Archive for the ‘2008 Election’ Category

Netroots: Will he pull out in time?

July 21, 2008

Now that Obama is seeing the results of the surge during his trip to Iraq, the netroots have to be nervous. Will Obama—if he wins—pull out in time? Or will he pull troops out based on conditions on the ground allowing the possibility of combat troops remaining for longer than 16 months? My guess is that he will further nuance his position and say something like, “if we continue to have the success we are seeing now due to the surge, we will pull out in 16 months?”

The netroots must be as nervous as girl who agreed to get in bed with her boyfriend on the promise that he would “pull out in time.” The netroots “got in bed” with Obama instead of Hillary mostly because he agreed to pull out in time and Hillary didn’t. Of course Obama also gave them tingles up their legs providing further incentive.

He might also parse his words and redefine “residual forces” and “combat troops” to mean anything he wants at anytime and to mean the same thing when he wants. He gets to be right no matter what he says and does.

I wouldn’t get in bed with him based on any of his promises—even if I was a girl.

Advertisements

King Obama

March 5, 2008

March 2008

While McCain is familiar and his record is fairly clear, Obama is a Rohrshach Test: what you see really reflects your inner desires rather than reflecting Obama himself.

I see a similarity to when the Israelites—not satisfied being ruled by judges—demanded a king. They were not satisfied with God as King ruling from heaven with judges to advise on the ground. Security concerns and other reasons led people to want a king and strong, centralized rule.

It seems that many Obama enthusiasts really want a King… someone who can, through proclamation, make new laws and start new programs. This is the way he talks… as if there will be no politics if he is president. Just elect him and all the politics will go away and everything he promises will come to pass. These are not powers of a president, but an absolute monarch. It is naive. It is dangerous. It is naive because our system does not give absolute authority and dangerous that so many want Obama to have these powers.

Too many Americans want a King… meaning a federal government with many more central powers… to push through a lot of grandiose and expensive liberal ideas… on the basis that they are for the good of all of us (at least those who are not rich)… they don’t feel the need for checks and balances as long as Obama is president.

Obama is our country’s Rohrshach Ink Blot and enthusiasm for him reflects very un-American desires.  We remember that the left admires Europe so much with its centralized power and history of monarchy. We would never say directly we want a king but the Ink Blot tells us otherwise.

Let’s Stay United For the Good of the Country

May 18, 2007

ALLAHPUNDIT (Hot Air) writes about the immigration debate helping Democrats win in 2008. In my opinion, this danger comes from potentially splitting independents off from the coalition that put Bush back in office in 2004.

What convinced many independent/neocons—who voted for Democrats in 2000 (remember Al got the popular vote)—to vote for Republicans in 2004 was unity over the war. We were mugged by reality on 9/11 and have not yet let continuing violence or opinion polls sway us back to Democrats.

Many of us are not strongly invested in the immigration debate apart from better border security. There may be a variety of acceptable ideas to this group about what is done with the 12 million illegal aliens here now apart from sending them all back (like serving in the military).

My point is that this group is not really invested in the argument over whether such and such bill is really providing ‘amnesty’ or not. Making too much of this (vs. border security) simply reinforces the stereotype of Republicans as kneejerk “meanies” and racists. This was an appeal of Democrats before 9/11—that they are nice (even if naive). And given the distance from 9/11, pushing this ‘amnesty’ argument gives the Democrats the popular vote again and our biggest concern over everything else: a Commander in Chief who wants to surrender.

I think the unifying argument that wins is strong border security + strong prosecution of the war (no surrender).

Perhaps taking the position of having no immigration bill, until adequate border security is in place, is the best approach for the country and the best chance of having a “No surrender” president. in 2008.