That was the reply from a super smart, politically aware, democratically loyal and very close friend of mine after I sent him a text saying that Obama will not win after watching the discussion he and McCain had with Pastor Rick at Saddleback, and he will likely pick Hillary as his VP to stem his bleeding in the polls. I wanted to note a few of my thoughts as I think they will become ongoing themes as these two appear together in debates this fall. The transcript of the entire event is available here.
1. The age/smooth contrast between Obama and McCain will work against Obama if McCain continues to look as relaxed and react as quickly as he did during this event. Obama is clearly at his best when he has a prepared script in front of him and speaks from tele-prompter. He has a wonderful voice with amazing inflection that he draws on to speak with authority, conviction, and inspiration. Who is not moved as he says, “We are the ones we have waited for”. That is powerful stuff. But once he moves outside of a script he transforms himself into a form of George W. Bush with his English as Second Language stop and go speech pattern. I think a good bar game during the debates will be to take shots each time Obama utter an Um or Ah. Smart bar owners will sell copious amounts of tequila and be seen as promoting the civic good by encouraging citizens to watch the debates. As the public sees more of his debate performance outside of a scripted environment, Obama’s star will continue to fade. To date conventional wisdom has evaluated McCain in comparison to Obama, as a speech giver – which he does very poorly. In general he seems pasty, uncomfortable, stiff, uninspired, and tired. But in a conversational setting McCain is able to quickly and decisively discuss points in detail and with conviction. McCain does not tend to straddle issues and thus makes it fairly easy for people to make a choice for or against his aggregate stances – making it easier for him argue that he and he alone can institute the changes required to restructure and make Washington more effective if he is elected, which is ultimately what this election is about.
2. Obama does not offer a compelling reason to be President of the United States of America. After listening to him for an hour, there was nothing compelling in his history that called out and said, “Yes, this man is the chosen one to return America to greatness”, as Nancy Pelosi may have said or ” This man can bring Washington together”, as Obama followers claim. But what has he accomplished, or what groups has he bridged? Sadly, the answer is for the most part not much or none. He lists among his personal narrative, his keen judgment not to invade Iraq, and the sacrifices he made by not pursuing high paying jobs after college and law school to work with unemployed steel workers, and to pursue government positions to advance the greater good. While questionably admirable, those are arguable not the experiences required to run the world’s largest economy and mankind’s most powerful military force. Since being elected to the US Senate, he has arguably abdicated his responsibility as a freshman senator, as he has basically been running for President full time since entering the Senate, with little to show for his efforts there. His record has essentially been one of a hard leaning liberal with few bipartisan accomplishments and fewer instances of taking risky positions against his party to effect bi-partisan solutions, which would indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on key issues. In contrast, McCain’s currency is experience, especially foreign policy, having served years in congress in various intelligence capacities and traveled extensively to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Georgia in official capacities. In addition, McCain has consistently gone against his party’s wishes to work with Democrats on controversial legislation earning him a reputation among the media as a “Maverick” and among many Republicans as a “Judash“. In an era where change is the buzz word, McCain has a track record of effectively working inside and outside his party to make change happen, while up to now Obama has only delivered speeches that tend to talk in ideal tones that are short on details. In the end, facts are friends and while Obama is not too young to be President, he is simply too inexperienced and offers no compelling reason to claim to the office.
3. The substance contrast between Obama and McCain, without trying to insult Obama, is simply that between a man and a boy. On issue after issue, Obama struggled to reach a coherent answer. When asked to name which Supreme Court Justices he would not have appointed, Obama sought refuge in the old liberal clinches about Thomas not being smart or experienced enough (though a Wall Street Journal editorial today clearly shows why such a statement was foolish), rather than squarely discussing that he voted against Roberts and Alito. When asked about when life begins, he answers that such a question is “above my pay grade”, odd for someone who will set the agenda on such issues. When asked about his most difficult personal decision, Obama spoke to his decision to oppose the war in Iraq, an issue for which he had no real accountability, as he was a state senator and thus his thoughts were of minor consequence. Thus on one of the most important questions of the night, Obama basically avoided the question, which is typical of how he has handled himself on tough issues over the past year. McCain by contrast was very direct on his answers. Asked when life starts he answered at conception. Asked what judges he would not appoint to the Supreme Court, he effectively said the four liberal ones, as they are legislating from the bench. Asked about his toughest personal decision, he answered about his experience as a POW, where he was offered an early release due to a family connection but instead he chose to honor the POW code of first in first out, which kept him as a prisoner for another three years at great physical and mental harm. The contrast in which these men answer questions clearly and directly together on stage in a debate will shock most people expecting Obama to be a smooth, cool, intellectual operator.
