Five Reasons I Oppose Barack
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
I teach at a conservative, evangelical university. Many of my students are supporting Sen. Barack Obama for president, although when I ask them, few can really articulate why. Few of my students can list off anything that Barack is for or against, save two items: Barack’s promise to surrender in Iraq and his promise to give everyone free health care.
This honey flows well down naive ears.
Thanks to the gushing group-think of the media, Barack Obama has achieved ROCK STAR status. Not since Bill Clinton was cool have the cultural establishments of America gone so gaga over a politician. But Bill Clinton had some substance beneath the sheen of his saxophone. I think Obama is all rock star.
Unfortunately, rock stars make bad presidents.
Here are five reasons that I won’t be singing Obama’s praises.
1. Obama Is a Socialist. The Democrats are on the verge of achieving their dreams of converting our economy from being primarily driven by capitalism to one driven by socialism. With the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare ) that make up most of our federal budget (yes, much more than military spending ) about to drive us into bankruptcy, Obama will use the crisis to have the government take over more of our economy.
Under Obama, your ability to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work will be diminished greatly. Instead, dependence of government will prevail, and self-reliance will be discouraged.
2. Obama Has No Moral Clarity. Not only does Obama oppose protecting the life of unborn children, he takes the most extreme pro-abortion positions. Three times while a state legislator in Illinois, Obama voted against requiring hospitals to give medical treatment to children who survive a botched abortion and are born.
The fact that Obama doesn’t even have a moderated position on abortion shows me he has no moral clarity, no fix on the consistency of truth.
The socialist state has never, ever valued individual human life, so Obama’s sick position should surprise no one. From Stalin to Castro, from Vietnam to China, life preservers only to serve the state interest, not vice-versa. Obama fits this mold well.
3. Obama Will Surrender to Islamic Fascism. The war against Islamic jihad is real. Obama will provide unintentional cover and a respite for the Islamofascists who want to enslave the world under draconian Islamic law. We finally are gaining the upper hand against the forces of terror who have made the destruction of the United States their goal. Obama, if he becomes president, will wipe out all the progress, rending null and void the sacrifices of blood and treasure we have made.
4. Obama Has No Experience. Many people are comparing Obama to President John F. Kennedy. The comparison is, for the most part, a false one (JFK was a tax-cutter, not a socialist who raised taxes, for example ). One true comparison is that JFK was inexperienced when he became president, just like Obama is now. JFK made a lot of mistakes early on. Obama will likely make more.
5. Obama Cannot Unite Anything. Obama preaches the good rhetoric about uniting America, but the reality is that he will unite nothing. Obama is a political liberal, the most liberal in the Senate according to the nonpartisan National Journal, and he will rule from the left. He may claim to “ listen” to people from the center or right, but where will he compromise ? How will he bring things to the center ? On this issue, he is silent.
Obama is all talk when it comes to unity. His idea of unity will be to use his allies in the liberal media to badger those people who don’t go along with his liberal policies as being “ divisive. ”
I pray that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Not because I think she will be easy to beat for the GOP, but because she is a much more reasonable, experienced person. She wouldn’t be half as dangerous for America as Obama.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Four myths busted by Super Tuesday
By overselling the CEO, talk radio helps Romney dig his own grave
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Once again, conventional wisdom gets shredded when people go to vote. I'd invest in crow; it looks like there may be a run on that commodity. Super Tuesday was a real myth buster (not to be confused with a Mitt buster). Here is what the collective wisdom of the voters taught us.
Myth one: Conservatives are sheep who follow whatever there "leaders" say.
That's right folks. Even though the talking heads of "conservative" radio and Fox News blasted Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mike Huckabee in an unprecedented barrage of negativity, voters didn't listen. They handed strategic victories to the pair.
If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or other right-wing talking heads (all of whom I do listen to), you may think that conservatives are a monolithic block of people who walk in lock step with each other on every single issue.
Of particular interest were Coulters promise that if the GOP didn't endorse Mitt Romney, she'd support Sen. Clinton. Say hi to Hillary for me, Ann.
