The Candidate We Still Don’t Know
So why isn’t Obama romping? The obvious answer — and both the excessively genteel Obama campaign and a too-compliant press bear responsibility for it — is that the public doesn’t know who on earth John McCain is. The most revealing poll this month by far is the Pew Research Center survey finding that 48 percent of Americans feel they’re “hearing too much” about Obama. Pew found that only 26 percent feel that way about McCain, and that nearly 4 in 10 Americans feel they hear too little about him. It’s past time for that pressing educational need to be met.
What is widely known is the skin-deep, out-of-date McCain image. As this fairy tale has it, the hero who survived the Hanoi Hilton has stood up as rebelliously in Washington as he did to his Vietnamese captors. He strenuously opposed the execution of the Iraq war; he slammed the president’s response to Katrina; he fought the “agents of intolerance” of the religious right; he crusaded against the G.O.P. House leader Tom DeLay, the criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and their coterie of influence-peddlers.
With the exception of McCain’s imprisonment in Vietnam, every aspect of this profile in courage is inaccurate or defunct.
While we’re at it, what did all of you think of that odd Q & A with McCain and Obama at Rick Warren’s Faith Forum? Odd because who is Warren that he gets this kind of power on national TV to make or break the candidates with a particular group of voters? And should religion play that big a role in a Presidential election?
#30 “*people* not only don’t care what politicians have to say, they don’t know what’s even good for them.”
Exactly, look at the idiots who voted for dems to take over the House & Senate. Only, to see the same policies continued, Iraq war, wiretapping, etc.
While I do think the press has been more involved with Obama. I do think McCain has spent more time bashing Obama rather then getting his own message out. This is typical old school campaigning by John McCain. I am not a opponent of the media being so biased. But it is obvious that the media does not like George Bush and they draw a similarity right or wrong of John McCain to George Bush. Unfortunately John McCain has taken similar stances as Bush on many issues and the media is reacting negatively.
The press is covering Obama more than McCain, but thats not a good thing for Obama. The MSM is completely failing to point out McCain’s slip ups and misjudgements, that would vault Obama permanently in a distant lead. (McCains unbelievably naive statements regarding Georgia and Russia are prime examples)
The only explanation I can come up with is that the corporate media NEEDS the race to be close in order to boost their ratings. If Obama gets too far ahead, people wont bother watching the election coverage, hence they are bringing Obama down and propping up McCain to keep the race close.
This is what the Democrats need to do to counter it.
“The op-ed piece below by Frank Rich points out a few of the things the MSM seems to be ignoring about McCain.” ///
I know all the bad stuff about McCain–and I got it from the MSM. Last night with Rick Warren I heard McCain proudly state he was pro-life/anti-choice. I was hoping the wimen in the audience were paying attention. I have watched him flip-flop on immigration. I know he sees the military as a strength in our diplomacy rather than a mistake. He is anti-pork. He has no idea about the economy or energy or health needs of this country and his advisors are Bushco.
I know less about Obama because there is less to know. His unknowable positions are preferred to McCain’s known bad positions.
Still no in depth coverage/analysis of either sides planned budgets for the country but guaranteed deficit spending promised from both. Guaranteed religious pandering from both.
The downward spiral will continue, just a question of speed.
Religion of the candidate does matter. The religion of the candidate dictates what he will do in office. Hence why Huckabee didn’t get nominated.
Obama failed miserably with the Warren questions. He wants every type of abortion known to man, including murder after the baby is outside the womb, but he passes on the key question: “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
Obama is the embodiment of everything despised in a politician: an elitist, morally superior, gun-grabbing, religion-bashing, terrorist-coddling appeaser who threatens all that is good and decent in America. Plus, he bowls like a girl.
#36 – Benny
>>Plus, he bowls like a girl.
Imagine your mortification in 155 days when you have a President that bowls like a girl as the leader of your country.
The rest of us will be proud.
#36 ““At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?””
Come on! How the hell do you expect a law professor to answer that Q? You’d have to understand law, ethics, morals, Constitution…
Oops… Maybe Omama should ask for a refund on his Univ education…
jbenson2 said “He wants every type of abortion known to man, including murder after the baby is outside the womb…”
Wow, I thought people like you were just a media myth.
#39–QB–Yes JB is a stretch there, so much so, I wondered if he was pulling a “Dallas” and expect us to catch the sarcasm==but, I caught Jerome Corsi (sp?) interviewed on book tv and people were calling in and thanking him for being courageous.
Go figure.
Why isn’t Obama ahead by 20 points? Simple, read above the responses from Obama supporters. They absolutely hate the other side, not disagree, not dislike, but pure adulterated hate. They scream about putting Bush on trial as soon as they take power (not really thinking through the repercussions of that decision). They sit on their high horse and decide that anyone who does not agree with them are just stupid, or some kind of racist, bigot, or homophobe, and cannot accept that someone disagrees with them on principle. Now I am not saying that the majority of Obama supporters are like that, but its a pretty sizable chunk of them that are. Kind of like when people hear mac fanboys and some of hate that they spill, people hear that and get turned off by it.
Actually the only reason that McCain is not up by 20 points is because he has done such a piss poor job of running a campaign, and the republicans have pretty much dropped the ball for the last 8 years.
Basiclly the only reason this election is close is that one side has done a bad job for the last 8 years, and the other side is so filled with hate, and is trying desperately to win without ever having to take a side on anything.
I’ll answer all your questions.
Why isn’t Obama far, far ahead in the polls?
Maybe the polls are broken. People hang up on pollsters more than before, and cell phones mess things up even more.
Or maybe Obama just isn’t that good a candidate. Take one question at the Saddleback Forum: Give me an example of where you went against party loyalty and maybe even your own interest for the good of the country:
McCain said global warming, torture, spending, and sending Marines to Lebanon. Barack Obama said ethics reform(guess the Dems are against ethics).
Rick Warren has built a large church, and sold tens of millions of books, and the questions and format were very well done.
Religion should be involved in politics. I think most people would like to know that their president is more than a collection of issue positions, and consider character when voting.
Obama did well enough there, but I wish they would stop dancing around abortion. Saying the question is above his pay grade, while properly humble, doesn’t look like a good answer for someone who wants to be president.
#41–Bob==you don’t hate what BushCo has done to this country–and that McCain evidences he will basically continue the same policies?
#42–Mike N==Saddleback was an abortion. Anytime there is no followup question to test the consistency/depth of the response, what you have is a beauty contest and nothing more. Why didn’t Warren challenge Obama on his pro-choice position? Why didn’t Warren challenge McCain on his torture and spending hypocrisy.
Whoever thinks Saddleback was a good process just likes having their ego’s stroked and doesn’t understand much of anything. Sheep.
Rick Warren will be on Larry King tonight to receive praise on what a good job he did.
All part of the warp and weave of why the USA is going down the tubes.
Any bets on how close Larry will get to asking Warren if politics is too close to religion? The question could be asked, but there will be no follow up.
All the loons want religion and morality to define the elections. Sad they don’t understand government is about money and power. Again, sheep.
I think the “Faith Forum” is the WORST KIND OF PANDERING I can think of !!! The candidates ARE NOT RUNNING FOR ANY RELIGIOUS OFFICE, and should REFUSE TO DISCUSS THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, citing the Constitution – Article VI, section 3 – which says:
“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
Bobbo, yes followups would be nice, but we don’t know if Warren is up to that, plus this was a completely different format that I think helped.
#49–Mike==I assume you are being honest BUT THE WHOLE POINT is that this type of format DOES NOT HELP!!!!
Without followup questions, without the questions going to what a candidate can/will ACTUALLY DO when in office (IE–the budget issue I keep harping on)==all you have is a beauty contest wherein everyone watching has their pre-show attitudes reinforced. ITS NOT GOOD!!!
Pandering should never be confused with analysis. Stop it.
41, 48,
Could you give us some examples of specific policies or actions of Obama you have problems with? I mean, after you finish with the straw-man bullshit and labels instead of facts to distort and pimp your version of tyhe truth.
…and I want Bush impreached NOW, not in the next administration. The only ramifications we need worry about are those if we allow that man to escape justice.
Ok,
the basic answer is that people are starting to figure out who Obama is. He has no substance, he’s a racist, and he can’t even give a good speech without the teleprompter.
On the subject of negative ads, whats wrong with them. It’s ok to point out something wrong with your opponent. Why should it be wrong to point out problems, lies, etc…
On a side note, Obama lost most of the final Dem primaries in a big way. If the Jeremiah Wright story had come out earlier, we would be talking about Hillary now.
#51 –
OK, #1) Raising taxes. I don’t care if it is only on people making more than $250,000. Those same people are the ones who generate the most wealth and jobs in the country. Experience and history have proven that tax CUTS lead to a more robust economy and MORE revenue. The only reason for increasing taxes is as a punitive measure against those whom one thinks have “too much.” That kind, actually any kind, of redistribution of income has no place in a free society.
