he knows what Republicans think about Obama. And he thinks they’re “saps”:
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.
What, in his estimation, this makes Democrats, he doesn’t mention.
(h/t Memeorandum)
Hi, Dan.
Are you sure this isn’t a parody? Sure does sound like one, eh? It sounds like something you or Karl (or Jeff) would write as a joke.
I decided long ago that God has decided to try His hand at farce. Now that He has Douglas Adams on his staff these days, it’s probably only going to get weirder.
hahaha
i lurvs Brooks. i think that is spot on.
you might the Derb pretty accurate here too.
if O! is going to be the first black american president, hes gonna have to float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. hes gonna have to be machiavalli and jesus rolled into one.
i think he can do it.
how else do you explain him getting this far?
i just got my download of the Spore Creature Creator (mad fun!)….that made me think, what if i was designing a political creature that could rule in the contemporary political environment?
wouldn’t that creature exactly be Barack Obama?
The complete dumbing down of the American education system, years of progressive indoctrination, a media that clearly shills for the guy, and a populace who thinks the President should be a lot like the next American Idol / Top Chef?
I’m just guessing here.
Meanwhile, I’m still trying to figure out why Brooks believes Republicans are wrong about much of that… This must be one of those “tyranny of facts” moments.
Does it come with a samesex assortative mating feature?
Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out?
All that and Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and top ’em all off with that maraschino cherry of a pol, HRC. Who else wouldn’t win against that stellar crowd?
“#Comment by nishizonoshinji on 6/20 @ 9:14 am #
how else do you explain him getting this far?”
Teenagers, eggheads and white liberal guilt.
Get ready for the Messiah to be exposed as the small-bore, low pockets hack he really is.
Both McCain and Obama are the result of McCain-Feingold. That law put the media in a special place, exempt from all the election regulations that the Parties and citizens have to follow.
These two are their choices. I hope they enjoy their ratings and power.
From Brooks: The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).
NPR was on board with that line hot and strong yesterday. According to their phone-in expert, this was just Republicans trying to divert attention from their own misdeeds by jumping up and down and pointing a lot of tiny type in O!’s campaign filings. Both expert and host were hoping the public would take no heed, but were careful to phrase it in the form of a question, “Will the public pay attention to this?”
How’s that Warren Christopher thing working out for you, nish? Hopey and changey enough?
BTW, how’s the view from underneath Obama’s bus? Perhaps you and the rest of the “youth vote” might want to say hello to Barry’s granny and Rev. Wright while you’re down there.
Meanwhile, I’m still trying to figure out why Brooks believes Republicans are wrong about much of that… This must be one of those “tyranny of facts†moments.
He wants to be invited back on “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.
The complete dumbing down of the American education system, years of progressive indoctrination, a media that clearly shills for the guy, and a populace who thinks the President should be a lot like the next American Idol / Top Chef?
yup…..also….he had to be black, to play the racecard against hilarys gendercard….he had to be opportunistic and ruthless.
he had to be beautiful, too. ;)
we have a tv culture.
appearance is almost all.
Derbs says this, “Are there white Americans who will vote against Obama because they don’t like black people?”, and like him, I agree that of course the answer is Yes. However, the flip side of that is true, too. There are many black people that are voting for him, just because he is black. Both unbelievably stupid reasons and border on racist.
Jeff, I have to second your guess.
Sanity
even Ponnuru thinks O! did the right thing.
the merican public is just seeing they got 84 mil back.
they dont really care about the nuance.
OI, there are also ppl that will vote for O! solely on appearance, or solely on the coolth factor, or from white guilt….many many reasons.
wow…Jeff’s epiphany engine strikes again…O! is the product of politico-cultural evolution.
hes at the top of the foodchain.
mccain, on the other hand was an accident. the result of Freds disinterest, Rudys bad strategy and the underestimation of the hardcore anti-mormon bigotry of a good part of the republican party’s base.
;)
FWIW, I think I was inadvertently tipped to the next line in the lib/progg narrative after having a converstaion with my cousin yesterday. I love the guy but he’s as steeped in the MIT/Cambridge/Boston mindset as you’ll find.
Me: Hey, looks like your guy (O!) has a good chance of grabbing the prize.
