Is the GOP refuting its own attacks on Obama?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:05:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Is the GOP refuting its own attacks on Obama?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What do you think?
#1
Yes, the GOP's attacks are logically inconsistent
 
#2
No, Democrats are desperate to defend their messiah candidate.
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 6

Author Topic: Is the GOP refuting its own attacks on Obama?  (Read 394 times)
MarkWarner08
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,812


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 05, 2008, 02:30:42 PM »
« edited: July 05, 2008, 02:32:50 PM by MarkWarner08 »

Attack number one: Obama is a lock-step Democrat. This attack originated with Karl Rove and other members ofthe conservative punditocracy and its was then promulgated by the RNC. They warrant this claim by citing Obama's 2007 voting record, which is the most liberal of any Senator according to the National Journal.  David Brooks, for example, has noted that Obama hasn't taken a " hard vote" and never reaches across the party line on controversial issue.

Attack number two: Obama is morphing into George Bush. Many of these same conservatives now point out that Obama has reneged on his campaign finance promise, is  downplaying his earlier pro-phased withdrawal from Iraq statements, and is now acquiescing to the POTUS on the bill to gut FISA.

Does attack number two refute the first attack? 
Yes
How can Obama be an orthodox Democrat when he's taken issues stands that position him as an adherent of a heterodox political philosophy? The crux of argument one is that Obama never bucks the Democratic line. This is easily refuted by his opposition to the Feingold win of the party on issues of campaign finance, the Iraq War, and the personal liberties.


Attack number three: Obama is too inexperienced to be President.
This attack is salient because the last President with this spare a political record was George W. Bush, who was largely the communicator-in-chief in his prior job, thanks to the ridiculous lack of powers accorded to a Texas Governor. Besides a nearly a decade in the Illinois Stae Senate, Obama's only served three years in federal office, two of which have been spent campaigning for the White House. With no elected executive experience to speak of (excluding his one-year tenure as Editor of the Harvard Law Review), Obama simply has never demonstrated the ability to lead anything, let alone a nation that boasts the largest economy and military in the world.

Attack number four: Obama is just another Washington politician. The McCain campaign is claiming that Obama has become just another politician, as evidenced by his recent flip-flops on several issues. They've also posited that Obama's become cozy with the D.C.  liberal establishment,  indistinguishable from Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy on most issues. The version of Obama depicts him as a a leader with Machiavellian political skills bent on doing whatever possible to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Does the fourth attack refute the third attack?
 Yes
 How can Obama be a savvy member of a power cadre of liberals, and a feckless freshman with little executive talent? The argument rests on the notion that Obama would have a disastrous first few years  in office -- much like Clinton, Carter, and Kennedy. The difference between Obama and those other Democrats is that Obama has experience in D.C. and more impressive interpersonal skills. While Carter marched into Washington with a reform mandate, he liked the ability to persuade Congressional leaders to support his plans. His arrogance and obstinacy blinded him at several critical junctures of his Presidency. Clinton failed from 1993-1994 because he misread his election as mandate for liberal reforms like  universal health care, gun control, and a massive tax increase. Obama has studied these failures and is unlikely to repeat them.


Perhaps the reason for the GOP's confused lines of attack is Obama's lack of definition as a political candidate. He will need to define himself as a pragmatic, humble leader who is cognizant of the fact that while leaders can inspire movements, without one, the other likely will perish.

If Obama sticks to reform agenda focused on forming a more comprehensive health care system, fostering a more equitable tax code, creating American jobs through rebuilding our dilapidated infrastructure, investing in a renewable energy future, cutting taxes and regulation on small businesses, and investing in education to ensure America's future economic competitiveness, he will rise above the attacks of an incumbent party desperate to hold onto the one office it has controlled for most of the last forty years, the White House.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 14 queries.