if only. . .
I can't remember what the genesis for this thought was earlier today, but something I read got my mind a-ponderin'. And this is what shook out:
Sen. McCain or his GOP proxies needs to take aggressive tactics to show how Obama isn't even the leader of his own party on some key issues of the day, and that such lack of proven leadership is a foreshadowing of what an Obama administration would look like: a Pelosi administration.
On Iraq, Obama MAY have started talking more towards the center on Iraq, even going so far as to say that any withdrawal will be "conditions-based".
But honestly, do you think he's actually changed his mind on Iraq? I don't. Call me cynical (of course, the One himself would probably call me racist--or at least ignorant), but I think he is literally just playing politics with Iraq.
In truth, of course, what I think doesn't matter. And to be honest with you, what Obama says doesn't matter, either. Because he isn't the leader of the Democrats--it's Nancy Pelosi.
And if you don't think that returning-Speaker Pelosi will try to ram a funding-cut bill through for operations in Iraq as soon as the next session begins with a President Obama, you're fooling yourself. Don't forget, she's on a mission to save the world--one failed liberal vision after another.
And that's where McCain needs to attack. Tie together Obama's lack of leadership on the key issues to a general ineffectiveness of him as an executive.
SURE he said he's open to off-shore drilling. . .but he'll never get that course of action passed or from a Pelosi-led house (which, as I've written before, is probably the reason for his policy change). "Senator Obama, as President will you veto any bill that extends the federal moratorium on OCS drilling?" Yeah, I didn't think he'd answer that question.
SURE he wants us to stay in Iraq until victory is assured. . .until the first time a spending bill that cuts all funding for the troops in Iraq comes to his desk. "Will you veto any bill that calls for or otherwise establishes a withdrawal from Iraq that doesn't meet the approval of the uniformed chain of command in that region?" Again, we'll see squishiness on this one, because the man CAN'T be pinned down on this issue.
And Obama can try to talk his way out of these, but McCain can keep saying two things: "well, he certainly is new to that position" and "it doesn't matter what he says, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree with that, so he'll never make it happen". It's a two-for-one shot: it will no doubt make Obama bristle (and then we can hope for some REAL fireworks!) while also calling attention to the horrible leadership in the Congress these past two years.
The left is trying to squeeze blood from the "McSame" rock--and maybe it has some degree of effectiveness.
But given the low approval ratings for our current Congress, the GOP needs to play the guilty by association game as well.
Sure, it will be decried as racist. . .but that's just a risk we're going to have to take!
Here's an ad: "Obama has said that he isn't opposed to increased drilling to help alleviate the high cost of oil.
But such a proposal has not been voted on by your House of Representatives. In fact, that body was adjourned for a month-long vacation while people in several areas of the country were still paying close to $4 a gallon for gas.
Why? Because Obama isn't the leader on this issue for his party. It's Nancy Pelosi, and she doesn't care what Barack Obama has to say about this issue that is effecting millions of Americans every day.
If she doesn't care about what Obama has to say, why should you?"
Next up: "Obama has said that any withdrawal from Iraq needs to be 'conditions-based.'
But the Democratic Party Platform says nothing of the sort, saying that the war in Iraq must be ended and that the new mission of the military will be to redeploy from Iraq in 16 months. There is no reference to or deference paid for changing combat conditions on the ground in Iraq.
Why would the party platform be different than their candidate's position? Because the party leadership doesn't care what Sen. Obama has to say about Iraq.
And if they don't care, why should you?"
Sen. McCain or his GOP proxies needs to take aggressive tactics to show how Obama isn't even the leader of his own party on some key issues of the day, and that such lack of proven leadership is a foreshadowing of what an Obama administration would look like: a Pelosi administration.
On Iraq, Obama MAY have started talking more towards the center on Iraq, even going so far as to say that any withdrawal will be "conditions-based".
But honestly, do you think he's actually changed his mind on Iraq? I don't. Call me cynical (of course, the One himself would probably call me racist--or at least ignorant), but I think he is literally just playing politics with Iraq.
In truth, of course, what I think doesn't matter. And to be honest with you, what Obama says doesn't matter, either. Because he isn't the leader of the Democrats--it's Nancy Pelosi.
And if you don't think that returning-Speaker Pelosi will try to ram a funding-cut bill through for operations in Iraq as soon as the next session begins with a President Obama, you're fooling yourself. Don't forget, she's on a mission to save the world--one failed liberal vision after another.
And that's where McCain needs to attack. Tie together Obama's lack of leadership on the key issues to a general ineffectiveness of him as an executive.
SURE he said he's open to off-shore drilling. . .but he'll never get that course of action passed or from a Pelosi-led house (which, as I've written before, is probably the reason for his policy change). "Senator Obama, as President will you veto any bill that extends the federal moratorium on OCS drilling?" Yeah, I didn't think he'd answer that question.
SURE he wants us to stay in Iraq until victory is assured. . .until the first time a spending bill that cuts all funding for the troops in Iraq comes to his desk. "Will you veto any bill that calls for or otherwise establishes a withdrawal from Iraq that doesn't meet the approval of the uniformed chain of command in that region?" Again, we'll see squishiness on this one, because the man CAN'T be pinned down on this issue.
And Obama can try to talk his way out of these, but McCain can keep saying two things: "well, he certainly is new to that position" and "it doesn't matter what he says, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't agree with that, so he'll never make it happen". It's a two-for-one shot: it will no doubt make Obama bristle (and then we can hope for some REAL fireworks!) while also calling attention to the horrible leadership in the Congress these past two years.
The left is trying to squeeze blood from the "McSame" rock--and maybe it has some degree of effectiveness.
But given the low approval ratings for our current Congress, the GOP needs to play the guilty by association game as well.
Sure, it will be decried as racist. . .but that's just a risk we're going to have to take!
Here's an ad: "Obama has said that he isn't opposed to increased drilling to help alleviate the high cost of oil.
But such a proposal has not been voted on by your House of Representatives. In fact, that body was adjourned for a month-long vacation while people in several areas of the country were still paying close to $4 a gallon for gas.
Why? Because Obama isn't the leader on this issue for his party. It's Nancy Pelosi, and she doesn't care what Barack Obama has to say about this issue that is effecting millions of Americans every day.
If she doesn't care about what Obama has to say, why should you?"
Next up: "Obama has said that any withdrawal from Iraq needs to be 'conditions-based.'
But the Democratic Party Platform says nothing of the sort, saying that the war in Iraq must be ended and that the new mission of the military will be to redeploy from Iraq in 16 months. There is no reference to or deference paid for changing combat conditions on the ground in Iraq.
Why would the party platform be different than their candidate's position? Because the party leadership doesn't care what Sen. Obama has to say about Iraq.
And if they don't care, why should you?"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home