Cousin: [pissed off] Yeah, sure. But he’s stepping into such an unbelievably fucked up mess that George fucking Bush will leave behind, I don’t think anybody will be able to clean it up for decades.
Me: Uh huh. So if he sucks as President it’s not his fault.
Cousin: [still pissed] Of course!
It is a liar. A fucking mendouceous liar.
Jeff G – Could not agree more. The sad part is that there have prolly been a few people on Top Chef more qualified than Baracky. And, Padma.
Oh, no one doubts the ruthlessness of Democrats when they are faced with their true enemy: Republicans. It’s when they’re confronted with a more authentic Other that their knees buckle and farm donation becomes the order of the day. IOW, watch out McCain, then hugs for thugs.
…how else do you explain him getting this far?
He has gotten as far as Al Gore and John Kerry. Not exactly Machiavallian Messiah territory just yet.
When I read Dan’s headline, I thought he was breaking a big story. But as is so often the case, Brooks gets it exctly backwards:
It’s the other way ’round, nitwit.
As for the “how did he get this far,” I have only pointed out a dozen times or so that polls show this year showed that people wanted the changey reformer types –> Obama, McCain. D’oh!
that extra show is free, btw.
The American education system seems to have prepared Barack Obama well for his chosen career.
The American education system seems to have prepared Barack Obama well for his chosen career.
He went to private schools, thor.
thor,
We agree on that, though I wonder if you think that’s a good thing.
Also, it doesn’t dawn on Brooks why — with sizable majorities of the country thinking we’re on the wrong track, the economy is weak and the Iraq war was a mistake — the Messiah runs behind a generic Democrat. Is it all racism — or could it be that the super-genius is trying to run as Mr. Unifier after spending 20 years worshipping with Rev. Wright?
I think Brooks is right. O has been marketed as some sort of politics 2.0 because he doesnt directly appeal to his opposition as murdering visigoths. In reality though, he is straight out of 1910.
to be honest, Obama would be seen as having the gravity of a middling-grade fart in any other era were it not for Bush and the way he executed much of his policy initiatives.
O is nothing more than a reversion to the mean–the post-Clinton “moderates” like Kerry and Gore failed, and with no other prospect to hand (Hillary=Bill), they went to their base: machine, orthodox liberalism. what else were they gonna do–go to Lieberman?
It just so happened that Bush’s presidency has been on the rocks, which makes O one lucky, lucky son of a bitch.
mcgruder,
Not all that lucky, really. The situation presents itself about every 16 years since the end of WWII.
So far, I get the impression that the republican strategerists are planning to sell the American people on McCain as a warm, nice guy with a lot of experience, and stay away from any negative campaigning. I’m sure this has been said here before. Bush has been trying to convince the people of the same things about himself for about 6 years. I predict that the McCain campaign will be just about as successful as Bush has been.
People want a leader. A maverick, by definition, is not a leader, and nice guys finish last. Watch for a flourish of negative campaigning after Labor Day as the abysmal polls point out the dicouraging truth. Of couse, by then it will be too late.
“how else do you explain him getting this far?”
Easy, Nish…
Two words. George Soros.
Watching C-SPAN regarding FISA CHANGE BILL HR6304, and survey says YEA 293 NAY 129.
In addition, after reading Brooks’s piece, it is one long denunciation of Obama’s ambitious, calculating side (Brooks calls it Obama’s “fast Eddie” side) and completely fits with the meme that Obama is a scheming liar, whose pretty words are a cover for political calculation and ambition.
A lot of people would say that’s dead on.
A lot of people would say Brooks is just another R-wing pussy gnashing his teeth after and because the current crop of Republicans failed miserably when called upon to lead this country and the repercussions are that they must suffer Obama.
A heaping shit salad is normally served post-failure, it’s the American Way, so just eat it. You don’t have to like it but you don’t have to shed all those sissy-man tears while you chew.
Thor, right-wing pussy doesn’t have teeth.
He has gotten as far as Al Gore and John Kerry. Not exactly Machiavallian Messiah territory just yet.
I think George McGovern might be a more apt comparison.
I think George McGovern might be a more apt comparison.
Probably, but I didn’t want nishi to have to Google.
The Republicans failed in a number of ways. But not on national security. If we weren’t to the point where we looked to government to fix everything, Bush’s presidency might be seen as very successful.
