GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Because our feeble mortal minds simply cannot comprehend the very specific policy statements that we are told lie within the vacuous speeches of our Messiah, Barack Obama, the senator has graciously provided us with an intermediary who will deliver his gospel in a manner that even we can understand. Hail, Michelle Obama:
In 2008, we are still a nation that is too divided. We live in isolation, and because of that isolation, we fear one another. We don’t know our neighbors, we don’t talk, we believe our pain is our own. We don’t realize that the struggles and challenges of all of us are the same. We are too isolated. And we are still a nation that is still too cynical. We look at it as “them” and “they” as opposed to “us”. We don’t engage because we are still too cynical. …
Americans are not in debt because they live frivolously but because someone got sick. Even with insurance, the deductibles and the premiums are so high that people are still putting medications and treatments on credit cards. And they can’t get out from under. I could go on and on, but this is how we’re living, people, in 2008.
And things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn’t gotten better for regular folks. ….
We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.
My emphasis on all counts.
Now, Mrs. Obama may have a point regarding the economic strains that are currently plaguing the American middle class, and conservatives need to use the utmost care when responding to this message. It is important to separate the wheat from the chaff, and to understand that just because the Obamas are putting forth a reprehensible solution to the problem that they’ve identified doesn’t mean that the problem itself is a fiction. As such, Republicans need to avoid the kneejerk response of waving volumes of economic statistics in the faces of Americans who are feeling economically squeezed, a lesson that the GOP should have learned in 1992. The simple fact of the matter may be that globalization combined with the rising costs of education and health care are making it more and more difficult to live a middle class life in Middle America. But even if that is indeed the case, the cure being sold by the Obamas for what ails America is so much snake oil.
According to Michelle Obama, the solution to America’s economic problems is to change the fabric of the American culture to make it less individualistic and more collectivist, to make us less free and more dependent on one another, complete with mutual obligations that we cannot escape, no matter how hard we try. This prescription is nothing new; it is collectivism by any other name and it is precisely the beast that so many throughout the ages have fled to America to escape. While the world is comprised of tribes and churches and ethnic groups and clans, America is a nation of individuals. And America has long been the destination of those individuals who seek to live as individuals, and not as a component of a collective. That doesn’t mean that Social Security or public education or federal financial aid have to go. But it does mean that the society that we’ve constructed thus far, based on free people and free markets, seems to have worked out pretty well, and perhaps the solution to our problems doesn’t lie in redefining what it means to be an American.
That’s why the Obamas are so terrifying. They aim to convince Americans that the only solution to the fact that the prescription drugs they need are a few dollars too expensive or that their mortgage and student loan payments are a couple hundred dollars too high every month is to fundamentally alter the spirit of America, and to transform this nation from a land of individuals who just happen to share the same zip codes to just another collectivist nation, with one culture, one spirit, and one purpose, all united behind our Dear Leader for the Common Good. It’s nothing more than early 20th Century collectivist thought delivered via a charismatic, Gen-X mouthpiece. And America is so starved for leadership and hope that it just may elect its first truly leftist president of the continental European variety.
Help us, Sen. McCain. You’re our only hope.
February 16th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I posted this earlier, but thought I would add it to this article. I find it to be very interesting. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LeeCulpepper/2008/02/15/its_all_about_the_vice_president_now
February 17th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Michelle Obama says, “. . .That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that.”
Yeah I guess Senator McCain never sacrificed himself for his country. I guess while Obama was living his early childhood in Jakarta Indonesia, McCain was simply enjoying himself on an extended Vietnamese vacation.
Unbelievable.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:05 am
“While the world is comprised of tribes and churches and ethnic groups and clans, America is a nation of individuals. And America has long been the destination of those individuals who seek to live as individuals, and not as a component of a collective.”
I am not sure anyone could have said it better Dave. I think you need to call up the McCain campaign and offer to sell that quote.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:14 am
The first time I look at the title to the post I misread it as “Queer of Heaven”.
