At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.
To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done."
Sounds good to the ear. Looks good on paper too. But the article foes on to pose the question of the day:
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
Answer: It can't.
It's difficult to reconcile that Republicans are so disaffected that they would vote for someone that has the most liberal voting record (when he votes), when the bulk of what Sen. Obama stands for goes against their core beliefs. In fact, it's just not possible.
Granted, there are many disaffected Republicans, but they are not disaffected for the same reasons that Democrats are. Democrats hate George Bush, so anything he does is a GOP thing and worthy of castigation (even if he has shelled out more money to Africa for AIDS treatment). But Republicans aren't pleased, because George Bush is (in some cases) too liberal. He has spent money like a drunken sailor, consistent with the liberal code. There are even some that are mad because he didn't listen to McCain and employ the surge, at the outset.
This being the case, why would disaffected Republicans seek to seat a candidate that is even more liberal than George Bush and one that would pull the the plug on the surge, leaving the Iraqi nation vulnerable to Al-Qaida and Iran? Answer: They wouldn't.
Obama, in an interview, said that "a lot of these old labels don't apply anymore."
Well, if an animal is a duck, don't you call it a duck? Politics is no different. Sure, politics is more complicated than zoology, most of the time; but one that votes with other liberals is, (well, uh) liberal.
I don't mind people having their own beliefs, even if they are different than mine. But please, do not try to insult my intelligence by making me think that my displeasure with the President is cause to support someone that is counter to what I believe to be true. That's what Obama and his supporters are trying to do. In short, they want me to come over to their side and think like they do, because I think Bush hasn't handled things they way I think he should have.
Look folks, even before the Jeremiah Wright story and the "typical white woman" comment, Obama was weak on the issues and inexperienced. Now he wants to continue to push the rhetoric back to his homogeneous message, which is basically hope, change, and unity. He wants us to believe that if he's the only one who, if elected, has the ability to unite the country under one happy banner.
He's not considering that I do not want a President that will openly court those that are now threatening us, through unconditional talks. He isn't thinking about how people will react to higher taxes to fund more entitlement programs, to go with ones that already aren't working. He doesn't want to talk about the things that are rough, we wants to prophesy smooth things, through deceit. And he damned sure doesn't realize that many like me do not want race-baiting trouble makers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to have any more of a role or influence, than the media gives them now.
So I ask you, how's he going to unite this nation, when so many disagree with him on so many issues?
Answer: He isn't, he won't and he can't.