April 22, 2008

How Obama can avoid becoming the Democratic Mitt Romney

As you'll recall, last week, in the 21st Democratic candidates' debate, the press finally got around to asking Obama repeatedly about some of the evidence that he is (or, perhaps, was) farther to the left than his expensively honed public image would suggest.

When Obama couldn't come up with reassuring answers, this line of questioning was widely denounced by his supporters. Why is the press wasting time on trivia like who Obama really is, the pundits thundered, when it could be asking important questions, like about the difference in Obama's and Hillary's stance on individual mandates in government health insurance plans?

Personally, I was bored with attempts to discern differences in their platforms, but I thought that was just me. But now Team Obama has pulled out of the planned North Carolina primary debate. This follows Obama's statement that he's bored with debates too. CNN reported:
Sen. Barack Obama suggested Thursday that he doesn't see any point in having another debate with Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has agreed to a debate next week, but Obama has not accepted the invitation.

At an appearance in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said he has a lot of campaigning to do in a limited amount of time.

Obama said he had agreed to an earlier debate, but Clinton declined that one.

"I'll be honest with you, we've now had 21," he said. "It's not as if we don't know how to do these things. I could deliver Sen. Clinton's lines; she could, I'm sure, deliver mine."

Of course, the reason he doesn't want to do a 22nd debate is because in the 21st, he finally got asked tough questions about the central conundrum about Barack Obama: Who is in charge: his head or his heart?

Like me, Obama is essentially a writer, not an extemporaneous speaker. He needs a few drafts to work things out. So, he developed a conversational style where he doesn't try to persuade anybody in unscripted conversation of anything other than that "I have understood you," knowing that most people assume that the only reason anybody disagrees with them is because they are too dumb to understand. Obama watched how fast people got sick of Newt Gingrich. Americans like to imagine their leaders know more than they are saying.

And even though debates are mostly precanned speechmaking, where he can use his writing skills to come up with verbiage ahead of time, they aren't his strength because of the time restrictions on his answers. Obama needs a lot of words to work his special Baroque O'Blarney magic, to lull his readers and listeners into forgetting whatever it was they wanted to know from him and just stand their in awe of his thoughtful nuances.

For example, his March 18th speech on his two-decade long relationship with Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. was instantly proclaimed a masterpiece by the press because it was 5,000 words long.

But, to the surprise of many reporters who watched it, it didn't end the Rev. problem for him, especially not among the kind of Pennsylvania voters who aren't going to read 5,000 words of nuanced thoughtfulness. Obama's problem is that when you try to sum up his March 18th explanation for his 20 years of following Rev. Wright in a few syllables, you just come up with something like: "It's okay because I'm black."

Obama's plan appears to be to try to run out the clock on the Democratic nomination, then hope that the elderly McCain decides to run a gentlemanly campaign that will meet with the approval of his admirers in the press rather than go to the mat with Obama, 1988-style, and actually try to win.

Clearly, Obama is a brilliant politician who has spent a long time thinking about how he would someday be elected President. Still, his bet that his opponents and the press will be too intimidated by his being black to take the gloves off is a risky one.

Leaving aside race, Obama's problem is the same as Mitt Romney's was. We had two pictures of Romney at two different times: the liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts a few years ago and the conservative Republican candidate in 2008. And Romney didn't provide us with any kind of narrative explaining how and why he went from Point A to Point B. Romney was a Heisenbergian electron materializing in different orbits with no way for us to know how he got from one to the other.

So, a lot of people decided that Romney must be a big phony who determined his standards by political expediency. And thus the nomination went to John McCain, who may blow up the world, but at least he'll do it in an authentic, straight-shootin' manner.

Like Romney, Obama, despite being a gifted memoirist, has never provided us with a plausible narrative explaining how he got from Rev. Wright's politics to being the post-partisan conciliator he claims to be now.

Romney, being white, especially being Mormon, which a lot of people associate with Donny Osmond's big-toothed perpetual smile, couldn't get away with that. So far, Obama, being (nominally) black, which Americans associate with authenticity, has gotten away with it.

But, he's losing momentum. He's lost three big state primaries in a row.

Obviously, it's presumptuous of me to offer Obama political advice. The man has thought longer and harder than anybody about the many advantages of being black in America today. He figured out that black Democrats would abandon the Clintons out of pure racial loyalty. And he figured out that white Democrats (and maybe white Republicans too) have been trained to turn their brains off when it comes to anything touching on race. He may very well win the Presidency because his opponents and the media are intimidated by his race.