The Super Tuesday dominance by Sen. McCain and Southern surge by Gov. Huckabee (which I predicted last week) proves that conservatives are much more complex. As I have said before, conservatives, based on my observations, seem to fall into three camps: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military conservatives (hawks). Most of us conservatives care about all three, but we just have different priorities. For talk radio, immigration is the defining issue, followed by economic policy.
Those are both important issues, but for some of us, protecting the life of unborn children and fighting the war against Islamic jihad is more important. The votes reflected that.
Myth two: Huckabee voters would go for Romney if Huckabee would only get out of the race.
After Huckabee's fourth place finish in Florida, Gov. Mitt Romney tried to convince the rest of us that Huckabee (who I support), was keeping him from uniting "true" conservatives, i.e. fiscal conservatives with a hard line on immigration. Huckabee was a "spoiler."
The reality is more likely the other way around, looking at the numbers. In the states that Huckabee won, McCain was second and Romeny was third: Alabama, Arkansas Georgia and Tennessee. The notable exception was the West Virginia convention, where McCain and Rep. Ron Paul supporters moved into the Huckabee column to give him the win.
But what about the states that McCain won where Romeny was second? Did Huckabee play a spoiler role? Hardly. Assuming 100 percent of the Huckabee votes would have gone for Romney had Huckbaee dropped out, the former CEO still couldn't have closed the gap in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey or New York.
On the other hand, In Oklahoma and Missouri, Romney was clearly a spoiler for Huckabee, where the gaps were a few percentage points between Huckabee (second) and Romney (third). If anyone was thwarting the alleged "collective will" of conservatives, its Romney.
The Huckabee narrative really falls apart when looking at Gallup Poll second-choice data. The USA Today reports, "In our latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney. The results? McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64 percent to 28 percent. Indeed, McCain beats Romney 42 percent to 24 percent with Huckabee in the race (Huckabee gets 18percent of the vote, Ron Paul gets 5 percent, and Alan Keyes gets 2 percent). With a narrowed-down ballot focused just on McCain and Romney (forcing Huckabee voters to choose between the two front-runners), McCain wins 53 percent to 30 percent -- a slightly expanded margin."
Myth: Mike Huckabee destroyed the Republican Party in Arkansas.
Several well-meaning, vocal members of the GOP in Arkansas have sent out the message to would-be-Huckabee voters in other states: Huckbaee destroyed the GOP in Arkansas. Huckabee certainly did infuriate the anti-immigration crowd.
I always contended that when Huckabee was on the ballot, Republicans showed up to vote, and when he wasn't they lost. Of course, 2006 was a bad year for Republicans all around — but it certainly hurt the Arkansas GOP not to have Huckabee bringing people to the polls that year.
The Arkansas GOP put out a press release Wednesday saying that the GOP turnout in the Super Tuesday Arkansas primary was the largest since at least 1992. What drove that turnout? Even though many conservative and Republican leaders in Arkansas had endorsed other candidates because of trivial disputes with Huckabee, voters turned out for Huckabee. Huckabee won 60 percent of the Arkansas vote. In Arizona, McCain only won 47 percent of his home state. In Massachusetts, Romney barely won half of his home state.
Myth: Without tens of millions of dollars, you can't be competitive.
I did some pre-Super Tuesday research and found that Huckabee spend around $12/vote, compared to McCain's $32/vote and Romney's $77/vote. Romney has spent almost $100 million to stay competitive with Huckabee, who has spent less than $10 million. Money may help the world go around, but it can't buy you an election.
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
Once again, conventional wisdom gets shredded when people go to vote. I'd invest in crow; it looks like there may be a run on that commodity. Super Tuesday was a real myth buster (not to be confused with a Mitt buster). Here is what the collective wisdom of the voters taught us.
Myth one: Conservatives are sheep who follow whatever there "leaders" say.
That's right folks. Even though the talking heads of "conservative" radio and Fox News blasted Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mike Huckabee in an unprecedented barrage of negativity, voters didn't listen. They handed strategic victories to the pair.
