this When The
Stuff Hits The Fan video
or go here for other configurations.·
John McCain's post-Florida/post-Romney-withdrawal emergence in Campaign 2008 as the virtually certain winner of the Republican nomination for President for the 2008 Election (despite Mike Huckabee continuing in search of a "miracle") presents a sharp contrast with what is likely to emerge from the currently deadlocked Democrat race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton-- i.e., a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket (see paragraph below beginning with "Some doubt"). Thus, it's already time for voters to begin asking themselves about the most fundamental difference between McCain as the candidate on the one hand and either a Hillary/Barack or Barack/Hillary ticket on the other. Some conservatives think there's not a "dime's worth of difference" between what would be the domestic policies of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton administration, but even McCain's most ardent critics recognize that sharp differences emerge "at the water's edge." At the present, Obama seems to be strengthening his post-South-Carolina "surge" against Hillary in a way similar to the way McCain surged against Romney in Florida.
At this critical time in history, America's national-security interests and the world's long-term
interests in the principles of liberty and human rights means we need a "Top Gun Maverick"
rather than what would be the professorial approach of Obama or the genuflect-to-the-Left
Machiavellian tendencies of Hillary. Conservatives willing to put their domestic political
agendas ahead of national security may "sit out" the election, but those putting national
security first are far more likely to vote for McCain in order to vote against what would be a
national-security disaster in the form of a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton foreign policy that would
make Neville Chamberlain seem like a warmonger. Being
more craven than Machiavellian, Hillary would genuflect to the Left
of her party. Obama's innate, instinctive and intuitive decency would make him an intellectual
captive of naive idealism that he wrongly believes (and many of John F. Kennedy's surviving family
members also wrongly believe) exemplifies what was most inspirational and visionary about J.F.K:
His hard-nosed idealism unapologetically described America's
destiny to "support any friend, oppose any foe, and bear any burden" (this is a
paraphrase) to assure the ultimate triumph of "liberty" over totalitarianism. Obama
share's JFK's idealism but lacks JFK's ability to temper and apply such idealism with realism.
Also, Obama's professorial embrace of so-called "progressive,"
collectivist views of economics is a misguided form of "compassion" that would
be an anathema to JFK's non-class-warfare view of economics that a "rising tide lifts all
boats." (It matters not that none of his surviving family members understand this-- sound
principles rest on their validity rather than upon who claims to embrace, define or reject them.)
Obama could make a great President if he could mature into an advocate of free-market/anti-collectivist economics and a hard-nosed, realistic understanding that with respect to liberty and human rights, the World is more like the "old West" in America's 19th Century and America is the only "sheriff" with the means to advance the rule of law and liberty and defeat the tyranny of terroristic lawlessness.
Some doubt Obama would agree to be Hillary's running mate for Vice President, but sensible people know Obama is far too sensible to turn down such an offer. Most doubt that Hillary would agree to be Obama's running mate, but sensibly cynical people know she craves power far too much to turn down a chance to be "a heartbeat from the Presidency," and she's Machiavellian enough to know that if she were to decline such offer, she would be viewed as being cravenly hoping for him to lose so she could run in 2012. Thus, if he were to offer her the spot, she would accept.
In December 2006, PoliSat.Com's Washington Bureau Drawer Chief presciently predicted (in the form of a video) that after hammering each other in a long, protracted campaign, Hillary and Barack would unite on either a Hillary/Barack or Barack/Hillary ticket. Thus, McCain needs to unrelentingly focus his campaign on both Hillary and Barack. The "conservatives" who don't understand this are the same ones who, but sitting on their butts in November, 2006, gave us Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. We can't afford a similar mistake in 2008.
--Jim Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Permanent link to this installment:
For largest, best quality version of When The Stuff Hits The Fan go here.
|To view the original context for the When The Stuff Hits The Fan, go here.|