CNN’s Jack Cafferty said yesterday that the only possible reason Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Barack Obama (D-Ill) could be tied in the presidential polls is race:
The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.
I suppose if all anybody cared about was the promise of ambiguous change, then I could accept Cafferty’s thesis. Unfortunately for him though, there are actual issues that people care about as well.
For me Jack, it’s Obama’s extreme leftist policy ideals, lack of relavent experience (running a presidiential campaign is not good enough), friendships with shady characters (such as unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, the indicted and convicted Tony Rezko, and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright), and his elitist attitude toward those of us who “cling” to God and to guns (a.k.a: the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution).
Does that “make sense” to you, Jack? Every American will vote in this election as they do in any other – for the person who better represents their values and ideals. Though I’m sure your Liberal blinders prevent you from seeing it, John McCain is clearly that person for more of us that Barack Obama… and it has NOTHING to do with the color of his skin.
6 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
He’s right, JLG. The comparable polling results are mostly due to race. Obama wouldn’t be doing nearly so well if he was White.
John McCain is not that person for me. His flip flops on the issue of life really dont impress me.
I would never in a million years vote for Obama, but for my vote you have to be more than just a little bit better than the guy you are running against.
I’m sure McCain is a capable leader but Life is the most important issue for me, and he has not been stellar. I still want to vote, is there a third party candidate that better represents my conservative ideals?
Thanks
Kim K.
I do not believe that most people who are not voting for Obama are not voting for him because of race. I think that most of them would treat him similarly if he were white. Just ask John Kerry.
There are some people who don’t feel comfortable with voting for a black person. Quite a few of them. But I don’t think that these people comprise the majority of those who won’t vote for Obama.
But here’s where the GOP runs into a problem. The party is unhealthily ethnically monolithic. I did not say racist – I don’t believe that at all. But I do think that the GOP has a credibility problem of its own creation when it comes to matters of race. The GOP convention had the lowest percentage of black delegates since Barry Goldwater was the nominee in 1964. This year, the GOP may get the lowest share of the black vote ever. But just as it’s a cheap shot to suggest that white people who won’t vote for Obama are racist, it’s a cheap shot as well to suggest that blacks who vote for Obama are voting for him because of his race. The fact is that even if Obama got the vote of every black voter in America, this would only represent an 11% increase over what John Kerry and Al Gore got. The GOP attack against the Democratic nominee, which it would do with enthusiasm no matter what skin color that nominee had, combined with the fact that the party leadership has NOT reached out to black voters makes it harder than it otherwise would be to avoid a perception problem.
I’ve written a ton on the divide between black voters and the GOP (http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/?_c11_BlogPart_BlogPart=blogview&_c=BlogPart&partqs=cat%3dBlacks%2band%2bthe%2bGOP). It’s pretty much the opposite of what you hear most pundits say. Actually, black voters agree with the GOP a lot. But there are four decades of damage that need to be healed. Every Republican needs to understand this and urge the party to fix it.
I will not vote for Obama because of his position on abortion among many other issues. But I do think that a nasty, personal campaign will hurt all sides and leave this country more divided than ever. The GOP will do best to follow Huckabee’s advice and stick to fighting about the issues, which I’ve seen happen more lately.
And I also don’t buy into the obvious explanations for why people vote or don’t vote for certain people. If you get time, read “Pass the accusation” (http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!1107.entry)
I think if you are going to bring up friendships with shady characters as a reason to not vote for Obama and leave out McCain’s relationship with Washington Lobbyiests and Charles Kaeding, than I think you are drining too much of the partisan Kool-Aid for me.
And if you are going to call Obama out on the first amendment, you should also look at your own party and how in the last eight years the Bush/McCain administration has done everything possible (Fisa, Patriot Act, Roving wiretaps, suspending Habeus Corpus, etc,etc,etc) to distroy the first amendment and mae us a socialist state with a top-heavy authoritarian leader.
Bold Color Conservative my ass.
Bush/McCain administration? Surely you realize that Dick Cheney is the VP, no? Or are you just regurgitating the Dem party line that this would be Bush’s third term, even though McCain has staunchly opposed Bush on many key issues? And since when are ties to a guy who bombed the US Capitol (Bill Ayers) morally equivalent to knowing a lobbyist? Who’s been drinking partisan cool aid?
“Kim K.,” I can certainly relate to your hesitations to vote for McCain. I do feel he has a generally pro-life record and is worth voting for. More importantly, the next President may have the opportunity to appoint as many as 3 justices to the US Supreme Court. Do you think Obama’s judges will be generally in agreement with you on the issue?