Let us stipulate that if your candidate for President has a problem with his opponents trying to accuse him of not being serious or experienced enough for the Oval Office, having a foreign policy adviser making reference to the profound wisdom of Winnie the Pooh might not be the best choice. This is the sort of thing that turns apathetic conservatives into virulent McCain backers by default.
Speaking of such unexpected turns and speaking of Winnie the Pooh fans (my wife likes Piglet), let us turn to a brief mention of the lovely and talented Mrs. Earling's voter preferences.
Early in this campaign cycle she was more than open to voting for Obama if Romney or Giuliani didn't get the GOP nod (an add progression, but that's complicated). Alas for the kool-aid drinkers, Mrs. Earling found the Barack Obama of the 2004 DNC Convention speech appealing, and for that matter, the Barack Obama of 2007. The Barack Obama of 2008 is another cup of tea.
Being in a family that is now in its 3rd church after careful thought and consideration, she didn't buy Obama's explanations about Jeremiah Wright one bit. When you've given serious thought to the house of worship you choose for your family to attend, it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe Obama's "I was never there for crazy time" excuse.
Throw in Obama's "bitter" comments and his ridiculous position on meeting with leaders of nefarious nation states and you have an open-minded voter turned sour in a hurry. And this, mind you, is largely on the basis of watching basic TV news coverage on the networks. We talk politics, but much, much less than one might expect.
Most importantly, it should be noted that Mrs. Earling's distaste for John McCain makes my own issues with him - expressed at length during the primary season and for rather different reasons than hers - look like mere periodic discomfort by comparison. She has gone from loathing the GOP standard bearer to being eager to vote for him out of sheer disdain for the idea of Obama sitting in the Oval Office.
Just an anecdote, though hardly likely to be the only one given the factors that motivated the switch.
Posted by Eric Earling at June 17, 2008 08:04 PM | Email ThisApparently, it's because he's up too late reading Winnie the Pooh, Piglet and Tiggers take on foreign policy matters.
No doubt only the latest Obama sycophant that's headed towards the bus undercarriage before weeks end.
Wheels on the bus go round and round!!
''... being eager to vote for him out of sheer disdain for the idea of Obama sitting in the Oval Office.''
If the McCain campaign can get enough average voters to see beyond the ''Obama gives a great speech on vague generalities'' 30-second soundbite picture, and focus even a little on the extensive ''lifetime hard-left liberal'' realities, I believe McCain will win. Maybe just barely, but as per prior I'll take 270 in the EC if I have to.
With so many people seeming to focus more and more just on style and ignoring substance, it will probably be a close call at best.
SIDEBAR: Speaking of reality, I've been spending some time looking at fivethirtyeight.com . Even though at least some if not all of the site owners are admitted Obama supporters, the amount of data that is gathered, processed, and posted is amazaing; and at least on first look their methods and results do not appear to be overly biased for BO (although I have commented on their blog on a couple things I wonder about).
Anyway: The key thing they do is statistically project the Presidential winner on General Election day, as compared to for example the RCP current poll average. I thought it was pretty interesting.... One of the principals was on CNN the other day; and I think the video is still floating around on YouTube or wherever.
Yeah: *THAT* will certainly win over a lot of voters to Obama here in eastern WA.... and in my old home state of ND... and all throughout the mountain and prairie west... and in OH, MI, and PA... and pretty much thoughout the entire country; except for the hopelessly far-left enclaves in SanFran, Seattle, etcetera.
Most of us got beyond being intimidated by having the ''racist'' epitath thrown at us some time ago; because we are totally against putting the most liberal member of the US Senate in the Oval Office, and he just happens to be black.
What Jeremiah Wright proved is that there are race-baiters in every ethnic group. And I'm convinced that Colin Powell would have won in 2000 by a noticeably bigger margin in the EC than President Bush did, if he would have run.
Posted by: Methow Ken on June 17, 2008 09:36 PMLook for "The Drama of Obama Regarding Racism" in book stores around mid-July
Posted by: Bart Norton on June 17, 2008 09:54 PMWe need an aggressive, capitalist, domestic oriented energy policy, and a strong foreign policy to weather these times.
