Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Obama: Taking a closer look

This morning at The Right Side of the Rainbow we read - - -

This “conversation” is over.

He didn’t just win the state by fifteen points, which qualifies as a landslide. He ate into Hillary’s base.

Even before tonight, the two were in a statistical dead heat in Texas.

Question: How does Mama recover from this? Answer: She doesn’t.


Can we scrutinize Obama’s rhetoric now? Yes, we can:

A favorite Obama line is that he will tell “the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know.” Well, he hasn’t so far.

Consider the retiring baby boomers. A truth-telling Obama might say: “Spending for retirees — mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is already nearly half the federal budget. Unless we curb these rising costs, we will crush our children with higher taxes. Reflecting longer life expectancies, we should gradually raise the eligibility ages for these programs and trim benefits for wealthier retirees. Both Democrats and Republicans are to blame for inaction. Waiting longer will only worsen the problem.”

Instead, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to “protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries.” This isn’t “change”; it’s sanctification of the status quo. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. By his math, that would provide average tax relief of $1,400 to 7 million retirees — shifting more of the tax burden onto younger workers. (Emphasis added.)

Folks, it's never over 'til it's over, so if someone wants to say Hillary still has a chance at the nomination - sure. But her chance is very, very slim.

As I take a closer look at Obama, including reading posts such as the one above, what strikes me is this: When you get past the personal charm and glowing rhetoric, what you find is a Mike Dukakis/Ted Kennedy liberal.

I don't see any "new policy" Obama is offering. On the domestic side, everything "new" so far amounts to more entitlements for more people.

On foreign policy, what's new there? He's promised to pull our troops out of Iraq. He says we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. He'll meet with our enemies.

Sure, but Howard Dean, Al Sharpton and many others promised that four years ago.

I'm not one of those who asks of Obama: "Where's the beef?"

I see plenty of Obama's "beef;" and it's all aged.


Anonymous said...


I am not American, so please forgive what may seemingly be my ignorance on US political matters.

My questions revolve around the reliability of the candidate nomination process as it affects the Presidial election.

All we see in the MSM is the hype surrounding Clinton (first female) and Obama (first black).

Presumably those nominating the successful Democratic candidate comprise a very small (probably insignificant) minority of voters by number. Furthermore those who get involved in the nomination process are the more politically aware/active voters - usually on the far left of the Democratic Party.

How will the choice of a contentious Democrat candidate; by virtue of his/her colour/gender, play out in the Presidential election, when the silent majority of American voters, a number infinitely greater than that involved in the nomination process, finally get to vote?

From all acounts in the MSM, the Democrats are virtually assured of winning the Presidential election. Is this a definite, or will the mainstream majority (both Dems and Republicans) balk at such a contentious Democratic candidate, and vote for McCain(?) because they are afraid of such a radical change, and prefer the status quo?


Anonymous said...

Danvers seems to have a pretty solid grasp of reality, unlike our Left-Lib friends in the MSM. The Democrat nominee is vetted by the far left of the Democrat party and the Republican nominee is vetted by the far right of the Republican party. But where the rubber meets the road is the fact that the far right of the Republicans is closer to the majority of the American voters than are the extreme Democrats. Thus, there is a good chance that we will see a repeat of Gore v Bush and Kerry v Bush in 2008: the far left Democrat will be rejected by the American electorate.
Tarheel Hawkeye