That’s Elbert With An E

When word got around about a magazine cover depicting Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama in Islamic garb and his wife Michelle, armed like a terrorist, doing a celebratory fist bump in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, obviously the Obama campaign was none too thrilled about what The New Yorker magazine termed a “satrical” cover for its July 21st issue. Howls of protest have come from others on the left side of the aisle as well.

Never mind that many of those protesting have characterized current President George W. Bush as everything from “Bushitler” to American terrorist to devil incarnate, when you pick on one of their own all is no longer fair in love or war.

More to the point, the cartoon by Barry Blitt is almost assuredly going to make this particular issue of the staid magazine that few in middle America have heard of, much less read, an instant hit. Despite their leanings far to the left, one has to assume that The New Yorker does operate under the profit motive and if a controversial cover helps move a few thousand extra issues that’s great for the bottom line. Let’s face it, we’re not talking about Playboy here so most regular readers are subscribing to the tome for the articles.

And perhaps what may have made those on the “progressive” side a little less hysterical about the Obama cover is if they placed it as part of a thought bubble, one which eminates from a redneck Southerner leaning on his pickup truck, gun rack and Confederate flag window decal in full view. Maybe for full effect they could put a NASCAR sticker on one side of the bumper (perhaps a #3 with wings) and a sticker of some sort proclaiming the driver is a dittohead on the other. It sounds a little busy for an average-sized magazine cover so perhaps just the part with Barack and Michelle Obama made the cut.

Rush Limbaugh is correct when he regularly opines that good comedy has an element of truth in it. What makes this cover so believable is that many Americans do look at Obama in just such a manner - witness the hullabaloo about his middle name or lack of a flag pin on his lapel until some of Barack’s most recent appearances. Throw in some of Michelle’s comments and it’s easy to see why this perception dogs both Obamas.

My contention is that this is yet another distraction from the real issues that separate Obama from GOP standardbearer John McCain - their differing stances on the Long War and negotiating foreign policy, McCain’s recently conversion to the concept of energy independence through drilling for our own oil in most areas rather than forced conservation and the far-off technology of alternative fuels, and the wallet-straining ambitions of an Obama presidency versus the more fiscally conservative John McCain are but three examples.

While I wouldn’t go so far to say that The New Yorker’s cover is a calculated move in reverse psychology by the Obama camp, it does serve to establish yet another divide between perception and reality as far as GOP voters go, subtly branding those who would vote against Obama as racist, sexist, xenophobic, or a combination of the three. Personally, I don’t give a darn that Barack Obama is half-black, I just happen to think his policy ideas are half-witted.

Crossposted on monoblogue.

In the last post I mentioned the Democrat-controlled congress having an approval rating at 9%. Much is discussed about President Bush’s low approval ratings. According to this web site, over the month of June 2008, depending on the survey his numbers are between 28% and 32%. So who’s got the real problem, Bush or the Democrat-controlled congress?

(I didn’t count the LA Times/Bloomberg poll which is an anomaly on the page, reporting Bush’s approval at 23%. The LA Times has also been reporting polls showing Obama beating McCain by double digits, inconsistent with anyone else’s polls.)

There’s something very nice about political parties in Delaware. In general, it is fairly easy to get your political party on the ballot. This means that many choices are available to each voter. And for the most part, the minor party candidates are treated as candidates and not the red-headed step child of the election.

Today I thought I would be reading something about the Democrats when I saw this headline: Socialists register for Delaware ballot. Instead, it was an article about the Socialist Workers Party getting their Presidential nominee on the ballot here in Delaware. Yes, I should be able to tell the difference between the two parties, but explain the difference after you read this:

[The Socialist Workers Party candidates] represent a platform that includes active support for unions and labor groups, withdrawal of all American troops from foreign nations and citizen status for all residents of other countries now in America illegally. The group has branded American forces as “imperialist” representatives of wealthy American interests.

Well, I’ll give you this. The Socialist Workers apparently want to remove all troops on foreign soil, whereas the Democrats only want to remove troops fighting the war on terror.

Recently publisher Steven Strang wrote about a meeting with Barack Obama he and many other Christian leaders attended by invitation. Strang expresses that he was not comfortable with the meeting but curiosity drove him to attend. The “off the record” meeting included 43 leaders covering the spectrum of theological and political backgrounds. Prominent minister T.D. Jakes noted that in this AP article. Strang says that Obama took the time to meet with each one and shake their hand. Strang said that he was “warm and personable — obviously one of the reasons why people like him.”

