Just Reading The Tea Leaves
10 questions about the 2008
election
Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and
Marcie's is in purple.
This is a significant change
of pace for us. Bloggers occasionally get e-mail from readers,
and sometimes it is serious. Other times it involves whimsical
questions. Yes, we are married. No, I do not rule the roost, so
to speak. Despite our dislike of John McCain, yes we are supporting
him as the Republican nominee. But there are other questions that
have come up in recent months that we would like to address. We
have chosen ten of them to address here, in this forum. I will
provide the questions (with slight alteration for spelling, grammar,
and context) and Thomas will answer them.
1) John McCain's nomination infuriated the base. There is no disputing
this. So how in God's name did he get it?
The Republican field was a rather large
one for voters to assess. There were favorites, such as Rudy Giuliani,
Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. The problem with them is each
one made key mistakes through the primaries. Rudy backed his campaign
into Florida in a sort of non-essential "last stand"
which backfired. Fred never caught fire with much of anyone save
the activist base on the Internet. And Mitt had the allegations
of "flip-flopping" and his faith (we believe this was
actually the key reason) that dogged him. John McCain was virtually
given up for dead prior to winter 2007, and would have still been
dead had the alternative media not taken a month off in December.
They had carried the torch hammering on John McCain over his past
actions, and his then-current snafu of comprehensive immigration
reform. But we made a mistake, and let him get back up off the
canvas. So, blame us for his nomination. We dropped the ball when
it was crucial.
2) Given Hillary's high negative numbers -- her unfavorables --
how is she still in this race at all?
Two words -- Operation Chaos. Rush Limbaugh
started this to keep the Democrats off balance, and ripping into
each other. Call it payback for them sticking their votes in for
John McCain in New Hampshire. One would think that she should
be down for the count, but she was bolstered by cross-over votes
in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. And just like Slim
Pickens rode that nuclear missile to it's intended target in "Dr.
Strangelove," Hillary Clinton will ride hers right into the
convention in Denver. She's not going anywhere, and while it may
not be beneficial to the democrats, it provides welcome entertainment
for us Republicans.
3) Barack Obama recently disassociated himself
from his pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright. there appears
to be no fallout from this controversy. Care to share your thoughts?
Sure thing. If any Republican had a controversial
person like this in their past, they'd be crucified, figuratively
speaking. But the media is doing it's damnedest to make sure this
doesn't hurt him too badly. CNN recently informed Senator Obama
that they are a "Wright-free zone;" a blatant refusal
to address an issue that Barack Obama himself said was "legitimate."
Many pundits think the controversy has raged on too long, and
it's obscuring the race. On the contrary, his association with
Jeremiah Wright, given the man's sermons and the church newsletter,
calls into question Senator Obama's judgment of character. No
one we know of would have tolerated staying in a church where
the pastor preached hate, railed on about AIDS conspiracy theories,
or had basically said 11 September was America's fault, and her
"chickens" were" coming home to roost." But
his decision to disavow the man he claimed he couldn't ("I
could no more disown him than I could my white grandmother.")
comes from political expediency, not a true epiphany. He knew
Wright was harming his candidacy, and he decided enough was enough.
As for fallout, it was brief; a hiccup in the political process.
His numbers slipped in North Carolina, but he still won the state.
4) You say Jeremiah Wright is a skeleton
in Senator Obama's closet. Does he have anymore?
Unless you've been living in a Taliban cave,
you know he's associated with William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn
-- two former domestic terrorists that worked with the Weather
Underground. He also has Chicago "fixer" Tony Rezko,
whose trial is finishing up right now. For both, we can point
to character issues again, and how poor his judgment is in choosing
"friends" or associates. There are also his policy positions
that can serve as skeletons. He can't get past the survey he took
where his positions on abortion and gun rights were laid out for
all to see. He still thinks raising taxes across the board is
the smartest move to make to spur the economy back to where it
was. And there is his foreign policy. He still insists we should
be sitting down with our enemies and talking to them. The New
York Times launched a full-throated defense of the indefensible,
spinning this as "inaccurate." It's not. He said it
during the CNN/YouTube debates, and he still has this view up
on his website, as Allahpundit at Hot Air observed on 10 May.
So his issues serve as skeletons as much as his associations do.
5) And what about Senator Clinton's skeletons?
She is not a popular person, and her lies alone could serve as
a serious problem. Do you see the same thing happening to her
that is happening to Senator Obama?
