A View From the Cheap Seats

December 12, 2007

Danger, It’s Another Dreamer

Filed under: National,Politics — trzupek @ 8:16 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

EXAMINER PUBLICATIONS – DECEMBER 12, 2007

By Rich Trzupek

As we head toward a new year and a new presidential election, it doesn’t take a doctorate in political science to understand that two things would have to happen before a Republican was elected President in 2008: We would have to make dramatic progress in Iraq, and the mainstream media would have to acknowledge such progress.

While the first condition seems not only possible, but quite likely, given the events of the last few months, the latter condition is pretty much beyond the realm of possibility. In recent weeks, a few leading Democrats have admitted that the surge is working-declarations that got almost no press-while their quick recanting got all kinds of play in the media.

Like it or not, that’s reality. For the genteel conservative voter, that reality leads to an uncomfortable question: If we’re going to have a Democrat President, who’s the best choice?

Sure it’s unpleasant to contemplate these things, but questions deserve answers. We’d all rather choose between Ginger and Mary Ann, but that’s too easy. You can’t lose. The time to man-up is when you’re forced to choose between Aunt Bea and Granny Clampett.

The correct answers, in each case, are Mary Ann and Aunt Bea, by the way. Ginger would bleed you dry and the kind of freaky, hillbilly weirdness that Granny Clampett would be into is just too horrifying to contemplate.

Choosing among the Dems means picking between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s hardly more palatable than the Aunt Bea-Granny decision, but it must be faced. Not for any practical reasons of course. Conservative voters will cast their votes for Rudy or Mitt or Mike or, if your humble correspondent had his way, for Fred. It won’t matter. The GOP is a forlorn hope in 2008.

My oldest, ultra-libertarian brother, stubbornly refuses to contemplate the new reality. Understandable, but hardly in the spirit of things. Gene and all of his fellow crumudgeons need to choose.

Who is the right pick? The answer is very clear, from a conservative point of view. As much as I hate to disappoint those who would like to see America elect its first woman chief executive, I have to say it: we shouldn’t elect a gal in 2008. We should elect Hillary Clinton instead, for Hillary is clearly the pick of the Democrat litter.

There are those who argue that Hilary is unscrupulous, underhanded and ruthless. These people are entirely correct. Those are not the reasons not to hope for Hillary if a Democrat is to occupy the White House. Those characteristics are exactly what makes her the best donkey in the herd.

Spare us another idealistic, unrealistic dreamer. We’ve been down that road before, with one James Earl Carter, an entirely decent man who did more damage to the world than any President of the 20th century.

Obama is Carter, with a slightly better education. His speeches feature the same kind of vague, “feel-good but means nothing” platitudes that the peanut king spouted in 1976.

This is not to say that Obama isn’t a good guy. I suspect he’s a great guy-the kind of guy you could shoot the bull with for hours and would leave a smile on your face. But that doesn’t make him qualified to be President.

The reality of the world is that its full of SOBs, so our leader needs to be the biggest SOB, or in Hillary’s case, the biggest B of all. Our best leaders have always fit that mold.

Lincoln is revered as an American saint today, but the reality is that Honest Abe was a ruthless as any leader we ever had. He never flinched when it came time to disregard the Constitution or pick a butcher like Grant to prosecute the war.

The same could be said for FDR, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson. Great leaders may or may not be personally appealing, but all of them are capable of cold, hard calculation.

Obama, clearly, is incapable of doing that sort of math. That’s not really criticism. I’m far too soft to make these kinds of decisions myself, which is why I’m the last guy I would elect dogcatcher.

Sure, there’s plenty of downside with Hillary. Her ideas about health care and the economy are repugnant. Hopefully Congress would be smart enough to deflect, or at least dilute, the worst of her proposals.

Yet, for all of that, she’s a hard-ass. She’s somebody that would make Al-Quada and the goof-balls in Iran think twice. In this day and age, nothing is more important.

By contrast, Obama’s ideas about foreign policy are a bad joke. He wants to “talk.” He hopes to “reach out.” He’s full of angst, reflecting the self-destructive idea that America is responsible for the idiocy and the fanatics, instead of responding to them.

