People of Pennsylvania, here are 10 reasons why voting for Senator Obama will be a mistake:
- “Change” is not a viable platform. Change to what?
- You’re kidding yourself if you think this junior senator can change the way Washington works. For him to suggest he can do so affirms either his cluelessness or his mendacity. (Probably, the latter.)
- You say you’re voting for him because he’ll end the war? More cluelessness on his part. There are no easy answers. Colin Powell recently stated that whoever inherits the war will be stuck with a slow withdrawal, as we can neither sustain the current troop levels there nor can we withdraw abruptly. Anyone who hands the enemy a schedule for our withdrawal is handing them the keys to Iraq and the ability to exert significant control over the Middle East and the world. Don’t let this sweet talker con you into believing that there’s an easy or quick way out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There isn’t. Yeah, it’s partially about oil. So what? You drive to work don’t you? So shut up already about protecting our oil interests. You can’t have it both ways!
- There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Expansive social programs cost money. That money eventually comes out of your pocket. Don’t be fooled into thinking that it will all come from “rich people.” It comes from taxpayers. We all pay taxes.
- Speaking of rich people, poor folks can not afford to run for President of the United States. Not many of us earn more than $4 million per year, as Obama does.
- However, he’ll make more money by playing populist games, like asking Congress to selectively increase capital gains taxes on “the wealthy”, which may or may not be defined by him as anyone making more than $200,000 per year. In other words, those members of society whose investments create jobs will be given a disincentive to invest. People will be punished for the industriousness that yielded the reward of a high income.
- Meanwhile, Obama doesn’t really relate to the masses. He says they “cling to” religion and guns and disdain people who aren’t like them. In other words, he knows what is best for them but they don’t.
- So, he would propose to confiscate wealth and redistribute it according to need established by “the government.” This didn’t work out very well for the Soviet Union, and it sure as hell won’t work here.
- This is a guy who whines about reporters and debate moderators asking him tough questions. Is that very Presidential? He who sits in the Oval Office will bear the brunt of the Fourth Estate—there are no exemptions. Obama won’t change Washington, and this is an endemic part of Washington.
- Obama will be a one-term president—not unlike Jimmy Carter, who also thought he could change things in Washington—which will guarantee Republican rule for at least the following twelve years, just like it did when Carter disgraced the Oval Office. If you long for good, solid Democrats—not these modern liberal, heads-up-the-ass weenies who sit in their lofty perches and tell us all what we should be doing—you’ll put the Clinton machine back in charge of things. It’s your only chance to take serious, long-term control of Washington. Mark my words: if Obama is elected, not only will he be a one-termer, but also the Democrats will lose both houses of congress due to popular dissatisfaction with his Communist approach to government.
Really, folks. You’re Pennsylvanians, not liberal New Yorkers and sure as hell not San Franciscans. Do you really want this crap? THINK about what I’ve written above and do your own research. If you find flaws in my logic, then fine. I’ll stand corrected. If you don’t and if you wind up electing Obama president just because you want “change,” don’t say I didn’t warn you!
The Redhead says
I am proud to be an “honorary” San Francisco resident.
As far as Obama “whining” about tough reporting questions–every time I’ve listened to a recent interview with Ms. Clinton, she does exactly that, no contest.
I hope to cast my ballot in the general election for Obama; I’ll vote for Hillary only if I have to.
Sir, with all due respect, you’re an idiot
Here are a few common sense replies
1) Change? How bout change from the Royal monarchy of the Bush and Clinton families for starters. We’re a democracy not an oligarchy!
2) Experience (as much as Hillary has) has shown to have no correlation with Presidential success. PA’s president James Buchanan had all the experience in the world yet was a 1 term wonder that led to the Civil War
4) So mandating health care for everyone will be cheap, I guess.
5) The Clinton’s made over $100 mill since Billy’s been gone from office. Some of it from foreign speaking engagements in China. Think they all really paid that money to hear Bill talk?
6) Same argument the Republicans & W have used. Income inequality is at an all time high under W. Capital gains cuts help the elites, but you say in 7) that Obama isn’t a friend of the common man. Can’t have it both ways.
8) Conjecture. Clearly you were trying to fill up 10 reasons and had to add this crap in to get to 10
9) When Hillary was losing she started crying on camera, enough said
10) W was supposed to be a one-term president. He even held a Republican congress for 6 years. Did you really believe in 2000 he would ever be reelected?
The Nittany Turkey says
How does one “have to” vote for anybody, Red?
And, Wally, seems like you’re also doing your voting by the process of elimination. It is apparent that you don’t like Hillary, you don’t like Republicans, and you don’t like James Buchanan, so you’re voting for Obama, even if you cannot specifically enunciate anything in particular he brings to the table. That’s what I’ve found—people voting for “change” for change’s sake without having a clue as to how the change will be brought about or just what flavor of greener grass actually grows in terra incognita on the other side of the beltway fence (which I believe is unbreachable in any case). They just want a fresh face.
You’re right about my conjectures. Everything is conjecture at this point. We all know nothing. With insufficient background to draw upon, this guy is unpredictable. So, go ahead, take a chance on “change.”
Never said I didn’t like Republicans, I actually am a registered one and may end up voting for McCain anyways, and certainly will if Hillary is nominated
What does Obama bring to the table? You are right that we don’t know a whole lot about him. However we do know that there 2 things that make a successful president 1) correct decision making and 2) good communication skills. On the former, Obama was right on the most important decision of this decade, the Iraq War. You may say the later is trite, but look at the great presidents of the 20th century, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan were all excellent communicators one way or another. Contrast that to the bumbler in there now. Effective communication of your message is important to getting things done as a president and Obama should be a good communicator if elected.
Although there are not too many policy differences between HC & BO, BO doesn’t come with baggage and hatred that HC brings. BO has a much better chance of getting it done. Just look at the effort HC performed in reforming health care in 1993. Other great HC efforts
Turning $1k to $100k “magically” with cattle futures, um how did this happen.
A win at all cost mentality that the NYT, a Clinton endorser, has just called out today, as destructive. Not surprising considering who she is married to. I’m just glad that the primary hasn’t been the coronation that Hillary expected it to be.
If you talk about people not having a clue about BO, what about HC? Is she for NAFTA or against it? How are we going to pay for this national health care when we are trillions in debt? Point is we know as much about a BO presidency as we know about HC. Either would be taking a chance but I would ABSOLUTELY choose the one with more upside.
Your whole stupid argument against “change” is wrought in the same type of fear that keeps the same people in office all the time. Don’t take the new road when you think you know that the low road is there.
The Nittany Turkey says
Actually, I’m a reluctant McCain supporter. I’m thinking he’ll have a better chance against Hillary than against Obama.
The Redhead says
I feel I “have to” vote because I view voting as an obligation. Yes, it’s a right but for me, it’s important to participate in the political process so I view it as a necessary action.
I agree with Wally that Clinton would be a divider. She has many, many enemies. Obama offers a greater possibility of uniting old foes. We don’t need any more hatred or division.
In addition, I think Ms. Clinton’s behavior in this campaign has been disgusting. I never really liked her but I’ve lost quite a lot of respect for her now.
The Nittany Turkey says
“…I’ll vote for Hillary only if I have to.”
I didn’t ask you why you feel you have to vote; I was referring to your statement quoted above. I asked you to explain what it means to “have to” vote for Hillary. Would someone be holding an ideological gun to your head, thereby forcing you to vote for her?
The Redhead says
No, but I won’t vote for McCain, therefore, I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. I’m not going to do the “write-in” thing which is a joke.