The questions were mostly “softball” questions in my opinion. I was concerned after three or four general questions that we wouldn’t ask the most important questions. So I raised my hand and he called on me. I said, “Senator, I want to ask a question I’m sure you are expecting regarding your position on abortion. I represent a segment of the church where nearly everyone considers the issue of supporting life to be the most important issue and where nearly everyone would be opposed to abortion. I want to ask what your stand on abortion is and if you believe what I think you believe, how you justify that with your Christian faith and why you think we should vote for you.”

Since his response was “off-the-record,” I can say that the time he took to answer was probably 15 minutes. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a “centrist” than what I would have expected. He did not appear to be the crazy leftist that is being supported by George Soros and his radical leftist friends. Sen. Obama looked me in the eye as he answered my question, almost as if it were a one-on-one interview. I had already read the chapter on “faith” in his book the “Audacity of Hope.” If you want to know how he answered the question, read that chapter. In other words, other than his demeanor and obvious attempt to win over the Christian leaders in the room, he didn’t say anything new.

If Obama seems to have an attachment to a teleprompter then his answer to the abortion question isn’t really much of a surprise. Then again, it could speak to consistency in his beliefs. I’m more suspicious myself.

It’s certainly something worth watching. Obama wishes to at least include more conservative Christians in his outreach to the church in general. McCain seems to desire to push conservative Christians aside when it’s not convenient anymore. As Strang notes in another post:

When McCain wanted and needed to win both the Texas and Ohio primaries, he was happy to get these endorsements from Hagee in Texas and Parsley in Ohio. But then when Barack Obama’s radical former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright became a controversial figure in the election, some liberals looked for controversial clergymen who backed McCain to use to blast him. They latched on to Hagee and Parsley.

Either way, if I were McCain I would be making sure that I got the Evangelical vote come November, unless he just assumes that we’ll vote for him because of our fear of the damage someone as left-leaning as Obama will inflict upon this country. Personally I wouldn’t bank on that. It’s more likely that they will stay home which to me is crazy. McCain isn’t going to make me stay home. He’s not that important. There are local issues much greater than McCain, like making sure the the Democrats don’t get more control over this state, and those will drive me to the ballot box.

Steven Strang’s blog entries are here and here.

To some friends I made this prediction about this upcoming election, and it’s worth saying here. I believe that our next president will be Jimmy Carter’s second term. For me this means whoever takes the reigns, even if it’s a minor party candidate, will royally screw up this country, guaranteeing a new president in 2012. Why is this? I look over each of the major party candidates and see many policies that are not universally popular and potentially hurtful to our economy. In addition, the two major candidates are very weak on immigration. The only candidate that is even interested in our war on terror is McCain, which might be his only strength. It would be more likely that under anyone else’s policies we would have another terrorist attack on our own soil because most act as though there is no need to fight terrorism.

I think more than likely we will be worse off in four years than we are now. One can only hope that there is a Reagan-like person somewhere out there to fix America much like in the 1980’s.

Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination. Now it is official, McCain vs. Obama. Elder Statesman vs. Political Phenom. Personally, I think McCain will win in November because he has a few hundred more elections under his belt. What I really think is that the most important leader in the world will be decided on sound bites and nonsense. Sometimes, listening to the “analysis” on some of the news networks sounds more like Entertainment Tonight. Who had the better speech, who looks more presidential. Are we picking a prom queen or a president?

Here’s what I want to know:
Are you going to defend me and my freedom at any cost?
How will you honor the Constitution and what does that mean to you?
Where do you stand on the key issues?
Can I trust you with my country?

I don’t care about what you look like, sound like, or whether you always say the right things in your speeches. I know there is a science to this stuff, but I wonder if given the opportunity, would we have the wisdom to elect George Washington, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson today? Would we have the courage to elect Abraham Lincoln and stand behind him when the right thing proved so costly in today’s political atmosphere?

This is a cross-post by theconservativegeek

I’ve found a Presidential candidate I could vote for (hat tip: gazizza.net): John McClane (website)

And when it comes to Presidential candidates, this guy tops the Democrat’s list. His presence is felt throughout every candidate, almost like they are channeling him or reading his talking points. He is the candidate of change.

Finally, Dave Graham has finally joined the 21st century and gotten a web site for his campaign for Delaware governor. Look, if I ever entered the political arena, the first dollar I’d spend in a political campaign would be for a domain followed closely by web hosting. You’ve got to have a web site and have it early. Good grief, even everybody’s favorite candidate Mike Protack understands this. He even has a YouTube page with campaign videos. Bill Lee will be caught up soon, I’m sure.