Too bad part of the failure has to do with “compassionate conservatism,” which is really just Republicans trying to keep up with the Dems in terms of promises and freebies in exchange for votes.
Forced to play the cynics by the cynics.
Dan,
Brooks is topping Memeorandum at the moment, so you might want to throw in an update link:
http://www.memeorandum.com/080620/p25#a080620p25
Do you think Adams is over the shock yet that there, in fact, IS a God? :-)
I agree. The one thing Dems bang on Bush most about was his greatest success – Iraq.
Bush could have closed the border, could have opened drilling in ANWAR, could have resisted revamping bankruptcy laws, could have controlled spending. Seems Bush tarnished his legacy most by not fulfilling a more conservative agenda, and in large part it’s because while he led our troops in wartime he failed to lead his Republican troops in Congress.
I like Obama sort’a like a Cowboys fans can still say they like Mean Joe Green, true Cowboys fan can never ever show respect to the Steelers but if it’s just Mean Joe then that’s OK. The upcoming demise of the Republican Party is not going to beneficial to the country. Oh, and it’s going to happen. The Repubs are going to take a beating. But R-wings can only blame themselves for opting for cheap shot politics while failing to follow through on their promises when in power. And yes, I am implying the 80% of what is said here concerning Obama is dumbassed cheap shots. Sadly R-wingers will have to learn a new way of doing their political business because claiming Leftards cheap shot too falls on deaf ears to those who expect better from both sides.
I think you should be careful not to conflate conservatives with Republicans.
I don’t know how long you’ve been here, but for your edification, I’ll say it again: HUGH HEWITT IS NOT THE BOSS OF ME!
Oh. And I should add that I think Bush had to use ALL of his political capital to wage this war with even the minimum of effectiveness. I don’t blame him nearly so much as I blame the Republicans in Congress, and the opportunistic Dems who did everything they could to cut Bush off at the knees.
Then my comments are not directed specifically at you, Jeff. I’d vote you to be the next RNC chief but you’re not there yet, so you’re off the hook.
My last hand signal under the partition means we don’t have to see eye to eye to have some back and forth.
He has the Stevenson coalition. What else would he be?
“how else do you explain him getting this far?”
He ran in the Democratic primaries and barely got 50%+ of their votes over the most drawn out, down to the wire, nomination season ever. “This far” has been an incredible struggle for him to achieve, and does not bode well for the general campaign, not matter how much money he raises.
Memeorandun appears to shun Dan. But I’ll toss in a link from Dean Barnett, noting how quickly Brooks and Excitable Andy went from “O! is the coming of the New Politics” to “O! is great because he’s not the coming of the New Politics!”:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/06/barack_obama_machiavellian_gen.asp
Yes. He’s a Machiavellian Genius and also Forrest Gump. In other words, he’s George W. Bush.
Is Machiavellian the Hope and Change we’re been waiting for? Or is it Machiavellian to sell us Hope and Change while slipping the knife neatly between the ribs? That’s really what I’m thinking.
Also, I though it was the Dems that were going to explode/collapse/destroy themselves in a big ball of spittle. Now you’re telling me the Rethugs are going to too?
We’re so screwed.
See comment #2.
Or if it makes the nishtoon more comfortable, COMPLETELY RANDOM CHANCE has decided to try its hand at farce.
Explains the nishtoon too, come to think of it.
I imagine all God had to do was point out that the babel fish doesn’t actually exist after all.
I think Obama did well for the same reason Bush had problems: the Meida…they love Obama and hate Bush. I know that people think this is just too easy to say, too pat, but it is true. Bush can not catch a break. If a hurricane hits the United States and he is president, by God it is his fault. If Obama were president there would be speeches upon speeches about how this tragedy makes us stronger blah blah blah. No one would be ignoring the fact that the Coast Guard carried out the largest rescue mission in history while they made crap up about cannibalism and murder. No siree.
And if Bush contradicted himself as many times in a year as Obama does in a day, the media would be all over it.
Even now the right is more worried about McCain and immigration than they are about the fact that Obama {who really is open border} might just win. No, they do not take Obama seriously enough. They would rather rake McCain over the coals.