Still, he's playing defense now. He'll increasingly have to hunker down, away from the trickle of tough questions that has started.

If he wants to go back on offense, though, he should play to his strength. He should give another 5,000 word speech. This one would be on: "I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because ..."

Aye, there's the rub: Why?

Therefore, let me suggest one for him:

"I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because I had kids."

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

47 comments:

rightsaidfred said...

Interesting analogy between Romney and Obama.

I'll suggest this:

"I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because I got mugged."

Anonymous said...

The Romney - Obama comparison works up to the point where we examine the media's impact. The media was very negative towards the former, while being very supportive of the latter.

-Frank

Lawful Neutral said...

He may very well win the Presidency because his opponents and the media are intimidated by his race.

Indubitably he will; barring a dead body, there's no way Obama can lose the nomination nor the general. If he does get into a rough patch, though, that "because I had kids" line would be fantastic.

Anonymous said...

As a Mass resident who voted for him, I never understood why Romney just didn't say to the conservative wing of the GOP "Hey, have you ever been to the People's Republic of Massachusetts? If you had, you'd realize that the only way for a Republican to get elected there, with 60% of the people registered Democrat, is to move to the center, just like Bill Clinton did in 1992."

Jeff Burton said...

a Heisenbergian electron materializing in different orbits

Nice.

Φ said...

We had two pictures of Romney at two different times: the liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts a few years ago and the conservative Republican candidate in 2008. And Romney didn't provide us with any kind of narrative explaining how and why he went from Point A to Point B.

But Romney did offer a narrative: he told us he abandoned his pro-choice position after working the logic backward from his opposition to fetal stem-cell harvesting; and that his support of gay rights stopped short of marriage. The problem was that many people found his timing too expedient, and many others simply opted to go with a true-believer like Huckabee.

Anonymous said...

"I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because I had kids."

That was how David Horowitz explained his "conversion" from 60's radical to Neocon.

Anonymous said...

you have nailed it--

my tks to blowhards for putting me on to yr blog

"it is all about the kids!"

perfect!

PaulK said...

Brilliant, Steve, absolutely brilliant. And if Obama was as bright as he thinks he is, he would think seriously about what you are saying. Unfortunately, his arrogance would get in the way. Video of his speech in Raleigh, in which he expressed his offense at being challenged on his past associations rather than his vague plans for the future, showed a testy, imperious side of him that will not wear well in the general election.

Joseph said...

Obama cannot disavow leftism right now. The left is giving him money and his primary (white) voting support.

If he wins the nomination, we will then here his 'divorce' speech from the left. He won't mean a word of it, of course.

Steve, you are probably correct that McCain will run a polite campaign. So what.
The Republican right will be more than happy to make up the difference. McCain will float above the fray while others will conduct a scorched earth war against Osama, er, Obama.

James said...

You can't suggest for him Steve, wtf is that. I like it better when you ended with dot dot dot. At what point are we allowed to believe that he's actually a looney leftest in deep disguise.

Eric said...

And he figured out that white Democrats (and maybe white Republicans too) have been trained to turn their brains off when it comes to anything touching on race.

Have white people been trained to turn their brains off or their mouths? Doesn't he consistantly do worse in the actual voting than he does in all the polling?

Josh said...

"He figured out that black democrats would abandon the Clintons out of racial loyalty..." Heh heh heh! Remember,back in the early days of this thing,the constant articles about the dilemma facing the Black Voter. Oh gee,what shall we do?? Its quite a conundrum! Hillary or Barack? Since I knew right from the get-go what the result would be---blacks will ALWAYS vote for the black,or blackER,candidate,once a minimum level of legitimacy is achieved by him or her--it was easy for ME,let alone Barry,to figure out! Since white peeps had been gushing about O'B for quite some time,I knew that blacks would go for him at 95%.

testing99 said...

Shrug. Steve I think you've misread nearly everything here.

Obama is not very smart, nor gifted as a politician. He's never won against substantial Republican opposition (Alan Keyes does not count) and has shown zero/zilch/nada ability to draw lots of working class and middle class white voters. "Reagan Democrats."