Nothing even close to that would be possible with a cartoon candidate like Obama.
For a large percentage of Americans, the choice will be an easy one, come November.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 17, 2008 10:53 PMI enjoyed Eric's post as always, and also, here's a belated thanks for a great site--it's so easy for folks like me to post occasionally and use the site to express their own views without ever having to experience all the work, responsibility and cost of owning and keeping up a site like this.
But of course I do disagree a bit. I think all Republicans should promise themselves not to mention kids books for the next ten years. It could remind people of the current president who kept on reading "My Pet Goat" while our nation was under attack. When he finally got done reading My Pet Goat, he ran like a rabbit for Air Force One and wasn't heard from for the rest of the day. Then he violated the most basic principle of civilization--the prohibition against first-use of violence, and attacked a country that had not been involved. The remainder of his years in office have been spent trying to destroy another key provision of civilization, and the universal prerequisite for democracy, the right of Habeas Corpus.
Oh, sorry for the rant. Someone must have mentioned a children's book.
Thanks all and best wishes,
New Left Conservative # 1
So Obama better watch out---the more people like me he gives reason to be completely disgusted with him, the worse off he'll be in the end.
It appears to me that you are the one with racist tendencies not I.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on June 18, 2008 12:16 AMIt's very strange to hear someone pretty much accuse others of racism while admitting she doesn't like "white people." ?????
Posted by: Michele on June 18, 2008 12:17 AMI guess the ratf*** brigade interns have new marching orders now that the Dem nomination is sorted.
If you're reduced to trolling your own echo chambers to drum up support for McCain, you've already lost.
You've also got to try harder than that to pass.
Posted by: operative word on June 18, 2008 06:43 AM"Teresa Tucker, 43, drove four hours from Roxboro, N.C., to hear Wright, with whom she has shared an e-mail exchange for the past two years. "He speaks the truth in love," she said."
If so, how do you contrast that statement with your racist (and agist) rant at @2?
If you're the face of Barack Obama, you've just solidified why I don't want this empty suit running our country. I won't be bullied into supporting an unqualified candidate on the basis of his skin pigmentation. I leave that duty to navel-gazing leftists.
Just offhand, I’d say your wife is not a particularly sophisticated political analyst. Those are some pretty petty reasons to switch her vote to someone she formerly loathed. I’d be curious to hear how she voted in 2004 and what her reasoning was. And how she views that choice in light of the last four years.
It seems the GOP is banking heavily on the notion that the voting public really doesn’t care much about the issues or policy positions on things like the Economy, the War in Iraq, tax structures, energy use, and Social Security. Instead, they pore over every comment made by Obama, his wife, his pastor, his former pastor, his advisors, the people he asks to help choose his running mate, and anyone who has ever worked in his campaign, hoping to find something they can posit as a reason not to vote for the guy. This is just one more example of such pettiness. And it doesn’t seem to be working too well in your favor.
How about switching over to an open debate on one or more of the substantive issues? Pick one and let’s talk.
And by the way, there really is a fair amount of wisdom to be found in reading Winnie the Pooh. You should give it a look sometime, maybe this fall after the election. It sounds like you’ll be needing some sort of distraction from the outcome in November.
If you (like Michele Obama and "Rev" Wright) hate this country so much, LEAVE...and while you're going, take the America-hating city-dwellers with you. And speaking of such, why are urban leftists so bitter and hateful? Can anyone help me understand this? Leftists hate their government, hate their neighbors, hate much of our constitution, hate businesses, hate our heritage/history, hate the military, hate successful people, hate any mention of God, hate conservatives, hate the police! How can they live with so much pent-up hate?...particularly when Americans have so much to be thankful for....OK, urban leftists, here is your chance....Why?