Absolutely. Her "Tuzla Dash" lie
blew up on her so badly that in the Pennsylvania debate she was
forced to admit she had lied. When she released her records as
First Lady, pundits and prognosticators learned more about her
lies than just the Tuzla story. She claimed she was an integral
member of the Clinton administration despite being removed from
any sort of policy work after the disastrous health care plan
cost her party the House in 1994. There are, of course, her extreme
left-wing associations, such as those with Saul Alinsky, but those
are nothing compared to Senator Obama's ties. She's going to be
hammered on her qualifications, and while her resume is a bit
thicker than Senator Obama's, it's still too thin compared to
John McCain's.
6) So, all you have is the "liar, liar, pants on fire"
offense on Hillary? You do not think that is pretty thin?
Of course not. It goes directly to why so
many people loathed the Clintons in the first place. They're liars.
They always have been and they always will be. They're pathological,
and they lie for political expediency. We saw this repeatedly
throughout the term of President Clinton. We can assure readers
and voters that if she is elected, we will have that all over
again. So, yes, it's right to point out her lies. And that will
begin, in spades, once the general election starts, and if she's
the nominee.
7) You two have been busy pointing out Barack
Obama's and Hillary Clinton's flaws. Is John McCain without any
flaws at all?
Of course not. He's the Republican nominee,
not Jesus Christ. John McCain has plenty of flaws; the majority
of which have come in the last eight years or so. There's McCain/Feingold,
which was campaign finance reform, and it blew up in his face
in 2004. There's the Gang of 14 compromise in the Senate over
judicial nominees, which was a short-lived power trip for him
once some of his allies got voted out of office in 2006. Then
we had McCain/Kennedy -- "bipartisan comprehensive immigration
reform," which was anything but what he and his colleagues
in the Senate were touting. And now we have McCain/Lieberman which
deals with global warming and climate change. Thank God it's stalled
in committee right now. So yes, McCain has flaws, but there are
flaws that we, the people, can rein in. The proper pressure need
only be applied to the Senate to stop anything that might come
down the pipe. We were able to do it when it came to McCain/Kennedy,
and we've been stopping things for eight years. We can do it for
eight more should the need arise. With the Democrats we don't
see our input even being paid any sort of attention.
8) Do either of you think Hillary Clinton
will steal the nomination?
What's to steal? Last time we checked, the
nomination wasn't Senator Obama's. He hasn't won it yet. This
fight is going to continue through the convention in August. That's
when your winner will be determined, and Senator Clinton still
has a shot to take the nomination should the superdelegates decide
that she is the better candidate to go up against John McCain.
9) Why do Democrats have superdelegates
and Republicans do not?
Superdelegates were created by Democrats after the 1972 election
when George McGovern got his butt handed to him by Richard Nixon.
In short, to avoid another catastrophic loss, the superdelegates
are there to trump the will of the primary voters. Call them a
"parent" if you want to because that's literally what
they do. They'll be the ones telling the voters that they made
a mistake in falling for a candidate who is too weak to win. As
for why the GOP doesn't have them, we're guessing that it's because
the GOP trusts its voters to make a sane, sensible decision in
who they'd prefer run for the White House.
10) Despite the differences we (readers)
may have with you two, you both seem quite informed. How do you
do it, and can others stay as informed as you two?
First of all, we don't have all the answers
so don't make us out to be something we're not. We just read the
tea leaves. And reading them requires a great deal of research,
so if you have the will to do it, anyone can. Turn off the TV
media, and go to the Internet to locate information. It's a vast
repository of information, and any person who utilizes critical
thinking can tell what information is gold, and others are lead.
Know your sources, and utilize them as often as you can. Blogs,
even those posted by media outlets like ABC News, The Washington
Post, and even CNN have relevant information regarding the election
and politics in general. Look to blogs like Hot Air, Hugh Hewitt,
Pajamas Media, Michelle Malkin, and Instapundit for key pieces
of information. Not all poli-blogs share the same information,
and others may have a nugget or two that takes you in a direction
you didn't expect. But anyone can do this if you have the time,
the patience, and tenacity to dig up the information you're looking
for.
He is a scholar of history, especially American
history, and the United States Constitution. She has finished
her undergrad studies, graduating with a BA in English and history
and will move onto law school this fall where she will specialize
in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard
of conservative opinion at Hamilton,
Madison, and Jay -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the
conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit
spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both
are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission
with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair is
married, and resides in Arizona
|