He doesn't get the racial divide: Crime. White voters (except hip/trendy yuppies) don't like it because it kills housing values and might kill them. Blacks like it because it's their informal militias against gentrification and Latino gangs, and allows them to punish Whites, posture in hyper-macho fashion.

His race hurts Obama, tremendously, because he's identified correctly not as a tough-on-crime cultural conservative from the old school, but the worst of both worlds, snooty intellectual determined to punish working/middle class whites for the crime of being uncool (Ayers/Dorn) and pandering to Black Criminals (Wright).

Any politician with a brain would have figured out that Whicker Park is not the US. That to win he has to carry places like PA, MI, NY, NJ, TX, FL, CA etc. Filled with middle/working class voters who vote crime/housing values etc.

He's come up with more panders to the rich white Billionaires (save the Polar Bears) and various grievance groups (release Black criminals). Nothing for the average working man who'd be Affirmative Actioned out of opportunities. As you note, as White population decreases the cost of AA goes up. No offsetting pander, like lower taxes and so on. McCain is offering lower taxes which is brilliant, particularly the Gas Tax holiday.

Dems structurally have a problem in that their tax/spend policies benefit political enemies of the working/middle class.

As far as foreign policy goes, Hillary's "I'll nuke Iran if I have to" has got to be poll-tested. Americans don't want expensive/casualty driven ground wars. They also don't want NYC and DC blown up by proliferating nuclear states that are at present un-deterrable and have a long policy of diplomacy by truck bomb.

Tribes with Nukes requires someone who can rationally put fear into an Ahmadinejad AND all the other tribal/kin networks and players in places like Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

Obama's weakness is in believing that the preference of Whicker Park for people like Dorn (who praised the Manson murders as "cool" and was entranced with the Manson family killing Tate and co., eating dinner with the bodies, and sticking a fork in the murdered Tate's stomach). Tate was 8 mos pregnant and most voters outside Whicker Park figure Obama owns that statement. Making him weak and basically in agreement with America's enemies: tribes with Nukes.

Both Hillary and McCain's "tough" attitude towards Tribes With Nukes seem to be selling. It's not the Cold War. The electorate only cares about not getting nuked, not moralizing or worshipping the "cool" of killers.

That Obama can't pander to a desire for toughness and relies on the media instead of an innate desire of the voters is a mark of profound political weakness.

testing99 said...

I'll add that Romney's problem was more that he lacked specifics that conservative voters wanted.

No plans for blocking gun confiscation. No push for something other than GWB's Iraq/Afghanistan policy that radiated toughness. No plans for more tax cuts. No plans for tough on crime action, or enforcing the border.

I think you give far too much credit for the media, and image, and not enough to the failures of Romney to really push plans. He ran on managerial competence, which yeah people want, but absent a constant pushing of plans, it wasn't enough.

Romney's the best qualified candidate, would have made a much better President than any of the others, but his problem was not IMHO style or Mormonism or what not but lack of compelling platforms. McCain beat him on promising victory in Iraq/Afghanistan. It wasn't much, but it was enough. Americans hate to lose wars.

Proofreader said...

Slightly off topic: Is Obama a freemason? My guess is that, given his background, he most likely is. But I'm curious
Not that it could hurt him, with 90 % percent or so of US presidents being masons.

mq said...

They also don't want NYC and DC blown up by proliferating nuclear states that are at present un-deterrable and have a long policy of diplomacy by truck bomb.

Tribes with Nukes requires someone who can rationally put fear into an Ahmadinejad AND all the other tribal/kin networks and players in places like Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere.


None of the things you're talking about have anything to do with Iran, which is a totally different place from Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Israel lobby is pretty much the only reason we lump them together -- at great harm to our foreign policy.

Ben Franklin said...

Obama is the candidate of the Overclass and the Underclass. In other words, his natural constituency and the policies that flow from that are aimed directly AGAINST the middle and working classes. And people wonder why Obama has problems with voters from those groups?

As Pat Buchanan put this morning on MSNBC (the Obama network), Obama is from the “faculty lounge.” That is the perfect description of the ideal candidate to appeal to the Media, the rest of the elite and the underclass. And the Overclass-Underclass alliance has nothing nice planned for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Testing99 -- Absolutely right.

I am amazed at how easily smart, conservative people are fooled by the MSM. First they agreed with the MSM that Bill Clinton was a political genius. They agreed with the MSM that Hillary was his heir apparent. They agreed with the MSM that Obama brings something new and fresh to national politics. Oh, please.

