Wordsmith has an excellent post on the nature of Barack Hussein Obama, specifically targeting the cover and concomitant story by the New Yorker magazine. I’ll not reproduce the cover here, you can find it if you wish.
But the point is: even a Left Wing organ like the New Yorker is beginning to peel the layers off the eatable BHO object, thinking it’s a sweet apple and finding it might be an onion.
As I wrote in comments:
There is nothing new about Obama, except his ability to say there is something new — in a way that those desperate to find a new Savior have FOUND their Savior. A Savior who speaks much but says little. He is no “change;” he is but more of the “same.”
And the GOP and Conservatives should take careful note:
1. “Democrats don’t win elections; Republicans lose them.”
2. Though being in power, the Demorats couldn’t stop FISA.
3. If McCain and the GOP and Conservatism are so “yesterday” then Obama should be miles and miles ahead of McCain, as he clearly has the DEM working entirely FOR him.And still, it is no walkaway race.
Conservatives, GOP, are you listening? Are you hearing? Are you paying attention?
The power is the GOP’s to LOSE.
BZ
You are correct in your assessment, but you have to understand just how good the GOP IS at losing, and their sheer determination TO lose. no matter how bad a fool Obama makes of himself, McCain’s one upsmanship in this area may well be successful. I think the GOP itself clearly and decisively made it’s intentions to lose this election by the choice of candidate they made. and I’m sure McCain has no intention of disappointing the GOP by winning this one.
And yet — the world today is sufficiently volatile to provide a win for McCain. I don’t paint that possibility out completely. I mean, if Green Bay doesn’t want Brett Favre back, then ANYTHING can happen!
BZ
funny, the minute I saw this picture, I thought of that NEW YORKER cover.
there’s something about it…
Sounds like the GOP and the Packers have a lot in common, neither organization wants any player with a solid track record of success, it seems.
Just let fuel prices go a little higher…. Harry Reid’s dictatorial tactics, on refusing to introduce the bill for drilling, will lose it for the Dems, and Obama, for sure…
The fact that these two are in a dead-heat tells you something about them both: they both have very similar outlooks. They are both from the micromanagement school of government that believes that detailed plans need to be made by the President. That is not only insane, but contrary to any executive position of any organization on the planet.
Staff makes plans.
Executives set policy for approval/disapproval and execution of plans.
I see no salient difference between the two candidates as they both believe the government needs to do more for *you* and they want their fingers deep in the pie to do so.
Plans are making up these in-detail, wonky proposals.
Policy would say: I will make up a bare-bones federal budget and approve only that, with no add-ons. If Congress wants more, they can pass it separately, but my budget will keep the government running ‘as-is’. I will veto every other budget on that basis. I will run a responsible White House and ask for nothing more than to keep things as they are now. If Congress doesn’t want that, the government can and will shut down.
Do you see the difference? One asks the staff to go to the departments and put up their budgets with all programs intact, with anynecessary pay raises and changes in programs. That makes the budget. It does not try to force an in-detail executive view on each and every department or agency. It tells staff: make sure the thing keeps working and justify it.
That is making *policy*.
Foreign policy is what you use as your guiding light to deal with the world, and then mete that out on a case-by-case basis and explain it to the American People.
You cannot *find* a policy amongst these two candidates. By being the way they are, they are now turning off their base in each party. Why are they equal? In one case you get more government meddling, regulation and expenditures in one direction, and the other goes in another direction.
Big difference, huh? You want more regulation, more government, higher taxes, larger meddling in your life? Have I got two candidates for *you*! And if you want one, then I can package that up with a nice bridge in Brooklyn.
Say the words ‘small government’ to either and watch the hives break out.
The ‘center’ has walked out of US politics as leaving the highly partisan to deadlock each other is the *solution* to party enforced government activism. My guess is that over 50% will not vote in this election… that is the beginning of the end of representative democracy if you believe that majorities of those with the franchise matter. And if you think that ‘only those who care vote’ then *you* are part of the problem and heading us towards a worse direction by not understanding why no one cares about the Nation any longer in the majority. You cannot say that representative government represents *them* when the majority no longer vote. It has been a very iffy thing for over a decade now, and see who is left to support the candidates?
The committed ‘activists’.
Perhaps the majority is turned off by ‘activism’? Like the staunch supporters of the candidates? Roughly equal… uh-huh… figures activists would be about that way to make themselves seem like something important: have to have an opposition, you know.
Thanks for the plug.
I don’t care how bad McCain is. Obama’s worse. If the former gives me a stomach ache, the latter makes me want to puke at the idea he could be our next president. Not only is he so far to the left, he is absolutely an undeserving candidate, operating on an illusion of being something he is not.