There’s nothing wrong with having a Barack Obama in the Senate, where his idealism can be measured and, if necessary checked, by 99 more realistic voices. Having him in charge of the nation would be nothing short of awful.

Barack should stick to dreaming with Oprah. There’s nothing wrong with having your head in the clouds. But, when it comes to leading the free world, we need someone with their feet on the ground.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. Dear Mr. Cheap Seat:

    It never fails to amuse me when far right extremists like yourself attempt to analyze and interpret for the rest of us the character and politics of Democratic politicians. You wingnuts only accept your “news” from approved orthodox X-Rite sources, you only converse with each other and dismiss all other voices, and spend all your days in a fully-insulated echo-chamber, so I can excuse you for not knowing anything at all about the actual views held by Democrats, or about any events after 1929.

    In the first place, you utterly miss the point about the Republican Occupation of Iraq: whether the surge is working is not relevant, most of America understands the entire fiasco is nothing but a con sold to us by liars and thieves; we want our kids brought home now – period. With the exception of Ron Paul, none of the Reflublican candidates understand this, which is why they will lose big next November regardless who they nominate.

    More than anything I love the ridiculous talking points you guys invent and mindlessly repeat to each other about Democrats, liberals and progressives. Jimmy Carter, for example, “did more damage to the world than any President of the 20th century.” No one I know has ever suggested Carter was a great president, but unless the Bushes, Nixon, Reagan, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Ford, Clinton, St. Ronnie and that old Klansman Woody Wilson are erased from the history books, President Carter need not worry about his legacy. It seems like the favorite sport of you courageous right-wingers now-a-days is beating up on an 83-year old man, but just what terrible thing he did, none of you ever say. I’m sure the US Navy will be surprised to learn you think Annapolis has been turning out nothing but softies – I guess Carter must have gone to a different Naval Academy that John McCain.

    But you saved you silliest musings for Sen. Obama: the junior Senator from Illinois’ meddle is suspect because his speeches “feel-good but means nothing.” Mr. Seat, have you listened to Current Occupant over the past seven years? I’ve heard three-year olds pack more lucidity into a thumb-sucking session than the Little Prince typically demonstrates in a year of press conferences. But given that you geniuses have been worshipping a crooked chimpanzee these last few years, you can be forgiven for not recognizing coherent English when you hear it.

    I think probably what really rankles the righties when they listen to Obama is that he has the audacity to offer hope and optimism. You guys have exalted the current gang of cynical thugs hyping up and pandering to your fears for so long that a politician that tells us to believe that America can still be America must be condemned as naïve and foolish.

    What is sad and truly dangerous is that some of us have grown so jaded by these corrupt neocon Chickenhawks that to “talk” or to “reach out” to the world is now cowardly. I would remind you of the words of Winston Churchill: “To jaw-jaw is better than to war-war.” We’re America, we don’t need diplomacy. But rhetorically reducing a US Senator to a child is not enough for you; Sen. Obama is “full of angst, reflecting the self-destructive idea that America is responsible for the idiocy and the fanatics…” Really? When did he say stuff like this? He didn’t.

    Like all the wingnut gang, when the facts do not match your delusions, you make up your own.

    Peace and Best Regards,
    Poindexter
    Streamwood, Illinois

    Comment by Poindexter — January 7, 2008 @ 6:21 pm | Reply

  2. Poindexter, what has Obama accomplished in his career? Why did he vote “present” in tough votes instead of nay or aye? Your champion is a weakling. Bush has done stupid things with the farm bill, medicare, and other spending follies, but he did not lie to get us into war. It’s a weak liberal argument and as bad as the repub field is, they’ll probably retain the WH because no one with a negative rating of 50% (Hillary) or someone with a weak resume like Obama is not going to get it done.

    If dems wanted to win the WH, perhaps bayh, mark warner, and Bill Richardson should have had your support.

    Comment by Wild Bill — January 12, 2008 @ 11:20 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: