He wants his Obama vote back, and admits that he voted for him because he was black. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the same boat, and they won’t make the same mistake twice. They expiated their racial guilt in 2008.
[Update a while later]
This seems right to me:
…ask yourself this question: How many people do you know who voted for Obama in 2008 but now express regret about the vote or reservations about his leadership?
Probably plenty.
Now ask yourself this: How many people do you know who voted against Obama in 2008 but have since been won over?
Probably not a single one.
The buyers’ remorse is strong in this One.
Ironically, they simply proved the opposite with their “historic” act of Affirmative Action and guilty conscience.
Racism will be firmly in the past when a black man can run for president, lose on merit and no one blames it on racism. Clearly they’re nowhere near that point.
Obama is America’s first affirmative action President.
No, I maintain we are still better off with Obama than we would be with either Clinton or McCain. Both Clinton and McCain would have gotten through a health-care bill that would have been even more socialist than ObamaCare, and would be much harder to over turn. McCain, in particular, would have been very bad for the country. He is a democrat who runs as a republican (the people who called MCCain Bush II’s third term were correct). He is also a lot like LBJ in that he is the glad-handler who is the friend of nearly every Senator in office. He would have been very effective at moving legislation. There is no doubt that if McCain was president, we would have some form of national-socialist health care and some kind of climate legislation by now.
McCain is not and has never been any kind of economic conservative or conservative of any kind.
Hillary would also have been effective at moving legislation. But not as good as McCain. She would have also done things that would be incredibly destructive to the economy and the country. I think either one of them would have been far more destructive than Obama has been.
The fact that Obama was so transparent makes him an identifiable target for the tea party. If McCain had been elected, there probably would not even be a tea party movement. We would have the same slow drift to the left, economically speaking, that we had under both Bush presidents.
I think kurt’s point has merit. Obama has done more to advance the cause of individual liberty than any President since Reagan, at least.
The problem with McCain is that he is as left as Obama and Hillary, but is a republican. This would have made it doubly difficult for the GOP to cross him on issues like national-socialist heath care and climate change. You should realize that McCain was one of the early “converts” to the climate change fraud.
McCain gets re-elected each time because he panders to the right in Arizona. He also runs as a Vietnam vet as Arizona is home to many retired military veterans.
kurt9, I don’t buy your smear about McCain. Sure he might be a donkey in elephant’s clothing (not that you have given any proof of that). But as you say, he “panders” to the people who voted for him. So why would he stop doing that as president?
ask yourself this: what anecdotal evidence do I have to confirm my own bias?
“The problem with McCain is that he is as left as Obama and Hillary, but is a republican.”
I don’t think he’s as far left. I think he’s as big a statist, but not a left-statist. I couldn’t vote for him because I didn’t want a Republican (which I’m not, by the way) to be responsible for any further move toward statism. The Republican party is the only hope we have, but we have to take it over and move it in the direction of freedom. That would not be possible with the Democrat party.
…and the voters said, “Let the farce be with you.”
Somehow I don’t see Gene with a tricorner hat?
yes Maverick would of been worse than Obama. Just look at Mccain-Feingold. We would of have health care (I would lean on not as bad but something that would of had less chance of repealing) and crippling climate change bills, though maybe we wouldn’t have had all the dems wish list/pet projects passing and being signed in 2008. Mccain would of pander too much to be a media darling ‘maverick’ work with the democrats. Other issue is he was a sub par candidate other than maybe getting lucky and he wouldn’t run again in 2012 we would only have a democratic candidate or disastrous primary run against a incumbent . But think rather take chance of finding gold among the republicans than a democrat. Would hope we find a good governor with some experience to run that isn’t named Hucklebee or Romney, maybe Indiana or Louisiana governors and no touching NJ governor or Scott Brown let them get more experience.
Actually, I blame Reagan. He chose Bush Sr. to give ‘balance’ to his ticket. That was (I almost said probably) a huge mistake. He should have chosen some unknown but solidly principled person as running mate. Sandra Day O’Conner was another bad choice.
Reagan was beyond just a great president. He just wasn’t a perfect president. I do miss him. Sarah is not perfect either. She just stands so far above the rest of the crowd (even in some ways above my choice of Fred Thompson) that it almost seems a miracle that someone like her is available at a time such as this. Her human failing of not being perfect should not prevent her from being perhaps one of the greatest of our nation. Even without gravitas (FDT was ahead of everyone else in that department) she will move this country back to principles that will make us great again. I do hope she runs (if she isn’t already.)
…and Gene could vote for her for some of the same reasons he voted for Obama!