Obama: “We have a righteous wind at our back”
Campaigning in Red States Nevada, Colorado and Missouri Saturday, Sen. Barack Obama told supporters that “we have a righteous wind at our back.”
It is for the first time in years that the Democratic candidate for president is actively campaigning in what are traditional Red States – meaning that they have traditionally supported Republican candidates for president, and often send Republicans to Congress.
Obama has used a similar remark a couple of times in the past, which then caused quite some criticism, especially from conservative and moderate commentators. Today, however, the soaring rhetoric has mostly been ignored, this while Obama and his supporters truly seem to believe that they do indeed have “a righteous wind at [their] back.”
Although the remark could be considered rather innocent if isolated, the fact of the matter is that Obama has used similar remarks many times in the past and that his ‘movement’ becomes increasingly immoderate, with even ‘moderate’ commentators and voters accepting the claims they would normally not have accepted from any politician.
There is something irrational going on in the United States right now. I’m not sure what to make of it. It is perfectly understandable that Americans want an inspiring president, considering the last 8 years – Bush et al. have constantly tried to make them afraid of terrorism – and this year’s economic crisis. Additionally, everyone understands that there is something magical to the fact that an African American could, finally, become America’s president.
But much of the support for him and especially the ‘movement’ behind him has been very irrational. Much of it has been emotional, especially when moderate conservatives or moderates support a man who could very well win in a landslide, while his party will dominate both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. If there is one thing moderates can be sure of, it is that Democrats and thus Obama will behave distinctly immoderate if they win in a landslide. They’ll claim that the election results were a ‘mandate’ and that the big victory means that they can implement their anti-free trade, higher taxes agenda, while breaking completely with their promise to be ‘bipartisan’ and respectful to political opponents and critics.
Someone like Colin Powell should be respected for his service and for his many good ideas in the past, but his endorsement of Obama does not make sense considering the possible outcome of the elections. These ‘moderate conservatives’ enable the left-wing of the Democratic Party, for that is the group Reid, Frank, Pelosi and Obama belong to.
‘Irrational’? Why is it irrational to vote for an inspiring, articulate person who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps and sees complexity in the world, and hopes to solve problems through innovative thinking and uniting people? What’s irrational is people voting TWICE for a spoiled rich kid who used connections to win the presidency, who sees the world in black and white, and who is incapable of making a coherent statement without stumbling all over his words. And who drove this country into the ground too. And then wanting to vote for someone who voted consistently with that guy.
Irrational is voting for a Socialist espousing the ideas and ideals of Mao and Marx. Irrational is blaming Republicans for the corruption of FanniMae and FreddieMac defended and promoted by Obama and Biden.
These ‘moderate conservatives’ enable the left-wing of the Democratic Party, for that is the group Reid, Frank, Pelosi and Obama belong to.
Hear, hear…and I hope that such people at least take seriously their responsibility as the ONLY firewall to put a check on the power they’re unleashing. Unfortunately with all of the apologetics being issued by these hopeful moderates, I fear that they’ll be in denial, spinning every leftward lurch in an effort to save face and keep from admitting that they did enable this group to enact a far left agenda.
It is distressing to see purism and litmus tests in use instead of persuasion and discourse, especially from individuals who have at other times been voices of reason.
If you reject people who are your allies on 80% of things because of the 20% of things you disagree on, you will find them to be no longer your allies on the 80%. Purism is very bad strategy.
I think this election is driving otherwise normal and rational people quite mad. I am hoping sanity returns after tomorrow.
As for me, I have preferences in the election (Obama for President, mostly Republicans for Congressional seats), but I don’t go in for extreme depictions of what will happen if my side loses on one or both of these counts. As a political scientists, I have found that predictions that a single election will lead to “extreme left” or “extreme right” agenda to be consistently wrong. There are simply too many “veto points” within the system — even within a single party — for rapid and extreme swings to be implemented EVEN IF we adopt the rather hyperbolic interpretations of intent to do so.
Calm down, people. Take a deep breath. (Yes, I’m being a little condescending at this point. I think a couple people will go back in future weeks and months and be a bit embarrassed by what they said during this period.)
what’s happening is that those people with the 80% you talk about, are supporting a candidate they disagree rather than agree with 80% of the time.
You see from Christine, for instance, that she is not demanding any litmus test, neither am I in my post – but we are seeing that those who would normally support a right-of-center Republican like McCain, are now voting for a guy with the most liberal record in the senate, the most liberal statements made by any leading Democrat in decades, etc.
This entire election is insane, and I would hope that ’sanity returns after tomorrow’ indeed; but Christine’s point, that some people may feel forced to defend obama in teh coming years, when they would normally not support his policies at all, because they went with a Democrat when the Republican Party had finally nominated a true moderate conservative, is valid. We will see, of course, in the coming years whether this is or is not the case; with you, I’m pretty sure you won’t – you’re attached to views, to pragmatism, rather than a specific candidate. Btu many others aren’t like that – just see what’s happening at some sites.
BTW: something I feel is important to point out
- Obama is the liberals’ guy. He’s the party’s base’s candidate.