4. A question asking each candidate for the wisest three people he knows and that he will rely on heavily during his administration led to a rambling, non-informative, non-binding reply from Obama versus a direct and relevant reply from McCain. Obama would basically go to solve the world hot spots bending his ear to his wife, his grandmother, and Senators:Ted Kennedy, Richard Luger, and Tom Coburn. As with most things Obama, he tends to run like the Platte River, a mile wide and an inch deep. No one believes, Kennedy, Luger or Coburn will serve a meaningful role in an Obama administration, making such a reply patronizing to those that take the time to follow what he actually says. Further, he cannot even limit his answer to three people as the simple question requests, displaying the arrogance he is becoming famous for lately. Is it that hard to just follow the rules? Contrast Obama’s choices to McCain’s. He named, General Patreas, John Lewis, and Meg Whitman. General Petraeus is the world’s foremost military expert, Lewis represents all that is right in the struggle for civil rights, and Whitman captures the innovation and spirit of that capitalist spirit that has given America its world leading lifestyle. Further, it is easy to see both Petraeus and Whitman serving in a McCain Administration, indicating his answer represents more than just a short-term story to placate the immediate audience, as he did offering pro-life Senator Coburn. Again this question illustrates how these men differ in substance versus style, a point made vividly clear when they are in close proximity to one another.
As a bonus discussion point, I will just touch on another topic that tends to consistently bother me, namely the comparison between Obama and Regan.
5. Some argue that Ronald Reagan was short of specifics in his speeches, and short on experience in his life, but then was able to transform the country, and Obama will be able to do something similar through the force of his personality. Ronald Reagan was very clear that given the chance he would like to make government as small as possible with as little intrusion into everyone’s life as possible, with a very strong national defense to defeat Communism around the world. His message was very simple and very consistent with long held American ideals of individual self reliance, independence, hard work, freedom, and pride in our country. He returned a sense of pride to being an American after the disaster known as Jimmy Carter. Before he ran for President, Ronald Reagan debated Bobby Kennedy, and effectively knocked him back on his heels and sent a message that he was a political force to be dealt with. For years he delivered a series of radio addresses that carried a basic, consistent theme of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets. Reagan also served very successful terms as Governor California. Contrast this to Barrack Obama, who generally refuses to make any of his core ideas or ideals clearly known. Unlike Reagan, who clearly articulated a case for less government for all to weigh, Obama will not admit that his solutions require a much larger government, or that his ideals require everyone to sacrifice personal freedoms, or that personal property clearly has to be limited, or his view of the world sees a medical system as innovative as the post office. Reagan’s values preached being as successful as you can be, Obama’s emphasizes taking from those with more than you; Reagan’s values preached being self reliant, Obama’s emphasizes turning your care over to the government; Reagan wanted a government that encouraged all of us to reach for the best within us to produce more, Obama’s approach is punish those that have success and discourage others from seeking it. Obama believes from ones ability to ones need, that ones efforts belongs to the government to tax as needed. The politics of Obama is nothing more than to slice up the electorate into pieces and promise each part something from the other. That is very scary to me. Reagan the politician worked, because even if you are a ditch digger in America you know your kids can attend a community college, transfer to a state college, attend medical school, and then make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Opportunity in America is open to anyone that is willing to work hard and apply oneself. Under variously proposed Obama plans, that doctor would have a 65% tax rate – is it worth the effort to become a doctor? Reagan understood such a tax policy made no sense, and went against America’s history and ideals, and he wanted your kids and every other American to keep their money. Obama the politician wants your kids money, and as this becomes better understood, it is unlikely that most Americans will agree to give it to him.
Ultimately as the nation turns its full attention to these candidates, it will be evident that Obama is not ready for the job.
