And Would You Cry If I Told You That I Lied, And Would You Say Goodbye?
Democrat Dave and I don’t agree on much, but it seems we were watching the same network newscast last night.
That would be ABC News, where this jaw-dropping question was asked by Charles Gibson to George Stephanopoulos concerning Barack Obama’s decision to drop out of campaign finance for the first time EVER:
“George, I’ve heard a lot of political analysis today about his decision, but let me ask you a question about basic fairness. People in this country like to believe that people play on a level playing field and that a campaign will be about ideas and personality. If you start with that much more money, is it basically fair?”
This so hoot-worthy on so many levels, I don’t know where to begin!
1. Since when is the national press concerned about “fairness” when it comes to political outcomes? The press is so biased toward Democrats and against Republicans, they can’t even pretend anymore—and polls show that the public is on to their scam.
2. So what if Obama has been able to get more money? If he is slick enough to fool the rubes into donating to his campaign with his soaring rhetoric and his hopey-changey schtick—power to him! It certainly wouldn’t be the first time a politician fooled the voters.
3. Who really believes in the “level playing field” canard except liberals?
I think it’s #3 that has made liberal journalists like Charles Gibson question Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing. Sure Obama has been once again exposed as a liar, but so what—Obama has been caught in lies before and the press still loved him—until he pooped all over one of liberalism’s sacred cows—public financing for POTUS candidates.
I know I don’t have to remind my gentle readers that I have been against McCain-Feingold (and all previous incarnations) since the beginning and believe it to be a gross violation of our First Amendment rights. So there is some delicious irony that John McCain has been hoist by his own campaign finance reform petard.
But at least for now, it looks like Obama has lost major media opinion makers, who once heralded Obama as The Great Reformer.
This will have little to no bearing on the outcome of the race. It’s change versus a 79-year old man!
Comment by Terry1 | June 21, 2008
Terry1,
Can yu define Obama’s ‘CHANGE’?
I am thinking that it is a cute catch-phrase with little substance. Since you used the word, can you tell us what it means to you?
Thanks.
Comment by tiger woods | June 21, 2008
It will be interesting – this will undoubtedly swing the $$ portion of the race way off balance. However, as I stated in the post below, the race comes down to,
1. “It’s the economy stupid” and in 2008, this means little more than -gasoline. As Obama has absolutely no answer to this problem, and has actually stated that he does not mind high gas prces (as it forces us to think green) – I think that he comes out the loser.
2. Can Obama continue to get people to believe that he stands for change?
As McCain’s record is indeed change-oriented and full of bipartisanship and Obama’s is nothing more than partisanship and far left action, I think that Obama has an issue here as well.
I believe that the money will allow Obama to frame the message, but will anyone other than the poor deluded left (thanks Oracle) buy it?
Comment by tiger woods | June 21, 2008
People, especially when it comes to politics, see what they want to see and not the reality that is around them. The lemmings want to believe Obama represents change and they will. Normally I would say McCain would stand a chance to push himself using Obama’s hypocrisy. But the cards are not in his favor. Obama will be running against George Bush, not John McCain. Obama and his minions will be playing the race card every way they think work it in, despite the Democrat Party being the one running the bigoted campaign. They will use race and age in a bigoted manner to support their campaign. Plus the big edge is that they have a huge edge in new college recruits that have been subjugated to left wing teaching, where playing the age card and tying McCain to Bush will be an Obama advantage. Obama is a crook, a liar and panders to the farthest leftwing of the party yet he has manged to pull the wool over enough eyes that choose to belive his lies, he should win this contest. It does not mean he will. Face it how many really thought McCain was going to be the Republican nominee? Not many as Romney and Giuliani were the original front runners in the Republican Party. I do not really like either candidate all that much. There are bits and pieces of each candidate that appeal to me but Obama strikes me as phony and the fact that he is so entwined with Chicago politics would not allow me to vote for him. On the bright side if Obama does win, I will have at least four years of blogging fun pointed at Obama.
Comment by thescoundrel | June 21, 2008
The other bright spot, should Obama win, is that Reagan followed Carter.