Posted by: Saltherring on June 18, 2008 07:19 AMI hate to break it to you, but there are large swaths of the electorate who are not "sophisticated political analysts." People cast their ballot sometimes for what we political junkies would consider to be peculiar reasons. People also cast ballots for President based not only on the "issues" but on matters that speak to the character of the person in that important office.
My wife went from Obama-friendly to fierce Obama opponent largely at her disgust over the whole Jeremiah Wright affair, including Obama's handling of it. It's a major life decision (picking a church) she can identify with...and she's not impressed.
She's likely to recoil at his plans on taxes and Social Security once they get fleshed out if that makes you feel any better.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 18, 2008 07:25 AMOK, so let's talk issues. Can you explain how villifying Oil company CEOs and taxing their profits will increase oil supply and bring down prices? That's the Obama plan.
Or how about how solar and wind are going to jump from 3% of our current energy supply to a meaningful percentage given their massive deployment costs?
And why will Obama be able to create better results with socialized healthcare than what anyone can go witness in Canada or the UK? As it is now in the UK, there is a divide between those who can afford to pay for private insurance and those who can't. Apparently Obama wants to bring the same long lines and condition calculus to medicine for the poor here in the US.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 18, 2008 07:29 AMYou mean, like uh, redistribution of wealth from those who work to those who choose not to, massive and oppressive "global warming" taxes on industry, an end to the Bush tax cuts, billions more in aid to illegal aliens, trillions for socialized health care, hundreds of billions to the UN. Yeah, I see what you mean.
Posted by: saltherring on June 18, 2008 09:32 AMI wasnt a McCain supporter (Romney) but I'd never vote for B. Hussein Obama... and it has nothing to do with pigmentation. I would happily vote for a politician of any color who shares my views...
Like this good man running for congress in FL
www.allenwestforcongress.com
THIS guy could be the REAL first black president !
Mike in America's Vancouver
Posted by: Mike in America's Vancouver on June 18, 2008 10:23 AMAnd the fact that more people are going in the other direction (Obama is now leading in Florida, Ohio, and by double-digits in "bitter" Pennsylvania) should give you an indication of how unusual your and your wife's reservations about Obama truly are when compared to the rest of the country.
Posted by: thehim on June 18, 2008 01:55 PMI don't doubt for a second that your (and the Earlings') reaction to it is genuine. But being familiar with the black community and the way politics, history, and religion interact within it, Wright whacky views don't surprise me, and I don't see Wright as either a racist, or a Communist, or as someone who doesn't love his country. And what I pointed out to Eric is that greater numbers of people see it my way right now than see it his way.
If he's attending a black separatist church that preaches hatred of white people and accuses them of giving black people AIDS, as he did for years, that is a big disqualifier.
His church does not preach hatred of white people. It preaches distrust of government. In not being able to tell the difference, you are in the minority in this country. Most people are able to tell the difference. Yes, his conspiracy theory about AIDS is cuckoo bananas. But to think that Obama also believes it because he was a member of that church is just as cuckoo bananas.
It's hard to believe that this is the guy dems want as their standard-bearer, when they are usually the first to criticize somebody's religion (which is why traditonally 2/3 of churchgoers don't vote democrat)
I don't have any problem at all understanding why the Democrats have chosen Obama as their candidate. Maybe you'll start to understand when you start to question your own false beliefs about Democrats being anti-religion and equating anger over historical injustices with anti-Americanism. This country is developing a much more well-developed sense of our history, our values, and our diversity. This is why the people who continue to fall for the right-wing talking points about Obama being an "elitist" are becoming an endangered species right now.
Posted by: thehim on June 18, 2008 03:38 PMJust look at Teresa's rhetoric---she's a big Wright fan, and look what it got her. She admits she doesn't like "white people" and says whites are racist---and she's been a devotee of Wright apparently for some time. Where do you think she got that poisoned mindset??
It's not hard to see the anti-americanism when you hear Wright screaming "God d___ America" and claiming it gave AIDS to blacks. Then he actually preaches against "middle-classness." How does Obama claim to be for the middle class when that's what he's been poisoned with for 20 years? And there is no such thing as "black theology" in the Bible, which is why there is nothing to try to understand. "Black theology" is a fabricated theology that is nowhere in the Bible. Those who are familiar with what's in the Bible will already recognize that.