The Democratic nomination fight has proved the lie to each of these.

Clinton is no political superstar. Even many Dems are becoming tired of his presence. Newsflash: He only got elected president because Ross Perot split the conservative and independent vote in 1992 and 1996, and both GHWB and Dole were less than sterling GOP candidates.

Hillary has turned out to be a much more brittle, unlikeable, and inflexible politician than many people imagined. Sure, she was elected to teh Senate from NY. Big deal. She's hardly a political juggernaut. As it turns out, she won't even win the nomination. RIP, Hillary.

Now we have to hear the same crap about Obama. Has anyone actually listened to him? He's a vacuous phony. Plus he's about a leftist as they come, with a liberal trainwreck for a wife. Anyone who honestly believes he will be elected president is deeply delusional (whatever the reason).

Obama might win the nomination, but he will be CRUSHED by John McCain in the general election. Americans may be moving to the left politically over time, but they are not ready to elect as president someone who plainly does not love this country, its people, or its way of life.

When Obama inevitably loses, be prepared for the MSM's outraged cries of racism! racism! racism!

Republican Patriot

Eric said...

Indubitably he will; barring a dead body, there's no way Obama can lose the nomination nor the general. If he does get into a rough patch, though, that "because I had kids" line would be fantastic.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think the Rev. Wright stuff is gonna kill him in the general - white guilt is a much more dependable commodity among Democratic primary voters than it is among independents and Republicans.

McCain (his surrogates, actually) can attack Obama as the elite, out of touch, marxist black power nut he is - black people don't vote Republican anyway. Hillary has to pull every punch because she has no chance in the general if pissed-off blacks stay home. And even with the kid gloves she's getting traction.

As I see it at this point the general election is McCain's to lose, which is absolutely incredible considering the current president's unpopularity and the Embarrasment that is the Republican congressional leadership. The Democrats have horribly botched what should have been a cakewalk.

Jewish Atheist said...

You are as blinded by Obama as his supporters, just in the opposite direction. Obama never, never had the politics of Rev. Wright. This is plainly obvious from his writings and his speeches, and you would see it if you weren't so obsessed with taking him down.

Why did he remain with Wright? Well, Obama was a black community organizer and Wright was the head of the largest black church in Chicago. Duh.

Just as Obama is now willing to work with Republicans to get things done, he was then willing to work with nuts like Wright.

airtommy said...

"I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because ..."

I like how Steve just tosses out there the notion that Obama used to be way left, knowing that this assumption will be eaten up by the faithful. Steve knows he won't actually be expected to provide any evidence.

peter said...

"That was how David Horowitz explained his "conversion" from 60's radical to Neocon."

No, he didn't. Horowitz had kids before he was an editor of Ramparts. His explains his second thoughts as a result of the murder of a friend, Betty van Patter, by the Black Panthers.

http://tinyurl.com/5eym6w

Svigor said...

I admit I was wrong wrong wrong about Hillary vis-a-vis Obama; I figured she had the nod from the eminence grises and Obama was the punching bag.

But that won't stop me from stating that Obama's only chance is if he gets loads more money (multiples) to fight with than McCainiac (or of course if the Republicans deliberately throw the match). Otherwise, everybody in America will be very familiar with the facts:

Obama refuses to wear the flag pin.

Obama refuses to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Obama is a pinky-extending elitist who looks down his nose at working class whites. He says one thing around his billionaire buddies in private, and another when the cameras are on him.

Obama spent 20 years smiling in the pews as Wright cheered on Osama, and gave him 20 grand for his efforts.

Obama will send our nuke codes to Ahmadinejad in a diplomatic pouch.

Obama is a racist who casually throws around terms like "typical white person." (okay this one won't become a household fact but I can dream, can't I?)

Obama is one or two degrees separated from all sorts of unpleasant folks (Wright, Ayres, Farrakhan, etc.).

Etc., etc., etc.

What am I missing here? Why are folks like Lawful Neutral so convinced of Obama's invincibility? The media will run those 527-funded ads, and Americans will vote for the war hero (unless he goes all bug-eyed and starts calling in air strikes during a debate or something, a non-trivial possibility).

testing99 said...

MQ -- as opposed to the Iran Lobby or Saudi Lobby (which basically bought Clinton)?