When a POTUS is so bad (as Carter was), not only did a Republican win the following election, but a very conservative Republican (in a landslide).
This leads to two thoughts –
1. If Bush was as bad as the Liberals want us all to believe, why is this election framing up to be so close?
2. Obama clearly will be in line with Carter (as far as a terrible POTUS). Tax increases for all, business tax increases, Capital gains tax increases, government takeover of healthcare, and likely other issues, unwilling to fight any enemies, willing to negotiate with those who desperately hate us – the list goes on.
As terrible as this has the potential for being, it all can be corrected in 2012 – by a conservative Republican. And if McCain (a moderate) loses in 2008, the Republican Party will be forced to move back to the right.
The Republican Party goes more Conservative.
The (Conservative) Repub Party wins in 2012++
All-in-all, a very bright side.
One step back – two steps forward.
Comment by tiger woods | June 22, 2008
tiger, I agree—especially if the Dems win big in Congress. There will be such a rush and so much pressure by liberal special interest groups to IMMEDIATELY pass legislation favoring Big Labor, trial lawyers, blacks, environmentalists,etc. it will scare the bejeebus out of the country—just like HillaryCare did in the early 90s.
I’m not sure we’ll immediately swing back to a Reagan style conservatism (maybe a Rockefeller Republicanism instead), but it won’t take long for the public to tire of the liberal agenda being shoved down their collective throats.
Comment by qcexaminer | June 22, 2008
Scoundrel, you are so right.
In fact, at the moment, I’m moving past the Senor Badass choice between being bit in the keester (McCain) v. bit in the keester and kicked in the cojones (Obama), to Robbie’s “I don’t care who wins.”
And ditto the bloggy fun we will have with POTUS Obama—I’m already having more fun with him than is legally allowed!
Comment by qcexaminer | June 22, 2008
I will ask again,
Can anyone define Obama’s ‘CHANGE’?
What is he going to change?
What does ‘Change’ mean in Obma-land?
Oracle, TID, Robie, Mellon, Terry1 – how can you people be ga-ga over this guy, yet be unable to communicate what his campaign is even about?
Comment by tiger woods | June 23, 2008
You’re beating a dead horse, tiger.
Barrett answered your question in an earlier thread when I asked him what “new ideas” Obama was promoting.
Barrett said Obama’s “new idea” was that he wasn’t Bush/McCain.
Besides, it’s becoming clear that Obama has no core values just WIN! WIN! WIN!
Comment by qcexaminer | June 23, 2008
Oh, I know that I am beating a dead horse, but it is nice to let the lib’s know that they have no answers. That they have nothing to offer a discussion other than criticism and namecalling.
Of course, it is clear that Obama has little more than, “I am not Bush’ but the more Oracle, TID, Robbie, Mellon and the others duck an attempt to answer the question, the clearer it is to eventhem – that they indeed have no answer!
Comment by tiger woods | June 23, 2008
Oracle, Mellon help me…
Please help me understand Obama’s ‘CHANGE.’
What does it mean?
I am excited for CHANGE.
Are we going to CHANGE the fact that we have had no terrorist attacks on US soil in 7-years?
Oops, that would be bad change.
Are we going to change the fact that the Bush Administration has created over 8,000,000 jobs since 2003?
Oops, that would be bad change.
Are we going to change the fact that we have not had Presidential BJ’s in the Oval Office recently?
Oops, that would be bad change.
I don’t understand, what is Obama going to change – and how?
I know that TID is unable to answer this, so we won’t ask him. I know that Robbie won’t answer this, because he is affraid that I might call him a a liberal (and that is really upsetting to him), so Oracle and Mellon – I guess it’s up to you.
Please help me, I am confused. I need your help.
What is Obama’s CHANGE?
Comment by tiger woods | June 23, 2008
I doubt anyone really believes the “change” canard anymore—-even Democrats/liberals. It’s clear now it was just a ruse to fool the rubes.
Comment by qcexaminer | June 23, 2008
Barrett,
Mellon,
Oracle –
Do you believe so little in Obama, that you are afraid to comment on his CHANGE campaign?
What a shame. Quite telling, but, still, what a shame…
Comment by tiger woods | June 23, 2008