Bottom line---this is a guy who cannot claim to be a uniter when he has suported this kind of racially poisonous, anti-american venom.
Who will team Obama quote next? Buzz Lightyear?
Posted by: Gilligan on June 18, 2008 05:59 PMWho will team Obama quote next? Buzz Lightyear?
Posted by: Gilligan on June 18, 2008 05:59 PMHow would it be any better if McCain had held planning meetings at Timothy McVeigh's house? Answer--it wouldn't be. Yet democrats are finding themselves defending Obama's close ties with communist unrepentant terrorist William Ayres--a guy you have to bow and scrape to if you want to make it big in Chicago politics. A guy who wishes he'd hurt more people and damaged more property back when. What does that say about democrats---nothing good, I'll tell you.
What a sorry candidate they have chosen to align themselves with. But I believe that he represents what a lot of democrats are about but have been rightly afraid to admit. Cat's out of the bag now.
Posted by: Michele on June 18, 2008 06:26 PMI believe your the one making broad assumptions about voter behavior in this discussion, not me.
Moreover, if you want to rely on three state polls in June from one pollster - and not a particularly reliable one at that - to make strong statements on what voters think about the election then be my guest. We can speculate all we want, but the general election campaign is still at a relatively early stage.
There are a number of scenarios where I can see Obama crushing McCain - especially for appearing ineffective on the economy and gas prices. There are also a number of scenarios where McCain holds up reasonably well on those topics while taking it to Obama on the issues you say voters don't care about.
I suggest we wait and see.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 18, 2008 06:46 PMMe either. Guilt-ridden white liberal's will always take the unqualified, prep-school elitist, Black Male over the equally unqualified (but more experienced) White Female, victim of adultery.
Welcome to "identity politics" otherwise known incorrectly as "Liberal enlightenment".
No (#34). The White Female was for the war in Iraq--a Big-Government project to "improve" somebody else's country--and the Black male was against it, when it mattered most.
He was deservedly rewarded for that, among other things.
Best, New Left Conservative #1
Posted by: New Left Conservative # 1 on June 18, 2008 10:26 PMMrs. Clinton had plenty of fellow Democrat's that both supported the action in 2003 and as far back as 1998 were claiming Hussein had WMD's or was at the very least a danger to the stability of the region.
Some of those same Democrats appear on Mr. Obama's VP short list, so how do you reconcille that inconsistency?
Rick D, you can employ all the psychobabble you want in order to explain to yourself why the Republican Party is getting crushed across the nation, but it'll do you no good. Obama gets my support this year because of the Iraq War.
@29
Apparently Jeremiah Wright was asked if he loved America and he didn't answer the question. Very telling.
The people who love this country the most have the courage to criticize it when it's on the wrong path.
Just look at Teresa's rhetoric---she's a big Wright fan, and look what it got her. She admits she doesn't like "white people" and says whites are racist---and she's been a devotee of Wright apparently for some time. Where do you think she got that poisoned mindset??
If Teresa is in fact a real person and not someone pretending to be crazy, she probably got it from some traumatic experience. Reverend Wright arguably has a lot of congregation members who hold resentment against whites because of some past injustice or injustices. His challenge as a spiritual leader is to moderate that resentment. Those who know the man personally often claim that he does so and that's why he's been so popular.
It's not hard to see the anti-americanism when you hear Wright screaming "God d___ America" and claiming it gave AIDS to blacks.
If you understood anything left to us by our founding fathers, you'd understand that it's not anti-American to criticize your government. It's also hard for any black person to say that America is great and wonderful with the full knowledge that America was a country for almost 200 years before blacks were seen as equals. Most people in this country understand that.
Bottom line---this is a guy who cannot claim to be a uniter when he has suported this kind of racially poisonous, anti-american venom.