I was extremely curious to see what it might have been about.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:01 am
All I will say is that if the new GOP strategy is to attack Mrs. Obama the gender gap in the Fall will be the gender canyon. Pray no one makes her or her two girls cry.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:26 am
How Clinton won NY.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
February 17th, 2008 at 8:32 am
#6. . . Best line from that article: “Some initial tallies had zeros, but it was most likely due to human error.”
Yeah, ok. Human error. Perhaps we should have Sandy Berger handle the ballot recount.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:39 am
#6 I saw that article earlier today, it’s bad news. I dislike the views of Obama as much as the next conservative leaner, but I don’t want him to lose through cheating.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Brilliant post, DaveG.
I have begin thinking of Mrs. Obama as Winnie Mandela, the much more radical wife of another well-spoken, misguided, but extremely charismatic leftist.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I know some conservatives think Hillary might be better than Obama because she tries to come across as more moderate, but, sheesh, the Clintons are simply too corrupt to allow back in the White House. And she has the nerve to claim she has been vetted. That’s like OJ saying he’s been tried in court. Neither statement proves anything other than they were both probably guilty of something.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Hail Obama! He has come with His infinite grace and wisdom to bestow Hope and Change upon us mere mortals. Praise Him!
Because I hate religion, I hate the Obama “thing.”
Save us, Senator McCain!
February 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
10, I think they’re both basically the same thing, its just a matter of who is more likely to win.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
For all of the McCain fans out there,try to Google John McCain”Song Bird”
February 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
if mccain is our only hope, were screwed.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
TLG,
Many people struggle with their beliefs and whatever church they are born into by virtue of their parents. I was born catholic and now consider catholicism heresy. But its a mistake to attribute earthly failings to providence. There is something beyond this earthly presence. What it is I am not sure, but man is not the greatest being.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“Many people struggle with their beliefs and whatever church they are born into by virtue of their parents. I was born catholic and now consider catholicism heresy. But its a mistake to attribute earthly failings to providence. There is something beyond this earthly presence. What it is I am not sure, but man is not the greatest being.”
What? I didn’t attribute earthly failings to anything. Earthly failings, really, are due to individual humans.
I’m an atheist, and I’m certainly not “struggling” with it.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“I hate religion”
Religion is an earthly creation and therefore is infused with earthly failings.
The idea that you call yourself an atheist is itself a struggle. One can no more prove the existence of a deity than prove the opposite. To put it in logic or economic terms, the better bargain is to be agnostic.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“The idea that you call yourself an atheist is itself a struggle. One can no more prove the existence of a deity than prove the opposite. To put it in logic or economic terms, the better bargain is to be agnostic.”
This is one of the silliest arguments against atheism.
One would never use this line of argument in reference to anything else. I cannot prove that gods do not exist. This is correct. I also cannot prove that Poke’mon, unicorns, and dragons don’t exist. However, I am not “agnostic” in regard to those things. I wait for evidence of their existence; until then, I believe them to be fantasies. The same applies to gods. There is no evidence for the existence of gods, let alone the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. By Christians’ own admission, there isn’t evidence: it’s based on “faith,” which literally means “belief without evidence.” I don’t use faith as a method of decision-making.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Religion is an earthly creation and therefore is infused with earthly failings.
Obviously, when I said religion I meant all that it entails: belief in gods and divinity and the supernatural.
Let’s not argue over semantics.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
By Christians’ own admission, there isn’t evidence: it’s based on “faith,� which literally means “belief without evidence.�
Actually faith is evidence, and when Christians talk about faith, they don’t mean it the way you do.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Care to explain what Christians mean when they say ‘faith,’ then? I tend to use the dictionary definition of words…
If there is evidence for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, spit it out (and no, “personal revelations” are not admissible evidence).