If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or other right-wing talking heads (all of whom I do listen to), you may think that conservatives are a monolithic block of people who walk in lock step with each other on every single issue.
Of particular interest were Coulters promise that if the GOP didn't endorse Mitt Romney, she'd support Sen. Clinton. Say hi to Hillary for me, Ann.
The Super Tuesday dominance by Sen. McCain and Southern surge by Gov. Huckabee (which I predicted last week) proves that conservatives are much more complex. As I have said before, conservatives, based on my observations, seem to fall into three camps: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and pro-military conservatives (hawks). Most of us conservatives care about all three, but we just have different priorities. For talk radio, immigration is the defining issue, followed by economic policy.
Those are both important issues, but for some of us, protecting the life of unborn children and fighting the war against Islamic jihad is more important. The votes reflected that.
Myth two: Huckabee voters would go for Romney if Huckabee would only get out of the race.
After Huckabee's fourth place finish in Florida, Gov. Mitt Romney tried to convince the rest of us that Huckabee (who I support), was keeping him from uniting "true" conservatives, i.e. fiscal conservatives with a hard line on immigration. Huckabee was a "spoiler."
The reality is more likely the other way around, looking at the numbers. In the states that Huckabee won, McCain was second and Romeny was third: Alabama, Arkansas Georgia and Tennessee. The notable exception was the West Virginia convention, where McCain and Rep. Ron Paul supporters moved into the Huckabee column to give him the win.
But what about the states that McCain won where Romeny was second? Did Huckabee play a spoiler role? Hardly. Assuming 100 percent of the Huckabee votes would have gone for Romney had Huckbaee dropped out, the former CEO still couldn't have closed the gap in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey or New York.
On the other hand, In Oklahoma and Missouri, Romney was clearly a spoiler for Huckabee, where the gaps were a few percentage points between Huckabee (second) and Romney (third). If anyone was thwarting the alleged "collective will" of conservatives, its Romney.
The Huckabee narrative really falls apart when looking at Gallup Poll second-choice data. The USA Today reports, "In our latest USA Today/Gallup poll Huckabee supporters were asked for whom they would vote if the race came down to John McCain or Mitt Romney. The results? McCain wins over Romney as the second choice of Huckabee voters by more than a 2 to 1 margin, 64 percent to 28 percent. Indeed, McCain beats Romney 42 percent to 24 percent with Huckabee in the race (Huckabee gets 18percent of the vote, Ron Paul gets 5 percent, and Alan Keyes gets 2 percent). With a narrowed-down ballot focused just on McCain and Romney (forcing Huckabee voters to choose between the two front-runners), McCain wins 53 percent to 30 percent -- a slightly expanded margin."
Myth: Mike Huckabee destroyed the Republican Party in Arkansas.
Several well-meaning, vocal members of the GOP in Arkansas have sent out the message to would-be-Huckabee voters in other states: Huckbaee destroyed the GOP in Arkansas. Huckabee certainly did infuriate the anti-immigration crowd.
I always contended that when Huckabee was on the ballot, Republicans showed up to vote, and when he wasn't they lost. Of course, 2006 was a bad year for Republicans all around — but it certainly hurt the Arkansas GOP not to have Huckabee bringing people to the polls that year.
The Arkansas GOP put out a press release Wednesday saying that the GOP turnout in the Super Tuesday Arkansas primary was the largest since at least 1992. What drove that turnout? Even though many conservative and Republican leaders in Arkansas had endorsed other candidates because of trivial disputes with Huckabee, voters turned out for Huckabee. Huckabee won 60 percent of the Arkansas vote. In Arizona, McCain only won 47 percent of his home state. In Massachusetts, Romney barely won half of his home state.
Myth: Without tens of millions of dollars, you can't be competitive.
I did some pre-Super Tuesday research and found that Huckabee spend around $12/vote, compared to McCain's $32/vote and Romney's $77/vote. Romney has spent almost $100 million to stay competitive with Huckabee, who has spent less than $10 million. Money may help the world go around, but it can't buy you an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
