Saturday, January 26, 2008

No Republican can beat Obama

I know Obama's South Carolina win doesn't lock up the Democratic nomination and I am continually reminded by my highly intelligent readership to not count a Clinton out, however I will continue to stick with my prediction that Obama will at least win the nomination. Here's something I wrote just over a year ago (unedited from January 16, 2007):

He promises to bring new order to the politics of Washington. He promises to promote cooperation across party lines. His lack of time in Washington actually serves in his favor as he doesn't come off as tainted and hindered by the politics of Washington (like John McCain does). Despite not having one notable national achievement legislatively, all sorts of people are casting their lots with him already. Oprah endorses him. Warren Buffett endorses him. Even Rick Warren (of "The Purpose Driven Life" fame) speaks very favorably of him.He is good looking, intelligent, very articulate, and diplomatic. Couple these attributes with the current widespread displeasure with Washington politics and the White House, Obama is striking perfect timing for a successful run in 2008. Unless a candidate emerges, with similar attributes, he will win.

Mark my words- there is no current Republican who can beat Obama if he wins the nomination. I think Thompson had a chance, but now he's out. John McCain will look absolutely archaic and tainted against the younger, quicker, seemingly more innovative Obama. Romney has a better chance against Obama and it will be a much tighter race if that's the contest, however, I still think Obama wins against Romney in the end. I think it would be great to have an African American President, but not Obama.

I hope I'm wrong about this.


GUNNY said...

Hillary frightens me with regard to what her presidency would be, but I can't deep down see her winning the election.

She's just too polarizing.

Obama ... I'm feeling some real heat there and I think the post-Fred crowd has a big bag of nuthin.

In other words ... I feel ya.

Anonymous said...

Pretty frightening times to say the least. For candidates stance on issues, I found this site 'chilling'.

Rick Calohan said...

Allow me to remind you of two things.

In 1984, President Reagan appeared listless and confused in the first debate against former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Mr. Newman. Mr. Trewhitt, your question to President Reagan?
The President's Age
Mr. Trewhitt. Mr. President, I want to raise an issue that I think has been lurking out there for 2 or 3 weeks and cast it specifically in national security terms. You already are the oldest President in history. And some of your staff say you were tired after your most recent encounter with Mr. Mondale. I recall yet that President Kennedy had to go for days on end with very little sleep during the Cuban missile crisis. Is there any doubt in your mind that you would be able to function in such circumstances?
The President. Not at all, Mr. Trewhitt, and I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience. [Laughter and applause] If I still have time, I might add, Mr. Trewhitt, I might add that it was Seneca or it was Cicero, I don't know which, that said, ``If it was not for the elders correcting the mistakes of the young, there would be no state.''
Also another Gipper quote to note.

Commenting on a letter that Reagan had written to Richard Nixon in 1960 regarding John Kennedy, as quoted in the NY Times (1984-10-27). The letter to Nixon said: "Unfortunately, he is a powerful speaker with an appeal to the emotions. He leaves little doubt that his idea of the 'challenging new world' is one in which the Federal Government will grow bigger and do more and of course spend more....One last thought — shouldn't someone tag Mr. Kennedy's bold new imaginative program with its proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx - first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a Government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his 'State Socialism' and way before him it was 'benevolent monarchy.'"

R. C. Sproul in a series of sermons on the Book of Acts reminds us that we as Christians should never expect anything for ourselves from the Federal Government. For that is theft, when we take from our brothers what is rightfully theirs. That it is sinful whenever we vote our self-interest by voting on pocket-book issues instead of the great moral imperative the Sanctity of Human Life. We have a sacred duty to hold the State accountable for the holocaust that has been allowed by the state in the form of Abortion on Demand.

The reason I endorsed McCain, is not that Romney, Huckabee or Paul are not pro-life, but that McCain has a solid voting record on the issue, and despite his slip-ups his voting record is around 90% conservative.

• Romney is a professed Mormon. Therefore, he has denied the deity of Christ. While, he maybe pro-life for the moment it will be hard for many Evangelicals to vote for him or the Democrat nominee and therefore will stay home.

• Huckabee while endorsed by the Missouri Right To Life group may not garner wide appeal from fiscal conservatives who view his time as Governor of Arkansas to be tax and spend.

• Ron Paul while being pro-life and is widely popular among the youth is a not only a fiscal libertarian but a social one as well.

• Rudy is Pro-Death

• Hillary is Pro-Death

• Silky Pony John Edwards is Pro-Death

• Barack Hussein Obama is not only Pro-Death, but is an apostate or a liar to when it comes to his Muslim religion or heritage!

So I support McCain, because like his predecessor Senator Berry Goldwater, “Extremism in defense of Liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of Justice is no virtue.” We will not only win in Iraq and on the war on terror, but we will end abortion, reduce taxes, reduce spending and In your heart you know he is right!

rgmann said...

I think you may be right. And if we're going to wind up with a Democrat as President, I'd much rather it be Obama than Hillary. Our first black President may do the country quite a bit of good (in relation to our past). I don't see much good at all coming out of a Hillary Presidency!

Hough said...

I can't believe you said Obama was good looking a little over a year ago and I haven't made fun of you for it yet.

Jim said...

I never say never (well, except for that), but I still think H. Clinton is easily the odds-on favorite.

The Dems have a history of "outsiders" doing well early on, and then fading: Think of the excitement that Gary Hart generated, and Jerry Brown even further back. All had the "big mo," and then lost the nomination.

Or even think of Kennedy v. Carter in 1980. Kennedy made a solid showing, but still went to the convention with only 1/3 of the delegates. Clinton is the establishment candidate for the Dems. She won't be knocked out. But for Obama to win on a TKO, he needs to be able to sustain as well as Hillary. And I still don't see it happening. (Everyone when ga-ga over Obama after Iowa, then Hillary pasted him in NH and did better than expected in Nevada.)

Polls show H. Clinton doing well is the large bulk of super-Tuesday states. (Seems to me that Edwards is a spoiler -- for Obama. It prevents him from consolidating the anti-Clinton vote.)

As for the general election, again, maybe Obama can toast McCain. But recent polls still have McCain leading Obama.

Now, mind you have bizarre that is to begin with: After eight years of a GOP presidency, after the GOP loses Congress, after McCain unequivocally supports the war. That the GOP is in the race is stunning.

People don't trust the Dems with defense (statistical models predicated that Gore would blow away Bush). And Bush beat Kerry during another economic downturn.

So I'm not yet ready to grant that all of the journalistic support for Obama reflects real support.

A final thought: I'll be as enthusiastic as the next guy should America elect a black president. That can't be anything but a good thing for race relations in this country.

But the last thing we need is a charismatic liberal to take the presidency. The last three Democratic presidents have been manifest "moderates" -- Johnson, Carter & Clinton. A charismatic liberal in the presidency - a real liberal leader -- and I'd suggest that American political, social and economic culture will mirror that of Western European countries almost overnight.

My $0.02.

AJF said...

Very well said Jim. Strong argument. You may turn out to be right.

Frontier Forest said...

And all of us conservatives thought the election, or reelection of 2004 was the most crucially important election of our times. 2008 got this one beat by a long way. This election will no doubt, be the determining factor in our nation’s victory in war, or defeat by withdrawal. We can also win the victory over the innocent murdering of the unborn, or passably turn our heads and accept more genocide through abortion. And if we loose this all important fight for life, we must understand there are dire consequences that will have to be paid! “God have mercy upon us all, for we are in Your sovereign hands!”