Election 2008: Americans v. Anti-Americans
By Bill Dupray Posted in The Parties — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Obama has succeeded in separating the wheat from the chaff in the Democrat party.
We hear about these groups of disaffected Hillary voters who are resolved not to vote for Obama. A full 59% of Hillary voters in the West Virginia primary said that if Obama got the nomination, they would either vote for McCain or not vote at all. Obama and the DNC are desperately trying to unite the party, and though intra-party squabbles are usually ironed out by November, this year is without precedent. One cannot assume, as they say, that past experience is an accurate predictor of future performance.
Many Hillary Democrats seem to be taking a serious, principled stand in opposing Obama. It is not that they like McCain. They just think Obama would be very bad for America. After 8 years of George W. Bush, you would think party loyalty would prevail at all costs. But you would be wrong.
We have the PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) Party.
This is where we come in, PUMAs. We will fill the role that the superdelegates have abrogated. It is our job to say “no”. We do not want to lose in 2008. We do not want another four years of Republican rule. We want 4 years of intelligence, competence and courage in a time of what will surely be a very critical time in our nation’s history. Terrorism is still out there. There are two wars going on. Our military is stretched so thinly that our national security is compromised.
Now when was the last time you heard any Democrat talking about this being a critical time to win the wars and keep the country safe from terrorism? You hear it when Joe Lieberman speaks. You heard it when Zell Miller spoke at the 2004 Republican Convention.
Frankly, they think Obama is a cupcake who isn't up for the job.
Now is not the time to put a love object in office, a weakling who will be entirely dependent on his power elite enablers.
Hillary supporters think their girl was tough, experienced, and smart enough to handle this. And it is not just Obama's lack of fortitude. They really dislike his elitist, condescending attitude towards voters.
Barack Obama is a ruthless campaigner who has brought out the worst in the political system but no matter how far he has come, he is a failure. He has failed to live up to core Democratic principles, He has failed to respect the voters. He has failed to disguise his contempt for average, hard working American men and women. And because he has failed in so many ways to appeal to the electorate at large, he will fail the ultimate contest. He will be a failed presidential candidate.
The Swingcrats think the Harvard guy is a little out of his league too.
Our time of crisis is now. We are here to prevent the chance of an inexperienced, confused person from taking the highest office in the land.
Other Democrats are concerned about Obama's cavalier dismissal of fundamental American Constitutional rights as quaint anachronisms of a simple people.
We have heard a candidate adopt an incredibly elitist message and tone toward the average American, a tone that no pragmatic and experienced candidate would ever adopt, and a message that has rightly offended many of us. This candidate has suggested that economic stress causes rural or working-class Americans "cling to guns and religion," implying that embrace of 2nd Amendment rights or practice of faith was a symptom of something wrong with people rather than affirmed values they choose to have. The candidate refused to seriously retract this statement, instead saying it was "something that everyone knows is true."
And this has been a pattern: when an error in judgment or association came to light, the candidate has condescendingly explained to the public, often in lengthy monologues, why he was actually right all along, implying that is was everyone else who made a mistake or didn't understand the nuances of his enlightened thought on the subject.
McCain is hearing from a lot of Hillary Democrats.
Asked about Democrats who are not yet sold on Obama, [Campaign Manager Rick] Davis offered an intriguing comment: We have seen significant uptick in calls from states that have those voters. They have a lot of people who want to play with us." Later in the conversation, asked if he could be certain these individuals would really vote for McCain, he responded, "they're talking about endorsing us, so I think they'll vote for us." Asked which states they were getting the calls from, they said all over, but specifically mentioned Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Maryland. "In almost every state, there's a core that's starting to build, and we're putting names on paper."
All of these reasons why Democrats won't vote for Obama are also exactly why Republicans will vote against him. Anything can happen by November, but Obama seems to have awakened the patriotic Democrats who actually love their country, who understand that the presidency is a job for a grownup, and who really do not like having their beliefs and intelligence insulted. Those American Democrats may join with the American Republicans in opposing Obama's anti-American, racist, arrogant bid to control their beloved country.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room.
is such a lefty on so many issues and Obama is so far out in left field, there will be some contingent that pulls the lever for McCain.
Also find Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room
Apart from the stigma associated with 'voting republican' that the left has, this really is a great election for a liberal.
If you aren't so liberal that you're a marxist, and you're not a racist (after all if you says that you vote for someone based on race, you're a racist), voting for McCain is not a bad thing to do.
Frankly, all that stops a liberal from voting for McCain (assuming that they're not a radical liberal who's voting for Obama) is having to deal with voting for a "Republican" . . . which they've always been taught is what the closed-minded evil people do.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I think the Hillarists will go back to the democrat party by November.
Bill,
Nice piece. I do hear similar sentiments from a lot of folks here in Los Angeles. People I would never ever guess would vote "R" have point blank told me they are -- they want nothing to do with Obama and party affiliation means nothing to them when it comes to this individual. As well, their demographics are all over the map: young, female, highly educated, latino, jewish, film industry, laborers, attorneys, etc... The proverbial wool is not as firmly affixed over their eyes as Donna Brazile would like us to think.
Look for McCain to put CA in play this year.
After all, almost all of my friends and acquaintences who voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004 are voting for Obama this time. Some of that can be explained by the fact that I live in Illinois and people here tend to like Obama even if they don't agree with his policies. Also, most of my friends fit the Obama voter demographic, younger than 40, white, college or graduate degrees, upper middle class, Starbuck's drinking, Volvo driving folks from major metropolitan areas. Only my best friend's mom, 70 year old retired teacher, still admits to wanting McCain to win. I happen to think some of my friends will eventually come back to McCain in the fall. For now, however, it's Obamican city over here.
Note to self: "Preview Comment" is my friend
if BHO would have to spend real time and resources in California.
Jindal in 2012!
Through the use of Super Delegates (cue superhero music) Obama has managed to get enough delegates to take the nomination.
Leaving behind the 600,000 vote deficit he had with Hillary.
The DNC nominee is the one who got 600,000 fewer votes between the top two Dems.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

that when it's really time to pay the piper that these dems won't vote for Obama.
Jindal in 2012!