Iran is tribal. Iran has been attacking the US since 79. Iran has boasted it will proliferate nukes. Iran has boasted it "broke" the Monroe Doctrine. Iran bombed Khobar Towers (with impunity -- Clinton did not want to react). Shrug.

Obama has offered hugs for Obama. This plays well with rich white yuppies drinking Lattes and angry at Daddy. And Blacks. Hillary's tough-talk on Iran played well among Blue Collar Dems who are both patriotic and can't just up and leave if Iran hands off nukes to Hezbollah and a neighboring city gets nuked.

Obama has Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc. He's associated with hard-left lunatics and racists and such for over twenty years. He's never worked with Republicans. He's a gun-grabber (write off the South and West right there).

I disagree that this "should" be the Dems year. Yes Reps are horrible on so many things, but Dems are even worse. GWB ran a barely (if that) competent campaign and still tied Al Gore and barely beat Kerry. Dems keep running against "middle classness" and wonder why middle class folks reject them.

Anonymous said...

Svigor: Obama is one or two degrees separated from all sorts of unpleasant folks (Wright, Ayres, Farrakhan, etc.)... What am I missing here?

Raila Amolo "Sharia Law" Odinga, the Butcher of Kenya.

Lawful Neutral said...

Why are folks like Lawful Neutral so convinced of Obama's invincibility?

1) He's got the media in his corner more than any other candidate in my lifetime.

2) It's admittedly anecdotal, but among my circle of friends (20-something white males, mostly), enthusiasm for Obama is off the charts. Most of these guys are fairly non-political right-wingers in favor of nuking our enemies, lowering taxes, ending social security, and that sort of thing, but every one of them will vote Obama. They love the man, even though they disagree with the policies he stands for. Many have a practically religious reverence for Obama. It's a little bizarre and cult-like, I've never seen anything like it.

3) McCain would rather win the press's approval than the Presidency, and running the kind of campaign that might win would lose him what he really wants.

4) The Republicans aren't so enthusiastic about McCain; his persona is about being the one Republican who's not stupid and evil, not like the others. That's not a good way to get Republican votes. The immigration issue will probably leave a few percentage points of the base at home on election day.

5) This is the big one: Obama is the best looking candidate by far. Seriously, it matters, and he will win.

William said...

Why did he remain with Wright? Well, Obama was a black community organizer and Wright was the head of the largest black church in Chicago.

Why-oh-why would ANY American who is not black vote for someone whose entire political career has been dediated to organizing BLACK VOTERS in pursuit of BLACK INTERESTS?

None that I can think of, except that Obama has tacitly acknowledged that he'll support the interests of Bobos and trust fund baby's like Gordon Getty, too.

[Obama should say:] "I used to be way to the left, but now I'm not, because I had kids."

Ummm...kids (now 9 and 6) who he then proceeded to raise in the same left-wing church he purportedly abandoned? A church to which he gave $27K in 2007? And then, after he had those kids and started moving to the right, proceeded to rack up the furthest left voting record in the Senate?

If John McCain actually wants to win, and if he's willing to say heave-ho to the press adoration, he could tear Obama apart. Perhaps in the process of doing so he'll discover the fraud that is multiculturalism.

Anonymous said...

" Many have a practically religious reverence for Obama. It's a little bizarre and cult-like, I've never seen anything like it."

Is there anyway the Republicans could make these glassy eyed Obamabots a campaign issue in the general election and make it stick?

A sort of "Do we want to hand the whip over to these teenyboppers and crazies?" ad campaign?

William said...

Many have a practically religious reverence for Obama. It's a little bizarre and cult-like, I've never seen anything like it.

Oh, yes you have; and I have and most of the people on this site and around this country have. We've seen it on the international news segments on TV, where African country X is having an election. Go watch the "We Are the Ones" video at YouTube, with it's chants of "Obama!" at the beginning to realize that's exactly where it's coming from.

Obama has pretty much sealed the Democratic nomination, but he's done so without the white working class, which will be far more suspicious of him than it was of John Kerry. But McCain hasn't won too many fans amongst this group, and it raises the question of what he can do to win their confidence and secure their vote.

I realize I'm a bit biased here, but I happen to think one major issue they're concerned about starts with an "I" and ends with a Reconquista.