I think the right has a bad habit of turning on its own and creating problems for themselves while at the same time underestimating the opposition. I remember when Hillary Clinton and Chucky Shumer went in front of the mikes and started that stuff over Dubai, I thought that surely the Republicans would know they were just trying to cause trouble. Nope, the next thing you know conservative bloggers are acting as if Bush is going to sell ports to terrorists so that they can kill us all. It is like watching Charlie Brown and the football thing.
I think Obama is a charlatan. That is why there are no legislative accomplishments, that requires political courage and dedication. No, he is out there shining for us all. A regular Huey Long.
And Republicans are going to be too busy obsessing about McCain’s border policy to notice how they are being played.
Not this Republican. The only O!bsession I see is coming from the Donk side. The choice for me is between Awful vs. Distasteful in this race. Great.
“What, in his estimation, this makes Democrats, he doesn’t mention.
– People that are such saps they think they’re running against a Republican?
Big Bang Hunter:
McCain is a Republican. It is not fair to assume that just because he does not kiss ass he is not a Republican. I think this kind of constant harping is music to Obama’s ears and he is counting on it to help make him the next president. He already has his own seal and everything. Conservatives had a chance to get behind another candidate and could not manage it and now way too many of them are bellyaching like a bunch of sore loser cry babies. If Romney had gotten the nomination, I would have backed him and voted for him without all this whiney ass crap whether he was my first choice or not. sheesh.
Newsweek has a new poll out that has Obama with a big lead. The demographics are kind of weird, I saw this at hot air :
Actually, it’s not terribly worrisome. Granted, the numbers about Hillary supporters coming home to the party are in line with the Fox News poll from yesterday, but like JWF says, compare the samples: 42/35/16 D/R/I for Fox versus 38/23/35 for Newsweek. We’ll treat it as an outlier, especially considering the source.
Indeed, most of us McCain skeptics would like him better if he were an equal-opportunity non-ass-kisser. Unfortunately, the time he’s spending not kissing our asses, he’s usually been running around making out with the backsides of “journalists” who can give him (and, until this campaign, almost always have given him) fawning press.
With tongue.
…and he’s been getting that fawning press by kicking conservatives in the nuts every chance he’s had.
Until now that he needs us, and even then he still does it half the time. Small favors?
– More to the point Terrye, the record, his record, speaks for itself. You don’t have to make anything up to show hes on the left of far more issues than on the right. The sole exception that even qualify’s him as a “Conservative” is on the Iraq war, and even there you have to take it on faith he’ll keep his word.
– Please do not even effect to lecture me on McCain. It took a veritable flood of emails to turn him around on his purely Leftist utopian ideas on border control, and even now hes still babbling about guest worker programs without a passing nod to control of our own sovereign borders. If it were not for his position on the WOT, he’d be, for all intent and purposes, a Democrat.
– Now if you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the reality of his politics, be my guest. When I vote for him, which I undoubtedly will, it will not be from any such position of willful ignorance. I’ll hold my nose and do what I must for the safety of our country, not because I believe McCain is a true blue Conservative, by every reasonable political measure he is anything but, but because the opposition is a true blue soft Marxist Socialist to the core.
– Call it wussy if you like. I call it informed voting.
Oh please. McCain has a conservative record. His ranking is really quite high. And I am not lecturing anyone. I am just pointing out that it is a two man race between McCain and Obama. If Republicans don’t back their nominee they deserve to lose. If conservatives let a liberal Democrat win because they could not get it together to find a nominee they did not want to bitch about then they do not need to bitch about liberals in power.
And for years I have listened to Republicans complain about Bush’s poor public relations, his inability to deal with the press effectively. They have a nominee who can talk to the press and they find that something to complain about too.
As far as immigration, conservatives did not do jack about this issue when Newt Gingrich came to town. They ignored it in 2000 and 2004. They swore that making an issue of it in 2006 would help them, but it had just the opposite effect. Barack Obama is way to the left of McCain on this issue to spare me the lecture on illegal immigration. I am beginning to think it is just an excuse to complain anyway. George Bush did more to secure that border than any president in history and what kind of credit did he get for it? Nada, they called him Jorge and stabbed him in the back.
Tonight on the panel on Fox News Mort Kondracke made mention of the fact that Obama wants to give full constitutional rights to terrorists. He said that would lead to Marines picking up shell casings in battle fields to bring to court. He made it plain he thought it was insane. Mort Kondracke is not a right winger, he is not all that conservative, but he is not stupid. And if he thinks that such a thing is even possible then that right there is reason enough to keep Obama out of the White House.