#2) The general philosophy of making the population more dependent upon the government for the basic necessities of life, e.g. health care, education, and retirement. This philosophy is antithetical to the principles upon which this nation was founded.
That specific enough for ya’?
Oh, jeez, that Rick Warren show made me swallow my own vomit many times.
Good God, one question was “In one-minute, tell me why should you be president?”
Anytime we’re gonna change from “Mr. President” to “Mr. America” if this brain drain continues.
54,
Actually, yes. Thanks. Now we can discuss specifics.
So, you don’t like the tax hike even though it doesn’t affect you? It’s good to be concerned about your fellow man. However, there is no causal relation between higher taxes and poor economic performance, some of this nation’s greatest economic times were during high rates of taxation.
As for the “dependence” on the government for decent and affordable health care and such, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I feel that such things can only be guaranteed by the government through regulation, as private interests in every single sector, industry, and market have demonstrated time and again that profit trumps safety, fairness, cleanliness, and any other “costly” infrastructure beyond the absolute minimum effort required to complete the transaction.
So, at least I know where you are coming from on a couple of points. Much better than having to address a red herring.
#56–smartalix==you are being way too nice, letting #54 geof off the hook like that.
I completely don’t understand how the mantra of “tax and spend” has such traction when “deficit spending” is unintelligible.
So geof–EVERYBODY is against taxes, but that gets moderated when EVERYBODY knows a society has to provide certain basic services or reveolution will occur. Everytime I hear someone limit their conversation to “he’s tax and spend” I know I’m dealing with an idiot.
Name the programs you think should be cut. Lets have fewer produce inspectors, meat inspectors, lead paint on toys inspectors and so forth but when your family gets sick, lets not feign outrage that the Government has let us down.
How many rich have “earned” their money? Just the recipients of a system out of whack. The government should be regulating how wealth is generated and transfered to the rich.
A bonus paid to a CEO for outsourcing jobs to China is bad enough. The company that pays it doesn’t need tax incentives to do it.
God, I hate republican bullshit. Dem BS is plentiful too, but more people benefit from it.
#58
> So geof–EVERYBODY is against taxes,
> but that gets moderated when
> EVERYBODY knows a society
> has to provide certain basic
> services or reveolution will occur.
The catch in that statement is “basic services.” If I knew that a tax hike would go solely and exclusively to paying down the debt and that no further taxes would ever be implemented until the debt was paid off, I would accept that. Yet we know that is not what will happen. When the government raises taxes is has proven incapable of using that money solely for the purposes for which it was intended. Frankly, the government has enough money to do what it needs. When the government runs a balanced budget for say a decade, then I might start believing that a tax hike will go to something useful.
#58–Thomas==you are still avoiding the crux of the matter.
The government is going to spend X dollars. Do you want them to tax X dollar in revenue, or do you want them to tax less than X and create a deficit?
When you concentrate of the taxing and not on the spending, you actually are increasing the harm to our society–out of hearing, out of mind. As stated, for some reason “tax and spend” has big negative connotations that the Repugs use to advantage all the time but “deficit spending” ((the avoidance of which is the justification for “increased taxation”–as with the Iraq War)) is seen as irresponsible.
And that one of several reasons why the dollar is declining and America is losing its sway in the World.
Certainly, basic services doesn’t include all the pork barrel that gets kicked back to re-elect incumbents. And I don’t think it should go for instate tuition for illegal aliens. But I do advocate for socialized medicine paid by tax revenues.
If you are pro-life and pro-keep life going as long as possible, you are only a hypocrite not to provide for a healthy life free from pain along the way.
#58 – Tommie
>>When the government runs a balanced budget for say a
>>decade, then I might start believing that a tax hike
>>will go to something useful.
You should lobby for a constitutional amendment allowing Bill Clinton to run for a 4th (and 5th and 6th etc.) term.
#56 – I am most self interested. Those rich folk pay my salary and run the companies in which I own stock. Their success is intimately tied to my own.
I have full faith in this country being able to survive and even thrive in times of high taxation, that’s one thing which makes it great. This does not negate the point that income redistribution is morally wrong. It also does not address the historical FACT that revenues go UP when taxes are lower. Therefore, since raising taxes results in lower potential revenue, the only reason to have higher taxes is social engineering. That is incompatible with freedom.
As far as health care, when all countries with government run health care are rationing the care and harming their citizens by making them wait longer than necessary for care, as well as bankrupting their health care systems, how can one say socialized medicine ‘guarantees’ care for anyone other than the privileged politicians in charge? Also, empirically, why would everyone who can afford it come to the US for care?