With Senator Obama having won eight of the nine primaries/caucuses occuring in the past week while Senator Clinton regroups, Confederate Yankee Bob Owens makes the case against Obama. This time it’s a case filled with substance rather than ignorance-fueled innuendo--with the ignorance being of the willful variety.
For all the hype, Barack Obama is making his way though the Democratic nominating process by merely lip-syncing old liberal standards borrowed from those who came before him. When potential voters begin to notice the lack of originality behind the hype, the “change” candidate may find his fall to be just as meteoric as his rise.Of course, most Conservative observers already knew that Obama’s record was light-to-nonexistent and that, of the known record, his stances on nearly every issue are invariably Far Left (has the word Communist become outmoded?) in nature and not exactly original. However, I think that the Liberal observers know this also. The thing is this: most simply don’t care. I predict that there will be no 'fall.'
Obama is visibly the candidate of ‘Change.’ That he manifestly is not the agent of substantive ‘Change’ matters not a whit to most of those who want to see him become POTUS. It is the real prospective of an openly card-carrying Red in the White House backed up by a solidly Democrat-controlled House and Senate—not some Jihadis-under the-bed apparition—which would be the most frightening; if I were frightened, that is.
Does that mean that Conservatives should coalesce behind the presumptive GOP nominee, John McCain? Frankly I don't think that it will make a difference whether we do or not, so it's best the vote one's conscience, as they say.
Change is in the air. I can smell it--when I'm not holding my nose.