– Bush did move, yes, but only after. again, another flood of angry communications that practically gave him a literal ass burn. He finally moved at the behest of House Republicans that were in fear of losing even more seats, plus the torrent of unhappy mail from the electorate. Thats is the public record, whether you like it or not.
– at the height of all of the hullabulo, even when we in the border states were screaming “border control” at the top of our lungs, good old McDinosaur was busy with his several “guest worker” programs in Congress, adroitly ignoring the voices of the people that have to suffer for that sort of political tin-ear.
– I’m not concerned that he won’t win, just because people understand what they’re getting. Better the devil you know than the one you don’t. Whether or not he meets even a rudimentary standard of Conservatism, he is still better than the alternative by a mile, and people know that. And they will know it even more by the time the debates are over and its time to vote.
– I’ll vote for him for the reasons I’ve stated, but I won’t kiss his ass, or pretend I agree with the bulk of his politics. I’m not a starry eyed Lefty, so I don’t roll that way.
If you want a border fence, just wait until the Environmental Impact Statements are dealt with first before you start digging. If you want to remove those EIS, well, they are very popular for NIMBY reasons, and NIMBY crosses all political divides.
BBH – no one is asking you to be a starry-eyed leftist. Just look at the two choices and decide.
And for the record – the ‘let Obama in so he can f*** up and we can get a Reagan’ idea is plain wrong on two points: (1) why would anyone want their country hurt; and (2) assuming there is a Reagan in the wings isn’t a bet a rational man should take – who is that Reagan?
The choice is this: the old war-horse you disagree with some points on, or the young Chicago pol you disagree with all points on?
For me, it isn’t a hard decision.
– Mikey, I was responding to the “aussy” comment, and the general tone of some people who are apparently so frieghtened of a potential Obama win they want to say “sshhhhh”, lets not point out McOldGuys Lertward tendencies.
– I’m fairly confident he’ll win, especially after watching the mad house on the Left. I’m still pretty sure you haven’t heard the last of Billery, for one thing, and Nadar will probably do his Greeny bit. And then theres the O! man himself. He can’t seem to stop finding ways to screw the goose on a daily basis.
– To be honest, with 5 months still to go, not to mention a convention that could turn into a veritable bloodbath, a recalcitrant Dem Congress who have decided its politically savy to stand squarely against any possible way to get us out of the fuel mess, combined with the “surrender monkey” problem they have in Iraq. if I had to give odds I’d go somewhere around 12 to 2 against. But thats just me.
– Let this fuel situation fester for a few more weeks, let alone 5 months, with the Dems playing their climate change games, and you won’t need any debates.
BBH – the Democrats already have surrendered Iraq to the lame-duck George Bush. The funding now goes through without the histronics.
Again, as I see it the choice is very clear – either McCain or Obama. Based on everything other than emotion, McCain gets my vote. Based on emotion – such as Obama’s friends – McCain definitely gets my vote. I do not reject the best choice because I pine for the perfect choice. If I wanted the perfect choice I would run; and I am not a glass-half-empty guy.
If you want subjectivity to rule objectivity, go ahead. I won’t.
– No I say you should do just the opposite. Use your vote to make your feelings known, even maybe making it clear if McCain persists in Leftward thinking he just may not get your vote. This is the one time you have any real power as a voter. This is it. I say going the other way is the wussier choice. Thats what we had to do on the border issue, make him feel the heat, and at least it stopped him from doing something, not only stupid, but less than useful from any standpoint.
– Powery people power to the peoply power block!
“If you want subjectivity to rule objectivity, go ahead. I won’t.”
– Umm, I think thats what I’ve been advocating against, maybe I’m misunderstanding you here. How is honestly examining a candidates true record “subjective”?
Examing the record is objective. Objectively comparing Sens. McCain and Obama reveals differences between the candidates on several issues the Republic faces.
Subjective is where the objective is reviewed and the reviewer says that despite the obvious differences I will nor support one over the other, even where it is objectively known that one of the two will win the election.
The Constitution, by its framework, creates loose pre-election coalition parites, a two party system. Winner take all by definition creates a two party system, and by breaking the executive off from the legislature (a non-parliamentary system), a loose party system is created.
