PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

I've only now finished listening to the recent debate between Obama and McCain. Thank god, or at least innovative technology, for podcasts. No doubt many people were very impressed by the lawyer among the two candidates. Indeed he speaks well and speaks,...like a lawyer. McCain lacked charisma but everything he said came across as genuine (I think). No dramatic flourishes but no B.S. either. He didn't come across as sounding like, "hey! Vote for me!" Obama has sounded like this since the period following his speech at the Democrats' national convention four years ago. McCain mostly just stated his case and was actually a bit weak in stating it fully. Obama's class rants were wide open for attack, as were his phony attempts to sound like a hawk in the war on "terrorism" (Islamo-fascism...and friends) and confrontation with America's enemies. In the end, I think McCain's dry but trustworthy approach will resonate with voters better (at least in "middle America" – outside cosmopolitan enclaves).

When Obama says things like "this is the greatest country in the world" it hardly comes across as even vaguely sincere. He should just not bring the topic up rather than offending his base and the common sense of average voters. There are just too many times and too many close associations (i.e. William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright) that make it clear he doesn't believe America is even somewhat "great."

Obama is a socialist and an internationalist. Of course he now has to pretend to be a moderate – or even conservative – on a variety of issues. In spite of the need to play to the voting public, he would be more convincing and honest if he just said he didn't like the U.S. and won't like it until it is drastically reduced in power and it's government is radically increased in power. That wouldn't win him the election of course, but it would be consistent with the "message" he has articulated in the past and with the people who mentored him.

In the Vice Presidential race, I still don't get why the talking heads can say Sarah Palin is not qualified when four years ago they thought John Edwards was -- or, Governors Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter were for that matter. We also hear much about Palin's unavailability to "the press" forgetting that this was a big issue earlier in the year with Obama who was actually angering one of his biggest blocks of support – elitist news manufacturing clowns – who couldn't seem to get access to him.

Notice too that, of the several opinion polls conducted, the major media outlets seem to have a preference for noting the ones that show Obama far ahead (most polls still have the candidates within a mere few points of each other). This is a media classic similar to the polls that tell us that the president's approval rating is in the low 30's (not unlike Clinton's in his last year of office) while keeping it a virtual secret that the same polling organizations find the (Democrat dominated) congress's approval ratings at less than 10% (!).

If Obama loses, there'll no doubt be all sorts of screaming about "racism" and other concocted reasons other than...."he [simply] lost." Why can't Democrats just lose and politely acknowledge that they lost. There's always got to be some phony excuse about being denied their just rein. The historical record is clear on this one; Republican's don't do this, and it's certainly not because they haven't had cause to (the Nixon / Kennedy election being the best example of shady play on the part of Democrats).

At this point, undecided voters should consider that if they vote for Obama they are also voting to give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's philosophy of government absolute authority over the way the U.S. functions in the next four years (not to mention court appointments) -- that would not be a good thing for anyone. "Gridlock" is always preferable to one party railroading it's every desire through the legislative process.

Remember too that when Obama promises a "tax cut" for 95% of the country's citizens, that 40% of them don't pay any federal taxes to begin with (McCain should have definitely railed Obama on this bogus con). That's more than faulty math. What Obama promises is what all socialists promise; income "re" distribution. I put the "re" in quotes because income is not "re-distributed." It's never "distributed in the first place. People work for their incomes. Whether through, labor, mental effort, or risk and innovation, the source of one's wealth is not the result of some kind of "distribution" system. Obama would raise taxes considerably on those he believes are wealthy (he supposedly knows what is fair in this regard) and simply issue vote-buying government checks to others. Bread and circuses. Good to appease "the masses" temporarily but a downright stupid thing to do to a productive economy – even one in need of repair (especially one in need of repair).

I expect the next two presidential debates to be similar to this recent one but with both candidates being a little tougher on their opponent (on the advice of their staffs). The Vice Presidential debate will be fun and I fully expect Palin to clobber a gaffe drowning Joe Biden.

The "gotcha" style of entrapment journalism used on Palin in her recent interviews were just too obvious. These media clowns (i.e. Gibson and Couric) haven't' asked the same kinds of on-the-spot questions to Obama or Biden and the viewing public knows it.

Unlike the typical leftist Democrat, I'm not going to get all psycho if "my guy doesn't win." Tantrums are for control freaks and there are plenty of them on the left. In fact, I'll be mildly amused (damage aside) if Obama and his Democrat congress win because it will be a virtual guarantee that they'll go down in flames during the next election. Either way, conservatives win.

# posted by Promethean Antagonist @ 3:53 PM