February 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
If atheism is a mere belief that God doesn’t exist that’s rational. I don’t believe life exists outside our solar system because I haven’t seen enough evidence yet. If atheism claims to know God doesn’t exist than it is irrational.
We can know certain things are false. For example it is impossible for the Universe to be infinite or eternal because of Einstein’s theories and Edwin Hubble’s observations.
Agnostics focus on the fact that they can’t know God exists or doesn’t exist. Atheists focus on their belief that he doesn’t exist.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
No, we can’t know, technically, that gods don’t exist, in the same lieu that can’t technically know that Poke’mon and dragons don’t exist. I think that we can know beyond a reasonable doubt that gods do not exist, though.
I am agnostic as to whether life exists outside of the solar system. We do know that it’s possible for life to exist, as evidenced by humankind. So I can’t possibly foreclose the possibility that, however life came about, that same process has happened elsewhere.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
We know that it is possible for God to exist. Our Universe is consistent with a Creator (it is finite and has a begining).
Something functionally equivalent to God must exist.
Deism is particularly consistent with the evidence we have of front-loaded evolution and special initial conditions at the Big Bang.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
21, “Care to explain what Christians mean when they say ‘faith,’ then? I tend to use the dictionary definition of words…” Hebrews tells us that “Faith is the substance of things hoped for” so I would say its the knowledge of divine things that comes from a connection with God. Of course there is also sometimes an element of acting like one believes in God before they know God, in other words they engage in an act of trust by falling back on God and this leads to full belief in God as one finds God to be true. Whatever, faith means I know Christians aren’t stating that they don’t believe there is evidence for God. Also with all due respect its rather simple minded and ignorant to just go with dictionary definitions when we’re talking about terms of religion that have been translated from Greek and Hebrew and have changed much in their meaning over the centuries.
“If there is evidence for the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, spit it out (and no, “personal revelationsâ€? are not admissible evidence).”
There is no evidence for anything that is not based on our “personal senses” therefore, I don’t see any reasons to eliminate evidence simply because it is found from a metaphysical source instead of a physical basis.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
24 — Our universe is consistent with a creator, yes, but that’s not evidence of a creator’s existence.
Whence comes God, in your argument? Did he just arise out of nowhere?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
John Mark, personal revelations are not admissible evidence because there’s this funny little coincidence of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Christians all having “personal revelations” that just so happen to line up with their own religion of choice, usually the one that is dominant in the culture they live in.
Why should I believe your revelation and not a Muslim’s?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
TLG, I get the feeling you don’t understand why something functionally equivalent to God is necessary.
God by definition simply exists absent any cause. An uncaused cause is a prerequisite for our temporal finite Universe. Now that uncaused cause may not be God but it certainly makes sense for a finely tuned Universe (our own) to have been created intentionally.
Either way before time something must have existed without cause in order for time to be brought into existence at the Big Bang. An infinite regress is logically impossible while an uncaused cause, the only other possibility, isn’t.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
14 John Galt………your’e darn right were f**ckin SCREWED. But you bonehead ignorant right wingers are to blame - - we could have had Rudy to clean the dems clocks BUT ITS TOO LATE NOW.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
John McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but claims he will appoint conservative judges?
February 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Here’s the insaniac telling us how he’s going to start “more wars” for us, considering that we need them ever so much.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/McCain_straight_talk_Expect_more_war_0127.html
February 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
TLG, I get the feeling you don’t understand why something functionally equivalent to God is necessary. God by definition simply exists absent any cause. An uncaused cause is a prerequisite for our temporal finite Universe. Now that uncaused cause may not be God but it certainly makes sense for a finely tuned Universe (our own) to have been created intentionally. Either way before time something must have existed without cause in order for time to be brought into existence at the Big Bang. An infinite regress is logically impossible while an uncaused cause, the only other possibility, isn’t.
Um, believe me, I knew what you were talking about.