If McCain conceded on that issue he might turn a lot of people around. The polls are close enough that he just might have to, and, despite his history on the issue, I happen to think it's possible - he's not gunna get this close to the White House and lose it only because of a bunch of wetbacks.

William said...

I'm all for Barack Obama, because He's for hope. And for change. And He's for hoping for change. And He believes in the audacity of changing for hope. And because, unlike all those other corrupt pols out there, He still believes in a place called Change.

Some people say that Obama is a bloviating gasbag spewing nothing but vacuous rhetoric to camouflage His far-left and racist beliefs, but I disagree. Obama has reminded us that we are the ones we've been waiting for to say "Yes we can."

Lawful Neutral said...

William, imagine what you just wrote, except completely sincere. That's exactly what many, many people sound like when they talk about Obama. How can he lose?

Lawful Neutral said...

Take a look at what Instapundit just linked to.

I rest my case.

old hickoryface said...

Folks, the Mexico problem isn't just about illegal immigrants. It is about American dirt bags who use the border as a way to avoid abiding by US laws. It is about the massive trans-border smuggling industry. It is about the dirty Mexican police and dirty Mexican politicians who use the porous border to their advantage.

In the long run, the problem will not be solved with a wall. It will be solved by annexation down to the skirt of southern Mexico.

It will also put us in a better position to checkmate South America in the long term. The world economy is faltering, and that means we WILL see political shakedowns and purging of old and useless policies and attitudes.

For now we are just sharpening our teeth blowing up towel heads. Sooner or later we will have to settle matters in our own house, in our own continent. Once we do that, the world can try and come get us. As Abe Lincoln said, the world couldn't take our continent if it had all the wealth and armies and was led by a Bonaparte. This continent is an island fortress, once we seal off the loose ends north and especially south.

Mark my words, folks.

headache said...

"When Obama inevitably loses, be prepared for the MSM's outraged cries of racism! racism! racism!

Republican Patriot"

If you think about it, this hyping of Obama may actually be a setup by the MSM of the American people. They know Obama is a disaster for the country so the chance is the American people will reject him. Then they have the perfect cover for calling the American people en masse racists. Like the jewish controlled media in Germany just loves dishing it out to the Germans even 60 years after the war. It seems the MSM are relishing the thought of morally excoriating the American people. It makes them feel so much more superior, and what better way than to scoop a general election. For them its only a game anyway.

American Goy said...

"Obama will send our nuke codes to Ahmadinejad in a diplomatic pouch."

I see the pro Israel lobby and AIPAC are here, strong, organized, representin'.

:-)

William said...

William, imagine what you just wrote, except completely sincere.

What are you talking about? I was being sincere...

Svigor said...

I see the pro Israel lobby and AIPAC are here, strong, organized, representin'.

:-)


Lol, no, you're pretty far off the mark there - about as far off as one can go.

Just because it's a neocon talking point doesn't mean it's untrue; more to the point, just because it's untrue doesn't mean it won't be a 527 talking point and a Household Fact, or that it doesn't contain a kernel of truth.

David said...

That Obama [...] relies on the media instead of an innate desire of the voters is a mark of profound political weakness.

Precisely the opposite of the truth, if by "political weakness" we mean "inability to get elected."

The voters have no innate desire except to do what media tell them. Media tell them Obama will improve the economy. So voters will vote for him. Media tell them Obama will reform foreign policy. So voters will vote for him.

Your understanding of the American people is weak. They are not the same as they were 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. They don't study issues, they don't get passionately into it, they merely see a young, fit, good-looking man with a strong voice who's of a "cool" (per media) stock (i.e. black) - vs. the two hideous old whore-bags.

(That's the explanation of the "brainwashed" thing among young people - Obama is a relatively strong younger person, like them. He is the under-50 generation's version of a star, like Reagan was the star of a previous generation.)

The people have become the sheeple.

Whoever has the media sewed up, will win the election.

To the extent he can command the media, Obama has the Presidency.

Don't trust the voters so much. Remember H.L. Mencken's line: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." No one ever lost the Presidency doing do, either.

Anonymous said...

Your understanding of the American people is weak. They are not the same as they were 10 years ago, even 5 years ago. They don't study issues, they don't get passionately into it, they merely see a young, fit, good-looking man...

One more argument for literacy and civics tests at the polls.

