Getting Off the Obama Train

It is crazy how the MSM has been going cuckcoo for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over the last few weeks. In my opinion, Obama is like a tanner, thinner version of the Breck girl John Edwards. The press believes that if we can fool the American people with a concealed agenda and pretty packaging. Americans did not buy it with John Edwards, and they will not buy it with Barack. Part of the reason why many people hate politics is because there is no true debate of ideas. If liberals could simply state and run on their true positions, Americans can really evaluate which ideas they like better. When you have someone like Obama, who speaks at the DNC convention of One America, but you know that he supports unlimited affirmative action that divides us. He speaks of One America and American values, but he supports unlimited and unchecked illegal immigration. Over the weekend, Obama was the darling of Meet the Press, but Russert did sting him over his vote against Chief Justice John Roberts:

MR. RUSSERT: You talk and write a lot about bipartisanship, and I was quite taken by this comment about federal judges. Let me share it with you. “Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through the terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president—and benefits our democracy- -to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support.” John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court, confirmed 78 to 22. That’s some measure of bipartisan support.
SEN. OBAMA: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: And yet you voted against him.
SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. But I, but I—the—I did not support a filibuster in that situation. So the—I mean, there’s a situation where I thought John Roberts was a highly legitimate nominee. I anguished over that vote. I thought he was highly qualified for the job. I had some concerns about his record on the margins. I chose to vote against him, but I would not have supported a filibuster in that instance, because I think that he was a good nominee on the part of the Bush administration. So the point I’m making there was in the context of judicial nominations, it’s important to distinguish between somebody that you may not vote for because you’re not sure that their views on the Constitution comport with yours. That doesn’t mean that you take extraordinary measures to block their appointment, and that is a good example of it.

Remember, this guy voted against one of the most supported judges nominated by a Republican president in recent memory. More Democrats voted for Roberts than against him (23 to 21). Only the most liberal senators voted against him. But, Obama goes on as Mr Moderate Coalition Builder.

MR. RUSSERT: You do write this, and it’s a very interesting observation, “When you watch Clinton vs. Gingrich or Gore vs. Bush or Kerry vs. Bush”—so that’s ‘98, 2000, 2004--“you feel like these are fights that were taking place back in dorm rooms in the sixties. Vietnam, civil rights, the sexual revolution, the role of government - all that stuff has just been playing itself out, and I think people sort of feel like, Okay, let’s not re-litigate the sixties 40 years later.” Are you suggesting that those political players are, are the past and you represent a new generation that won’t get caught or bogged down in those kinds of debates?
SEN. OBAMA: I think, I think the categories we’ve been using were forged in the ‘60s. You know, I think the arguments about big government vs. small government, the arguments about, you know, the sexual revolution, military vs. nonmilitary solutions to problems. I think, in each and every instance, a lot of what we think about is shaped by the ‘60s, and partly, you know, the baby boomers is—are a big demographic. I write about the fact that, whether it’s the market for Viagra or how many cup holders are going to be in, in a car, a lot of it’s determined by what the baby boomers want. Our politics isn’t that different, and my suggestion is that—take the example of big government vs. small government. My instinct is is that the current generation is more interested in smart government. Let’s have enough government to get the job done. If, if we’re looking at problems, if the market solution works, let’s go with the market solution. If a solution requires government intervention, let’s do that. But let’s look at what are the practical outcomes. And I think that kind of politics is what the country’s hungry for right now.

Mr Obama supports increases in the mininum wage, teacher unions, and voted for price controls on oil prices, and refuses to let companies drill for oil, sound like small government to you?

The truth is that Obama is like many of the Democratic golden boys/girls that the MSM puts up. He has enough charmisa and looks to put on the moderate mask, yet if you take away the mask, there is nothing behind it but an empty suit. He cannot state what he truly believes because most Americans would reject it.

Another reason that Obama is not a good candidate is his lack of experience. The liberal press wailed about the lack of experience especially in foreign policy when Bush ran against Gore in 2000. Yet, no one is talking about Obama's lack of experience. Good grief, this guy has even less experience than the Breck girl did in 2004. When he was on Meet the Press, the guy could not give an intelligent answer to Russert concerning Iran, Iraq or North Korea. Our country is engaged in a war with Islamic terrorists. We are being threatened by dictators trying to secure nuclear weapons. This is not the time to hand the keys over to rank amateurs. Other bloggers such as LaShawn and Angela Winters weigh on this topic as well. If I could apply to Obama what Liberman said about Bush in 2000, "he may make a good President, but not right now!" Also, I don't know if Obama is savvy enough to satisfy the looney leftists and not scare the moderates in the Democratic party. If the Obama train is starting, leave me at the station!