He's certainly uniting a lot of people behind him right now. And part of that is because most Americans have a much better understanding of black America than you do.
Posted by: thehim on June 19, 2008 02:15 PMI'm just relaying the facts. Obama's support has gone up considerably in all states since you've made several proclamations about how the Jeremiah Wright business would be extremely damaging to him.
Moreover, if you want to rely on three state polls in June from one pollster - and not a particularly reliable one at that - to make strong statements on what voters think about the election then be my guest. We can speculate all we want, but the general election campaign is still at a relatively early stage.
Sure, but it's not like the Jeremiah Wright story is still taking off. All of this goofy horseshit that you think is going to drag Obama down has no effect on him ("bittergate"? c'mon). It's overhyped by the media and you manage to fall for it every time.
There are a number of scenarios where I can see Obama crushing McCain - especially for appearing ineffective on the economy and gas prices.
Not to mention being seen as the more "Big Brother" candidate when it comes to spying and war.
There are also a number of scenarios where McCain holds up reasonably well on those topics while taking it to Obama on the issues you say voters don't care about.
What issues would those be? Obama's biggest weaknesses involve trade and immigration, largely because these two issues are defined by the most clueless television pundit not on Fox News (Lou Dobbs). Americans will go to the ballot box this November being almost criminally uninformed about these topics, and that could certainly benefit McCain (unless Bob Barr convinces many conservatives that he's more genuine on those topics - which might not be too hard for him to do).
I suggest we wait and see.
That's what I said two months ago when you were convinced that Obama was in trouble in Pennsylvania.
Posted by: thehim on June 19, 2008 02:24 PMYou continue to speak as if general election voters have digested all this information that we political junkies have been hashing out in recent weeks. That isn't the case.
I'm not predicting a McCain victory. Indeed, if McCain becomes President it will likely be more because Obama lost the election than McCain won it. Nonetheless, I think your assumptions about what has and has not happened with the general election electorate, with about 4 and 1/2 months to go in the race, is making too many leaps of logic.
Also, I think your own libertarian-leaning take on a number issues, as well as your thoughts on the Iraq war, is coloring your perception of where the general public, and especially independent voters, stands on these issues - including how they prioritize them. As such, we're simply not going to agree on much of our analysis at this point.
Lastly, Obama was in trouble in Pennsylvania...as he was in Ohio, and as he was with a bang in West Virginia and Kentucky. What I said then and what I'll say now is that foreshadows serious potential problems with an important demographic in the general election.
Since the general election campaign itself is just now starting, let's wait a bit before we start making determinations about how general election voters have and have note responded to issues they haven't even digested in full as of this date.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 19, 2008 10:49 PMIf Barack Obama really was someone who looked down upon poor white Americans or someone who believed in the kinds of silly things that Jeremiah Wright believes, then you'd have an argument here. But he doesn't believe those things, and as November gets closer, voters will have an even clearer understanding of that (especially since, as you note in your more recent post, there just isn't a large 527 effort behind McCain to be able to pull off Swiftboat style attacks).
Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 09:49 AMWell, I like to say that Americans are always libertarians at heart. What changes is how the understand and perceive libertarianism. Sometimes, it's been about guns. Sometimes, it's been about civil rights. Sometimes, it's been about lower taxes. Now it's starting to be about war and imperialism.
Watch what happens at the GOP Convention with the Ron Paul folks and you'll start to understand where the momentum is this year.
Posted by: thehim on June 20, 2008 10:36 AMIf your read on that libertarian twist was so solid, 105 House Democrats (including Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer) would not have voted for the FISA compromise you lament.
Moreover, any use of the Ronulans as proof of a movement amongst the American electorate is not a good one. Many of his supporters are not playing with a full deck, and are projecting a number of their beliefs and grievances on to him.
As for "dent" that hasn't been made in your mind, you continue to make assumptions about what information general election voters have and have not digested at this point in the cycle. It's less than you think.
Don't believe me? Ask Presidents Kerry and Dukakis.
Posted by: Eric Earling on June 20, 2008 06:31 PM