A third party is a spoiler, and under our system cannot win, and if a third party president does win, cannot govern with the legislature in the grip of the other two parties. A third party vote goes to subjective satisfaction; if actually wanting a president who is closest to your views (objective) a third party candidate does not do that at all.
My opinion.
There’s nothing particularly inaccurate about #19.
I’m not a Republican but that analysis of Obama is spot on. I know it’s not fun to admit as a lefty and I understand you probably would rather avoid that (and the radical leftist bent the guy has, plus ties to one of the most corrupt political machines on earth and a consistent tendency to change positions at the drop of a hat based on polling) but not liking the truth doesn’t make it go away.
“There’s nothing particularly inaccurate about #19.”
Pains me to say but…I agreee.
Had it been written as ordinary prose I might had even read it the first time.
Objectively speaking, each Republican nominee over the last 20 years has been noticeably to the left of the previous one.
Objectivity is about more than the here and now, it’s also about noticing trends. Can anyone tell me — objectively — what electing McCain would do to reverse the trend of even the Republicans drifting leftward? Or is the sum of the argument always going to boil down to “Obama will be worse”?
That is objectively true, but it just isn’t enough anymore.
Huzzah!
There’s nothing particularly inaccurate about #19.
Except that Obama was also a mistake. I’ll give him, or his handlers, props for figuring out how to exploit and incredibly fucked up Democrat primary process, but he is where he is because Clinton got over confident.
O! is the product of politico-cultural evolution.
Please. There is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary about anything Obama has done.
It’s a bit overstated like that but a popcultural phenomenon definitely, even if as mostly contrived as the run of the mill popcultural phenomena are. Obama is inexplicable otherwise but so was Lionel Ritchie.
Local popculture politicians are an age old tradition, Huey Long and a litany of machine politicoes in NY, Chicago and Philly come to mind. It is not as common or as easy on a national scale, but since TV homogenized culture it is not new. JFK and Gary Hart worked it fairly well, Bobby Kennedy was as big a rock star as Obama.
– I suppose its a stretch, so to speak, but maybe sKerry as “Lurch” might be a sort of counter-culture pop politician. Did I mention he served in Nam?
Then you will get Obama, McGehee. And if I recall, the protest anger towards George H.W. Bush quickly evaporated into anger towards the Clintons – and should have been directed towards those who advocated a ‘protest vote’ for Perot.
You want better candidates? Then conservatives ought to promote a better one rather than each finding his unique ‘perfect candidate’ to fall in behind.
Of course, it could also be that the rank and file of the party isn’t as conservative and is much more numerous than the conservatives who are complaining now, much like the beltway media, be it left or right, really isn’t representative of the country as a whole.
[quote]Can anyone tell me  objectively  what electing McCain would do to reverse the trend of even the Republicans drifting leftward? Or is the sum of the argument always going to boil down to “Obama will be worse�[/quote]
It would make the GOP lean more left, at least temporarily because McCain could cry that he won over the objections of the stupidhead meaningless conservatives. There are only three arguments in favor of voting for Senator McCain rather than against Senator Obama:
1) He’s so unstable he’s likely to blow up very entertainingly on television at least once, particularly with a foreign leader
2) If he wins the left will freak out even more
3) The military types, soldiers and so on really seem to want him in office, at least over Obama.
That’s not enough for me to support the man and help him gain power, but at least there are some arguments for the vote.
I was one of those arguing for re-electing Bush in 1992 because I didn’t need to see Bill Clinton in the White House to know what a disaster it would be.
I haven’t arrived where I am on a whim. When in 2000 it looked, however briefly, as if McCain might actually take the nomination, I swore off Kool-Aid. I’d never really cared for the stuff anyway. And I’m damn sure not going to be browbeaten into drinking it now.
Months ago I said there was no chance whatsoever of me voting for McCain in November. Now I say the odds against my voting for him in November might be infinity-minus-1.
Don’t give me “Then you will get Obama.” Either one of these guys is going to be a huge step backward, with only the size of the step being the difference — and that less than the width of a dime.
Don’t give me “Then you will get Obama.” What I need is a reason to vote for somebody for president this fall. Not against — for. McCain hasn’t tried to give me one. He doesn’t think I need one.
As in so many things, he’s wrong.