Why can't John McCain make a speech like this?
Obama and the Democrats believe that Americans in a time of crisis will be willing to sacrifice their freedoms, abandon their founding principles and common sense and ease into the mediocrity of the warm embrace of the Washington papa bear who will take care of all of our problems for us.
These are not the ideals of the America that drew brave men and women from all over the world to our shores. In most cases, they were fleeing nations with the heavy hand of government, intolerance and class warfare. They risked everything to experience our Founding Fathers' notion of a limited government with powers that were delineated, checked and balanced, in a land where they could live and prosper in a free, dynamic, upwardly mobile society - the kind that existed no where else in the world. But Obama and his liberal friends don't see things that way.
The liberal agenda is based upon the belief that there are elites among us who know more and know better than the rest of us. And that with the application of their intellect and power ... and our money ... they can impose regulations and establish programs, bureaus and agencies that will solve all the problems of the masses'.
Senator Obama and his supporters essentially see society not as dynamic and changing or full of opportunity. They see one that is divided by economic classes into which every one of us is permanently assigned. In their worldview, those in a lesser economic class are presumably resentful and envious. So it's the government's job to level things out ... or as Senator Obama would say "spread the wealth around." It's about dividing the pie among static classes, not trying to make the pie bigger for everyone or creating opportunity in an upwardly mobile society.
This is the reason why they do not understand Joe the Plumber. Because he doesn't have a higher income today they assume that he never will and that he believes he never will. They expect him to resent anyone whose doing better than he is, instead of planning to do better himself. They don't understand the Joes of the world. Never have. Never will.
There's more. And here's the video.
Because he's not Fred?
I mean, seriously, the question is not why McCain isn't Fred, but why the Republican primary voters chose McCain instead of Fred. I don't know the answer to that one, although it's worth remembering that in the spring the war in Iraq was still considered somewhat of an issue -- especially since the Democrats, particularly pretty boy, were competing with who would admit defeat faster and more completely. I'll see your Saigon and raise you a Mogadishu and Lebanon. If we all knew Wall Street was going to shit itself in the fall, maybe things would be different.
Although...honestly, in hindsight, I don't know why one couldn't expect a collapse when a highly speculatin' easy-credit high-earnin' bunch of fraidy-cat capitalists contemplates the prospect of a viciously taxing, hyper-regulating, passionately anti-capitalist government taking power. I'd get out of all my speculative positions, too, contemplating an Obama Administration. Who knows what the Messiah plans? One thing's for sure, he won't be stopped by any mere consideration of who owns what.
However, historically speaking, and despite our warm nostalgia for our forefathers, a message like Fred's has been well-received by American voters only rarely, and only during times of economic prosperity, and frequently enough only because Americans were busy engaging in morally questionable but highly profitable activities (expropriating Indians, land speculation, slavery, smuggling) in which Dame Liberty was being pimped out by Greed to distract the Puritan spirit of judgment. (That's sort of the Democrat's point, and they're not wholly wrong, even though they're wholly wrong on the appropriate solutions.)
That is, I suspect Fred's message would resonate with fewer voters, right now, than even McCain's. I mean, since their individual-liberty opportunity principles kind of go Fred > McCain > Obama, but the present electoral success goes Obama > McCain, it's hard not to think that if you threw Fred in it would be Obama > McCain > Fred.
Face it, Rand. When it comes to philosophy of government, most Americans -- indeed, most human beings -- have principles that are highly dubious and distasteful to the man of ability and common sense. That's why we don't want to be ruled by any damn majority, to the greatest extent possible.
It's clearly time for Mike Puckett to release the whitey tape, or sue his friend, who has the tape, for political malpractice.
Well, and time for Mike Gerson to get a life.
I mean, don't you have a job or something? It'd be different if you were actually contributing something here, as opposed to merely snarking.
Because he's not a Federalist? Or a conservative? Because he thinks he's one of those elites who knows better?
Mr. Simberg, McCain-Feingold is on line one.
Carl has the better question: why won't the Republicans pick someone more like Fred to be the nominee?
A message like Freds was very well received in 1980, in the midst of stagflation, gas lines, and overall economic malaise. I think slavery had been outlawed by then too.
A message like Freds was very well received in 1980,
You're right, Curt. But in my defense let me point out the slow strangulation of the economy by a metastasized central control program, everything from an insanely progressive tax structure to wage and price controls all over the place, to a feckless dickless foreign policy (which is arguably actually what did Carter in), which grew up between 1912 and 1976, was kind of unique in American history.
At least...it was unique in the first two centuries of the Republic. One would like to believe it will continue to be unique, but one is getting discouraged about that lately. Maybe we just need to do it all again, strangle ourselves with our clever theories of utopia, until just as we're about to turn blue and pass out in 2050 or so, some Reagan redux comes along and invites us to take off the noose.
Carl Pham wrote:
Because he's not Fred?
I mean, seriously, the question is not why McCain isn't Fred, but why the Republican primary voters chose McCain instead of Fred.
I believe some of that had to do with "open" primaries where people registered as Democrats could vote in Republican contests.
I believe some of that had to do with "open" primaries where people registered as Democrats could vote in Republican contests.
Partly, but it was also partly because there were several candidates splitting the conservative vote. Also, the foolish people who wouldn't vote for him because they thought he didn't have the "fire in the belly" thing because he didn't start running two years before the election.
I don't think he lost many primary votes because he started too late, but starting as late as he did probably had an effect on donations. Had he started earlier he may have been able to garner more money, some of which would have come from doners who otherwise contributed to his opponents. I loved his line on Leno about how nobody would be thinking "I think he would make a great president, but he started his campaign too late". True for voters, but not for doners.
McCain is not what the GOP wanted, it was who the media wanted because if their candidate lost, McCain amounts to the door prize.
The left chose McCain. McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Guliani (the best of the bunch in that he could have given Obama knockout punches during debates) are not conservatives but the media went along with it. Fred is more than just a conservative, he understands federalism which may be the most important issue of all but is ignored by everyone else. They had to get Fred out of the picture, so he had no 'fire in the belly' What the hell does that mean? Really, what? They couldn't outright sell, too old, so they came up with 'FitB?' (COPYRIGHT MSM all rights reserved.)
Republicans bought it. My sister and her husband both mentioned 'FitB' (COPYRIGHT MSM) as the reason they didn't support him. They don't trust the media, but they let themselves believe this non substantive crap. That's what happens when the best we can do is fox news. I'm hoping they give Laura Ingraham a show as I've heard rumored. It'll be the only conservative news show (not counting radio) in existence. I dare anyone to name another.