong. If either side truly wants to claim the moral high ground, they need to run a couple of campaigns without using smears, slander, and innuendo before complaining that the other side is using them.
So only this round counts? Fairness has a “sell by” date and the morass of Rovian whisper campaigns in elections past should be forgot? If you hit me first, calling “time out” before I get my chance to hit you back is rank cowardice. The Republicans ran the last few campaigns based on fear, slander, and innuendo. That they are getting some of it back is merely fair. That they are complaining about it [4] shows that they cannot stomach what they dish out and raises questions about their suitability for office of any kind.
John
[1] The only military conflict of note during my term of service.
[2] A fake name – dunno any politicians well enough to want to slime them.
[3] I suspect that when Ugh the caveman ran for leader of Cave 23 [a], he said that his opponent was a Neanderthal.
[4] As the Democrats did in the last few rounds, which they lost. There may be a moral here.
[a] 2,000 geek points for the reference.
That's a leap. This question has been answered time and again, John. Catholics being loyal to the pope is the oldest discrimination against us in this country. The teachings of the Church must inform the conscience of the individual, who must then apply the knowledge of his conscience to his conduct in business and personal life. Kerry disgusted me because he so brazenly discounted the notion that his conscience must be subordinate to something like making the killing of (what his informed conscience tells him is) a child, a right. The pope isn't anyone's boss. But Catholics have a duty to both vote and act in accord with their consciences. In a representative democracy, we trust our elected representatives to use their wisdom and judgment to make decisions. Kerry demonstrated that he was willing to curry Catholic votes but unwilling to conform his views to those professed beliefs. It was hypocritical.
However, Kerry is a side issue to the thrust of your post - that you feel that Republicans are getting a raw deal in this election. And on that, I'll go right back to my paraphrase of Franklin - the Democrats are never right and the Republicans are always wrong. (I.e., both sides sling mud, so either work to clean up your own party or quit complaining.)
John
John
John
Wow, nice to see you back Scio, even if only from a comment. I disagree with your views now more than ever but I still think you were the model gentleman with how you directed your blog.
Have a great Christmas.
Haa! That's the root of the disagreement between the conservatives and I. They're assuming I'm pro-Obama, fainting over him, etc. Assumptions. I'm not saying you're doing the same thing. Just your previous posts, Muslims and all that.
However you're still one of my favorite Voxers.