Oh Irony, your name is Obama. While campaigning in Indiana today, (a bad decision in itself, because if he wins Indiana, he will have to have won other states that put him over the 270 mark first), Obama suggested people would have to be stupid to buy the argument that McCain/Palin represent change. “I mean, c’mon” he cleverly quipped.
Apparently, asserting oneself to be the agent of change is not a valid criterion. Who knew? But would people be stupid to accept two mavericks with a proven record of reform, bipartisanship and change can’t trump a 3 year Senator with less than half a year’s days in the Senate who has voted the party line every time, who is paired with another partisan hack who happens to be a 35 year Washington insider who has never held another real job? Hmm. Like Palin stated, one candidate has used the promise of change to advance his career while the other has used his career to advance the promise of change.
While sending out his surrogates, including a member of his original finance team, to conduct fundraising on the basis that Palin has a pregnant daughter and a son with Down’s syndrome, Obama repeated that families are off limits, especially children. That’s touching, Senator, but did you return the money from that fundraiser? Have you fired and denounced your campaign finance team member who sent the letter?
And, while on the subject of families being off limits, Mr. Junior Senator from Illinois, if you name your wife as the person you would most listen to and inform your decision making process as President, have you not put her in play? If you frequently deploy her as a surrogate, does that not put her in play? The last Democratic President we had with a wife involved in policy making decisions turned out to be a rather important matter of public interest, which you should recall, as you yourself spent the last year running a similarly negative campaign against her, as the PUMAs have well documented. Obama displays his great ability to unify people, however, as he tells them “get over it.”
And then when people attack your wife’s judgment, and you come back and claim McCain has broken a non-existent deal when you asserted in a broad and equivocating manner that “families are off limits” don’t you realize that you are justifying your supporters attacks on Trig and Bristol Palin?? I think you must, after all you’ve already admitted you read the DailyKos. This is negative politics sir.
Obama’s campaign indicated that they would talk the economy everyday from here until the election. Perhaps this is because he has been absolutely slaughtered and schooled by McCain on every foreign policy issue from the surge, to dealing with Russia, to a consistent standard of supporting an undivided Jerusalem, to not equivocating upon and engaging in relativistic language justifying the Palestinian terrorists’ actions.
In any event, Obama tried to strike what I’m sure he thought was a “moderate chord” in Indiana by stating that any bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to be in the taxpayers interest. Really? Oh please Senator, you’re killing us with specifics on your plan there, I’m not sure if we’re ready for that depth of leadership. Does this mean that you are going to condition the bailout on increased regulation, does it mean you support a conservatorship over them, does it mean you would bail out lenders hurt by this, does it mean the domino effect from this catastrophy must unfold before you take action to protect homeowners? Or does it mean you would simply put out an ambiguous statement, such as this one, wait 3 days until after McCain has stated his position and you have poll tested yours, then begin to get specific, and claim it was what you meant all along? I suspect the latter.
Obama continued his misrepresentations of McCain’s speech by stating he said not one word about job creation. Hmm, you can pick up the text of that speech if you dozed off Senator and missed it on realclearpolitics.com. He attacked Palin as representing more of the same as Bush. Hmm, ad hominem attacks are generally considered not only a logical fallacy, but are negative politics as well. Obama claimed McCain “brgaged” that “90% of the time I voted with George Bush”, something McCain has never stated, and is a highly misleading figure Obama likes to frequently use besides. Even if you could justify your 90% figure Obama, which is dubious since Bush does not vote in the legislature as he is the President, it is downright negative to lie and say someone said something silly they did not. Even more so that someone “bragged” about it. That’s called slander.
McCain/Palin by contrast are keeping it positive and sounding the drumbeat for change. Change in ending earmarks, which Obama has not pledged. Change in ethics reform and to have the most transparent administration in history, which Obama has promised as well, but with no track record or accomplishments in that department, (unless you count an ethics bill he co-sponsored with McCain). McCain has promised to work with everybody and not care who gets the credit, Obama has not. McCain regularly holds town halls and takes questions from the people. Obama utilizes larger venues incompatible with Q&As, thereby avoiding engaging with the people, which is why he is out of touch.
McCain succinctly summed it up by noting that he has a history of working across the aisle while Obama does not. “If you want real reform and you want real change, send a team of mavericks who aren’t afraid to break a little china.” I’ll take the “Maverick Ticket” over the ticket of liberal partisanship anyday.