- McCain is the opposite. He is accepted, but not liked by the base. They’ll vote for him nonetheless, because they do agree with him 80% of the time, and purism is rejected by them.
This seems to be missing from the debate, but it should be pointed out time and again. McCain is the one who is the compromise candidate, Obama is the opposite.
Yes, as Michael points out, Jason, my objection is that it seems to me that people are choosing to support the guy they only agree with 20% (or even if it’s somewhat more- say 50%- and at best, you think you agree based on some stuff he’s said and written, not much based on an actual record) vs. supporting the guy you more likely agree with 80% of the time.
Or else it’s about style over substance- many of the ‘Obamacons’ are choosing Obama for his coolheadedness and the manner in which they believe he makes his decisions, rather than even considering the 80% formulation.
And come on, Jason- surely you know that your votes for GOP in Congress isn’t likely to change the balance of power. I can understand making a decision to split your ticket like that in ordinary times, but we’re obviously in a tilting point right now so this is not the time for voting for the individuals over the party IMO. Balance of power has got to have more importance than that right now as far as I’m concerned.
I do, however, agree with what Michael is saying- that you do not seem to be the kind of individual I’m worried about who will spin and rationalize things they may disagree with on policy directions over the next few years in order to avoid taking responsibility for your current support of Obama. I think you have the integrity to give criticism where it’s due, should my concerns become manifest.
I just wonder what good that does us, when so many other moderates/centrists do not seem willing to hold an Obama administration accountable. In short, I don’t think the center is holding and that’s why I’m expressing my concerns in such sharp terms.
What you are missing is the “boy who cried wolf” problem on your side, Michael. After months and months and months of seeing Obama’s statements interpreted ONLY in the worst possible light and seeing Obama’s policy positions consistently misrepresented literally hundreds of times, some of us simply don’t lend any credence to the kind of “most liberal…” points any more. Some of us have different interpretations and are no longer responsive to overheated claims and criticisms. If the criticisms had been more reasonable and fair instead of basically “Obama is 100% wrong on every single issue in the world” for months on end, then your side wouldn’t be facing this credibility deficit now. When you say that Obama’s election will lead to an immediate imposition of some kind of radical socialism or other far-left agenda, I simply don’t believe your interpretations of anything related to Obama any more. (By the way, this isn’t personal against your or Christine. Both of you are fine intellects on a vast array of issues not directly related to Barack Obama. But ODS is strong today. I have faith that it will fade, at least in the likes of the both of you, starting in the latter part of this week.)
The same goes for the anti-McCain ridiculousness, by the way. They don’t get a pass from me. But anti-Obama hyperbole is much more common here than anti-McCain hyperbole, so that is what I am reacting to right now.
As for me, I won’t be inclined to give a President Obama a pass simply because I voted for him and/or endorsed him publicly. Slavish devotion ain’t exactly my thing. I also think its prevelance among Obama supporters more broadly is grossly exaggerated for tactical reasons by Obama’s critics. I have little doubt that the knee-jerk partisans at TPM, GG, HuffPo, DK, Newshoggers and TMV will switch on a dime from all-attack to all-defense once their party is in power, but I don’t think that “Obamacons” are as a group likely to suddenly switch to blind allegiance to the Democratic party.
Maybe, just maybe, some of us who happen to vote for Obama are capable of doing so at the same time that we disagree with him about some things AND some of us are capable of continuing to express that disagreement AFTER voting for him.
Not everything in the world is spin.
Well, you may disagree, Jason, but I really haven’t seen much actual rebuttal of the arguments made against Obama. I have seen a few of your reasons which were more substantive than many of the other moderate and conservative Obamacons’ explanations have been, but when I found some of your arguments unconvincing I don’t really remember you responding in a way that really backed up your points.
It’s too late now to get into a lengthy debate about it, but that’s the impression I was left with FWIW. You have your reasons, but what I’ve seen of them is wholly unconvincing as far as I’m concerned. And you don’t seem to address the degree of dissonance between his liberal voting record and his current rhetoric, other than to dismiss it on the basis of what you believe is hyperbole on our part.
I agree with what you said earlier, by the way, that most times the concerns about extremism are overplayed. But in the current climate I think it’s more dangerous to underestimate the concern than it is to overestimate it. I can’t remember a time when any person was elected as POTUS with as extreme of a record (one side or the other) combined with a likely large majority in both houses for their own party, with leadership in those houses which is from the more extreme wing of the party, and with such a compliant press. Can you?
Since I do not see facts to back up the hyperbolic and breathless characterizations of an “extreme record”, I don’t accept the premise of your question, Christine. Time and time and time and time again, I have seen these claims of Obama’s “extremism” backed up by nothing more than selective reporting and completely wild interpretations that assume the conclusion more than prove it. I don’t buy it.
I find it remarkable that so may of Obama’s critics are incapable of expressing their dissent without constantly descending into such hyperbole and hysteria. It appears increasingly indistinguishable from BDS in form.
out of general morbid curiosity Jason, what would you classify as extreme?
Would it be a voting record beyond a pure 100% liberal or conservative?
would it be the top 5 voting record for each wing?
Some other known-only-to-jason record?