The 20th Century saw every great idea of the 18th & 19th Centuries flushed down the toilet. Bring back poll tests and poll taxes. Bring back manifest destiny. Explain to me what was wrong about the Chinese Exclusion Act.

beowulf said...

My goodness, you guys have gone off the deep end. Obama is a liberal but if you don't think he's smarter and more mentally stable than McCain, then YOU need to have your head examined.

What's funny about the Reverend Wright controversy is that it sort of blows up the rumor he's a Muslim. More importantly, it was Reverend Wright who brought him to Christ. Obama is very likely going to be our next president, he wouldn't have made it this far if he was still an atheist (sorry Jewish Atheist, I'd still vote for you).

There does seem to have be a certain integrity to him and I don't think he's faking being religious. It would have been easy to just start wearing a flag pin, but since it didn't seem right to him, he still doesn't.

Even if his reasons are wrong, he sticks to his guns instead of caving in against his own mind just to win votes. Similarly, I respect him for not throwing Wright under the bus.

I voted for Romney in the primaries, but I'll vote for Obama over McCain any day.

Proofreader said...

The dirty truth is that Obama is most likely an atheist, which would make him ineligible for 50 % of the electorate according to polls. He's neither a Christian (if Wright's church can be described as properly Christian, which is debatable) or a Muslim.

He'd rather hang on to the despicable and Black Nationalist reverend Wright than admit he's just an opportunist who doesn't believe in anything except himself. And power.

Obama is the elite's man of choice for the dirty job of finishing off the vanishing American white middle- class.

As for McCain, he's the neocons choice for furthering their imperialistic delusions, so they need the middle-class to stay around for another generation or so until they can dispose of the white suckers who vote for their own extinction.

poor richard said...

David, young Americans are not dumb. Young people are reacting to some genuinely unnatural or rigidly untenable positions being held by older generations.

The Chinese Exclusion Act worked because immigrant Irish labor in California was willing to literally break Chinese heads and take over their jobs. Where is the rough and tough white labor force now? They have gentrified.

Multiracialism is a reality in America. And contrary to what some think or fear, this is not some general melting pot of humanity. It is a mixing bowl of three or four very specific races. White, Black, Hispanic (mainly Mexican more or less), and Asian.

Each of these races has its own ideas about who its people are, and none is prepared to mix generally with the others. Nationwide, White is still white, Black is still black, Mexican is still Mexican, and Asian is still Asian.

Older conservative whites who think they will see a self-sufficient whites only country and economy are going to be questioned by their children who plainly see that this does not match the reality on the ground.

And the problem is that this reality gap is being filled by liberals with their own hackneyed and obsolete ideas. (The welfare state simply cannot hold with the impending demographic reality)

Does that mean it's Doom and Gloom? Absolutely not. We Americans are in possession of a huge country that is not only rich in natural resources but also protected from invasion and interference by two massive oceans, and a glacial wilderness.

But to master this reality, we need to open our eyes and look at exactly where we are and exactly who is here, and how it can all fit together for the benefit of the nation. And stop wasting our resources fighting other mens' wars halfway around the world.

Anonymous said...

beawolf, just curious...where do you live?

Mark said...

Holy crap. Your suggestion is the most insightful piece of twisted political advice I've seen since Dick Morris worked with Bill Clinton. God, please don't let Obama read your blog. If he gave that speech (former lefty changed by kids, awww) he could campaign from his massive Rezko financed front porch and still win.

Steve Sailer said...

When you turn on your TV and there's Obama in front of a whole bunch of flags with his littlest daughter on his knee, then you'll know he got the message ...

Basically, the Obama-side of the election is just playing out in slow motion the dynamics I identified a long time ago. So, figure Obama will give this speech by, say, October 1.

David said...

Poor Richard waxes hopeful about America's paradisical nature for the vibrant multicultural population of the future:

We Americans are in possession of a huge country that is not only rich in natural resources but also protected from invasion and interference by two massive oceans, and a glacial wilderness.

Sounds rather like subsaharan Africa.

People succeed, Poor Richard - not geography. The "reality" to which you urge us to acquiese is dysgenic. People with 85 IQs don't build (or long maintain) first-class civilizations.

The solution seems to be either a crash eugenics program, or else a general secession (i.e. political breakup).

South Africa, too, was promising in that same phony, ideological way...remember a man named Mandela, the great uniter? The Left is sunk in a dementia of chimerical hope - or wants its victims to be.