Barack Obama is The Most Liberal Member of the Senate.
Barack Obama is a Blank Slate. How do WE know what he is really thinking?
Surely the mutual exclusivity of these two statements is patently obvious....isn't it? Is the electorate stupid enough to not see that you can't be both of these things? Maybe if you're an outfielder who comes to the majors from Tripe A and goes 6-10 in his first two games of the new season. ("He's batting .600 & leading the majors in hitting, but do we really know what he's got?") Outside of something that ridiculous, both of these statements cannot be true.
No, what we have here is the Republicans using the same tactics they've been using for several cycles: give the people multiple negative soundbites about the opposing candidate and let people pick up on whichever one scares or disgusts them enough to vote against the object d'insult. This is less offensive and more effective if it's coupled with "and here's what our candidate will do for you."
Uh...are you seeing the second half of this? Because I'm not.
McCain has become a weak candidate in the blink of an eye. Not so long ago we all believed we knew where he stood: strong defense, fiscal responsibility, a free trader who supports NAFTA, and a man who makes his decisions based on a strong inner moral compass. While the first points haven't necessarily changed, the last couple certainly have. Add to the fact that he has courted the conservative Christian right, which was NOT part of his M.O., and you have disappointed centrists such as myself -- not because we disagree with his views, mind you. Centrists probably are as divided as the rest of the country on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, violence in video games, etc. Our disappointment stems from the obvious pandering to a segment of the base that it's fairly obvious McCain doesn't belong to.
This might be ok from a political point of view if it were effective. It is, in fact, ineffective for the same reasons: the Christian right sees McCain as disingenuous, perhaps because he is.
So now you have a candidate that isn't going to energize the base (a la, GWB) and isn't going to grab the centrists, which is what the winning candidate must have to win this election. The Republicans, sensing disaster, do what they do better than the Democrats: smear. Only this time, there's no "and here's what our candidate will do that's better" to follow the mudslinging.
So just remember: the next time you hear catch-phrase A or catch-phrase B and it gets you worked up, consider the simple little fact that it might not be wholly accurate.
The Centrist Dude grew up in a Democratic household smack dab in conservative Middle America. His liberal friends think he's a right-wing nutcase; his conservative friends think he's a left-wing pansy. He has this misguided idea that the political center badly needs a voice.
The Centrist Dude
The Centrist Dude Is...
- Centrist Dude
- Austin, Texas, United States
- Day job is composing music & directing voice talent for video games and advertising.
5 comments:
"Surely the mutual exclusivity of these two statements is patently obvious....isn't it?" Or, is it??
When Obama was elected by Chicago as a Democrat Senator for Illinois, he had an obligation to serve those people by voting along the far left lines of the party. That's what they expected. That's what earned him the title as The Most Liberal Member of the Senate. That's what has earned him the hearts and votes of the party during the Democrat primaries.
Now that he is the presumptive Democrat candidate, it is becoming increasingly interesting how his hardline stance on everything from gun control to the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq is starting to move toward a more centrist view.
Taking a page from the Clinton handbook, Obama seems to be an even more effective panderer than his Democrat predecessor, President Clinton. He has beaten back the Clinton machine by out-Clintoning the Clintons.
Combine that with the eagerness for almost every American to distance themselves from the deamonized "W" administration, and the teenage infatuation that the media holds for Obama, and he gets a free pass.
So, can the mutual exclusivity of these two statements be something other than patently obvious? As long as Obama is wiling to vote party line, then change his public statements based on his audience de jour,. I think the electorate may just be stupid enough--or blind to the realities--that Obama may be both of these things.
"Change for America" is more than just a slogan for Obama. It's his way of staying politically popular to whatever audience he is in front of at the moment. And that, in itself, is enough to make me look at Obama's change as more of the same.
So what i want to know is, mr. centrist, who are you writing in?
Sorrow, I will be posting more prolifically in the coming weeks. But I feel the Republicans need to be routed in the same way that the Democrats needed to be in the late 70s/early 80s.
Oh, come on, don't you think they all need to be routed?
I mean let's have a third party..
The center field party, that doesn't think "MUST VOTE PARTY LINE", sigh,
okay
I am to old to believe in fairy tales, but politics this year just makes me want to hurl...
I would love to see a credible 3rd party. For instance, one would have hoped that the Libertarians could have repaired their image to be one with some semblance of sanity. But there isn't a credible 3rd party, and there isn't enough groundswell to make it happen. Therefore, I'll comment on what we do have to choose from. I still feel that Obama at least has the potential to be a game-changing leader. Regardless, the Republicans are only grabbing for their base yet again, and that's something that desperately needs to change. And it will only happen by being soundly defeated nationally.
Post a Comment