Or does all defining where a person lands based on their voting record wind up as hysteria?
If that attitude is your starting point, there really is no point in attempting to discuss it. Clearly, I am insane.
so you have zero interest in classifying what you would begin to consider as a valid argument against your views then jason?
I have an email I should forward to you that someone sent to me regarding how to reply to comments. – or is that reply.
I have zero interest in engaging with someone who is clearly trying to bait me, Interested.
I’m not surprised that you consider anybody questioning your reasoning as being baited. Your history of replying is well known Jason.
But it’s a simple question – you’re demanding a specific format for someone challenging your statements. What exactly falls within your parameters – if there is any.
Please stop telling lies about what I did or didn’t say, Interested.
Exactly what is a lie Jason?
You are clearly stating
Obama’s voting record is very well known.
My question to you – which to date you have refused to answer is
So? care to state what defines what you would or would not consider?
Jason, I’ve recently commented on these pages about Obama’s record on the issue of abortion, to take just one example. His record and floor statements on the Illinois Senate represent the most extreme left position that one could possibly hold- putting the interest of a woman’s right to choose above all else, including the preservation of life of infants born alive during late term abortion procedures.
Now, I’m not at this moment arguing the possible reasons for his position on this issue, and I realize that some people don’t consider social issues important, but do you not agree that this represents an extreme position? He now claims to want to make abortion rare but legal, yet his political positions IMO would do the opposite (the only rationale to support the idea that this would result is the naive belief that abortions would decline if poverty were alleviated and education and contraception were more available.)
On other issues, I don’t necessarily think he’s as extreme as he is on that one, yet there’s certainly an overall imbalance toward left wing positions and a pattern of allying himself with certain people with far left positions (without a balance of similar working relationships with right leaning policymakers.*) On education, for example, I find the writings of Bill Ayers to be extremely disturbing, and although he is not an advisor to Obama he is someone that Obama chose to work with on education reform and I think we’re owed an explanation of where Obama’s positions on education reform overlap with Ayers and where they’re differentiated. Given that one of Obama’s advisors is Linda Darling-Hammond, who believes that reparations should be paid to African Americans in the form of education funding (and Obama has expressed sympathy with that position, though in less politically toxic rhetoric), I find it astounding that no journalist or debate mediator found it important to ask him to expound on his views on that (Gwen Stefani had the perfect opening when Obama responded to her question about how the economic meltdown might affect spending priorities by saying that he felt education funding could not be taken off the table.) This also goes to the recent controversy over his statements regarding the SCOTUS and civil rights movement, where he revealed his belief in the need for social justice through education funding. (Here too, I’m not even arguing whether or not he’s right about that- I can sympathize with the goal of improving education for impoverished communities and particularly black communities- but his approach to this strikes me as knee jerk liberal instead of as his moderate supporters believe, an example of him looking for solutions from all sides.)
On taxes and economic policy, he repeatedly stresses a bottom up and redistributionist ideology rather than anything which would be pro-business or pro-growth. If this is his core belief system, then I don’t see how the far left wing (pro-government growth) crowd will be held in check at all with regard to federal spending.
His positions on protectionism/free trade are hard to discern because he’s obviously pandered to his base and we really don’t know where he’ll ultimately come down on trade agreements. And perhaps I am exaggerating a bit here (I do think there’s a difference of degree) but I find it disturbing that we’re about to elect someone who’s promising policies of increasing top tax brackets and implementing more protectionist policies after a crash in financial markets, when those were basically the policies of Herbert Hoover (again, acknowledging that the two situations are not precisely analogous, but the trends of policy reflect similar instincts which proved to have disastrous results in the 30s.) Here I’m getting off the track of right vs. left, but the impulses Obama shows are the ones that currently are mainly espoused by the left wing although they’ve previously been held by right wingers (getting off on a tangent here a bit, but Tony Blair has had some interesting things to say about that realignment, that conservatives are now generally the ones who are less protectionist and looking more toward global free trade.)
On defense, Obama’s had a disturbing trend of seeming to believe that his personality and anti-Bushness will magically transform our relations with our allies and our enemies alike. He’s opposed reasonable defense spending even as he claims that he wants to reinvigorate the mission in Afghanistan. He’s double talked on Israel/Palestine, Russia/Georgia, shown naivete in telecasting a resolve to cross the border into Pakistan to get bin Laden, etc, etc.
He’s claimed to be an outsider who brings reform to DC, yet his campaign has been deceitful and opaque on its donor list, and his ties to ACORN and unwillingness to denounce the recent abuses are disturbing to say the least.
In short, I believe he’s a cipher and when I try to crack the code I see much more left wing sympathies than right, and in some cases some pretty extreme left wing ones at that. Perhaps I have been a bit hyperbolic in some of my comments recently, but I’d say that’s in reaction to so many people seemingly ignoring all of the evidence that points one way on Obama in favor of belief in his claims to be more moderate and a scant amount of evidence of earning respect from some on the right.
*IOW, even if one were to accept the premise that he will work with some controversial figures because good ideas can come from these sources if one avoids the extreme positions, then why doesn’t he also work with some right wing ideologues who may also have expertise on various issues?