“God, by definition, exists without any cause” — Oh, how convenient! I’m sorry, but that’s so idiotic that it doesn’t merit a reply. If you’re not going to be serious, we have no reason to discuss this. We’re supposed to being having a logical debate here. You’ve gotta play by the rules of logic. What you’re doing is the equivalent of saying that in baseball, one side gets to have grand slams recorded regardless of whether the ball was even hit or anyone was on the bases.
(Also — time is a human invention used to keep track of events. There’s no such thing as “time” in the sense that you’re speaking of it.)
February 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Peter — Freaking everyone voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Conservatives actually practice what they preach; they believe that elections have consequences and that people are entitled to an up-or-down vote. They know that the President gets to pick the Supreme Court nominee, that said nominee will fall down on the ideological side of the President, and, barring any insanity, should be placed on the court. Liberals want to throw temper tantrums until they get their ideology on the court.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Lots of confusion floating around this issue.
One commenter snarks about how McCain has obviously worked and suffered for the common good - but strangely fails to realize how that undermines DaveG’s argument, not supports it.
Military service is a prime example of how we are NOT just individuals, that we do come together around a common purpose.
Faith and religion are another example. They are all about forming community - communities of shared belief and purpose.
Its intersting that the atheists around here seem most likely to take to DaveG’s point. But atheism is a very small part of the American political landscape, and ironically, even smaller in the GOP.
The fact of the matter is that human beings are both individuals and social creatures. These two tendencies are always in conflict. We all value freedom for the individual - and recognize that it is often conservatives, and Republicans who are a danger to that. Not only on the social issues, but in the last few years with the utter contempt that so many Republicans evidence toward the notion of civil liberties - the core philosophy of individual freedom.
The “collectivism” of the Dems (and Obama is no more radical than any other dem) is focused on solving very specific problems that tend to restrict that effective freedom that individuals have - like the uncertainty and incompleteness of access to health insurance - something that puts the financial stability of millions of families in danger, and restricts the options of individuals to change jobs, start businesses etc. Or the failings of our educational system that sap our economy of the benefits of a cadre of workers who are performing at their best.
Conservatives are no more true defenders of freedom than anyone else - they simply focus on a different set of freedoms. The freedom for people, even in violent gang-ridden neighborhoods to have free access to guns, despite the effects that may have on the freedom of people to live full lives without fear. The freedom of wealthy corporations to pursue economic opportunities anywhere in the world without a moments thought to the effects on American society. The freedom of religious dogmatists to impose their moral beliefs on the rest of society. All the while ignoring real societal problems that damage the ability of other people - people not in their coalition - to fully live thier own freedom.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Yes, but those other people who voted for her aren’t running for President now trying to pretend that they’re somehow “conservative.”
Saying that “everyone” did something is just a poor excuse.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
No dem should ever utter the word “collectivism.” I also think Michelle (and all spouses of candidates) should stick to just tell her and Barack’s personal stories and stay away from policy.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
TLG: “(Also — time is a human invention used to keep track of events. There’s no such thing as “timeâ€? in the sense that you’re speaking of it.)”
Stephen Hawkings disagrees.
Time is understood in physics as a medium that matter/energy exists in. Space is another medium that energy/matter exists in.
Both time and space are distorted by matter. This is why the progress of time is effected by gravity.
Prior to the Big Bang these mediums did not exist.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Peter — She was confirmed NINETY-SIX TO THREE.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
egs — You can’t distort an abstraction.
Grand Master Wiki says that time is a hotly debated concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
My least favorite concept of Time is the magazine, even though they did make me person of the year in 2006.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
There isn’t an argument in physics that spacetime is a medium.
The distortion of space time is what allows the progression of time on the surface of the Sun to be slower than on the surface of the Earth. It’s what causes singularities to be atemporal.
I’d also mention that wikipedia is an awfully weak appeal to authority.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Dare you doubt the Poobah Wiki?
February 17th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I assume you doubt it too.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I cannot help remembering Flip Wilson’s Geraldine when I see the woman.