The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Why Not the Worst?

7.14.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 6 of 7)

Here is the worst that could happen:

Obama's presidency is as bad as we all fear. He pushes the liberal agenda, manages to get a few things passed, let's the tax cuts expire, pulls us from Iraq, Iran gets the bomb, etc. etc. Come 2010 there's another Republican (not to be confused with conservative) revolution in the House and Senate. A Republican is elected to the White House in 2012. Great, right?

Wrong. And the reason is that we will have the same set of problems all over again. We may be a center-right country, but the people largely do not think of themselves as aligned to a particular political philosophy. They vote for a party. Consider, if you will, the general election outlook widely reported. It's a good year for the Democrats, right? Why is this? Because a large majority of the country thinks we're moving in the 'wrong' direction. The blame doesn't go to the leftward lurch of Congressional Republicans (except in the handful of conservative publications such as the Spectator). Instead, the blame goes to the Republican party as a whole. The blame is assigned to the party, not the ideology. And here in lies the major problem of modern politics.

It's not about the ideology. It's about the party. The real fear of an Obama presidency is that he will do so badly that Republicans will return to power. But not because they learned their lessons and returned to the conservative ideology, but because the country rejected the Democrats. Progressivism will march on, only with a new standard bearer.

Until such time as conservatively minded Libertarians take over the Republican Party, and the GOP begins to make solid, principled, and logical arguments for smaller government, even when smaller government means not advancing a social conservative message, will real change take place. And if we want to see our government coming down in size, power, and spending, we first must make sure our supposed standard bearers make the point again and again; smaller government is better government.
-- Charles Campbell
Austin, Texas

I think it is always dangerous to predict the future regarding political events. Lots of uncontrolled and unknown variables in play where as men's ambitions and weaknesses are concerned. I'm baffled why any thinking person would need more than Obama's voting record and his close associations and friends to have a clear understanding of who and what he stands for or against. Those that hang on every speech, every flip-flop, every apology, every correction, every what have you are driven by emotion and wishful thinking at best. If you haven't made up your mind about Obama at this point you haven't been paying attention and that raises serious concerns about your competence to vote come November.

If Obama has a core religious belief consistent with any flavor of Christianity, his actions, his voting record stand at odds with most tenets of Christianity. Condoning mass murder of innocent unborn life for purely convenience sake and the political support that bring is a pretty tall Christian principle to cast aside. Christ never would have run for political office or pursued dominion over other men as Obama will. He never would have used the power of the sword to relieve one man of his wealth to enrich another while expecting political and financial support of the benefactor. The "sword" is a necessary tool at times but when elected leaders use it to show they "have a pair" for domestic consumption unintended consequences usually follow. The Clintons emboldened a lot of mischief from some in Law Enforcement while they were in office. Obama will do the same because he is fearful of free men who "cling to religion and guns" as he puts it.

Given Obama's reckless foreign policy positions and statements I think he has the potential to make Jimmy Charter look like a successful Presidency. The moment one of his arrogant condescending statements rubs one of the world's dictators the wrong way or leads them down a path of false "hope or change" he could find himself off the prepared teleprompter script and into uncharted territory pretty quickly. Clinton came very close to that with North Korea very early in his presidency trying to prove he had a "pair." Obama doesn't do impromptu very well. Life to him has always been a debate classroom exercise.

I think the worst that can happen is basically unpredictable. The damage done to this country over the last 60+ years is cumulative and the accumulation of damage continues regardless of who is President (thus far). I think using the word "Clintonian" to suggest "pragmatic" with regard to either Bill Clinton or Obama is foolish. The Clintons went for the throat once they got their hands on power. The damage they did is not over unless you think cutting our military forces in half is a non event or ignoring the rise of terrorism and attacks on the US trivial. I think the author is putting a lot of stock in "hope," "change" and wishful thinking with regard to what the worst could be under Obama. What he is has never been in question. What it will cost us as a people is the only unknown.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Ever since Obama emerged as the liberal candidate for the Presidency I have been telling almost everyone I meet that, just as we could not have had Reagan without first suffering Carter, we may very well be in the same position at this point in History. Though his Marxism literally turns my stomach, I find that I most probably will either vote FOR him, or not vote at all. My thinking is as follows: If we are condemned to have a big government liberal (if that isn't a textbook redundancy), then let's have an avowed one who will expand government with pride, surrender with humility, and pander to every whacko constituency with alacrity. McCain will do some of this, but he certainly will not throw himself into it as will Obama. An Obama presidency linked with a democratically controlled Congress will do to this country what the Politburo did to the Soviet Union -- that is, drive it into receivership. I am not saying that McCain wouldn't do the same thing, however, he would do it much more slowly. Essentially, this election offers us the choice between a quick death, and an agonizingly slow one.

It is pretty obvious to those of us who have been around for a while that Obama's lurch toward the center is an election year gambit to pull in as many undecided votes as possible. While it is almost impossible to elect an avowed straight forward liberal to a national office, many voters will believe the blather that Obama spews. These are the same voters who believe that the check really is in the mail and those other two of the three most common lies told in America. Good taste prevents me from listing the other two, but you know what I mean.

In the final analysis casting a vote for Obama might just be the most logical and intelligent thing that a voter, especially a conservative voter, can do on election day. We have reached the point in this country at which our tax burden, if it rises much higher, will literally bankrupt the producers. Small businesses have nowhere left to hide as the congress proceeds to Michiganize (my own coinage) the rest of the country. If we do not start to drill for our own natural resources in the energy field, disembowel the green movement, build new refineries for crude oil, and expand our use of nuclear power, and do these things soonest rather than soon, as a country whose economy competes with the other giant world economies, we will fall so far behind the pack that catching up will become well nigh impossible.

Perhaps Obama is the wake up call that the country needs, rather than the death knell that conservatives fear.
-- Joseph Baum
Garrettsville, Ohio

Thank you so much for writing this article.

I get a little tired of all the doom and gloom that the media (especially talk radio which I love) puts out about Obama. I know he is not right for America but you make me feel that is not going to be absolutely wrong either.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Foreign Policy, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Business, Entitlements, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, NATO, North Korea, Socialism, Immigration, Nuclear Weapons, Energy, Oil