Why the Republicans Are Poised to Win

Many believe the democrats have an aesthetic advantage this election cycle because of the diversity of their candidates and the statesmanship of Obama. I was discussing the possibility of a McCainRice ticket with a friend and he suggested that such a ticket would lead Americans to believe that the addition of Rice was merely a response to the diversity of the democrats. Ironically, Obama and Hillary owe much of their viability to the Bush administrations’ promotion of Powell and Rice to high profile cabinet positions. Americans are much more comfortable with the possibility of a black man or a women presidency because Americans have become accustomed to seeing Powell and Rice contribute responsibly and significantly in the governance of our country. Moreover, the Republican party urgently asked Colin Powell to run back in the 90’s and many party insiders pressured President Bush to replace embattled Dick Cheney with popular Condoleezza Rice on the 2004 ticket. Republicans have a much longer list of viable African American presidential and otherwise vice-presidential candidates then the Democratic party. Quite the contrary, the Democratic Party went rummaging through the Illinois State Senate to find a diverse candidate precisely because there is a paucity of electable African-Americans in their Party.

Furthermore, this election cycle is not unlike the 2004 election cycle in which Senators John Kerry and John Edwards ran on an anti-war platform during a time in which the war was extremely unpopular. They lost. It is true that polls consistently reveal that Americans were never convinced of the legitimacy of this war. And similar polls reveal that Americans currently support the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. However, quite contrary to popular belief, the assumption that Americans share the anti-war sentiments of liberal elites has simply not been demonstrated. The reality is that Americans are not generally adverse to war…rather, Americans are adverse to losing war! Faced with the prospect of electing a Commander in Chief and the people will choose the person best capable of winning the war not the one who best convinces the public of retreat! Liberal typhlosis, brought on by ideological prejudice, has left the democrats convinced that the Iraq War is their trump call. So distorted are the democrats on this issue that they insist on discussing Iraq even during a time in which it makes sense to discuss the economy. At their own peril and regardless of the Bush reelection against a decorated war veteran coupled by the well documented inconsistencies of Democratic legislators in which their voting records lack harmony with their rhetoric; the two remaining Democratic candidates continue to make the Iraq War their primary message.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been making the absurdly self-destructive argument about experience and judgment, particularly with regard to national security. During the General Election in which the Democratic nominee will be head to head with John McCain, the judgment and experience argument will easily favor the Republican. Obama is basing the argument that he has the “judgment to lead” on an anti-war speech given some years prior to his introduction to the American people. However, the Boston Globe reveals that "a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress" demonstrate that he has consistently voted in favor of the continued conflict. You may also be aware that an Obama advisor reassured the British press that his insistence on an immediate withdrawal was merely political posturing. The senator’s equivocation on this issue will likely work to undermine his case for judgment. Likewise, the Clinton experience argument will pale in the face of John McCain’s twenty-seven years in the senate and a war record in which he lead the largest naval squadron and endured torture as a POW. And if Clinton is tempted to point to the unique experience gained from the exclusive access of a familiar relationship with a person of power, people will be made to know that John McCain comes from a family of military leaders among which his father was an admiral.

Finally, I mentioned the economy, a topic all of the candidates seem to avoid like the bubonic plaque. The economy represents an issue liberal elites are too detached from the American people to understand. Consider the democratic debates: have you noticed that when democrats are gathered they debate amongst each other about how best to spend your money? When conservatives are gathered one will notice they debate amongst each other about how best to put your money back into your pocket. For Americans the plans that democrats discuss amount to an invoice: a 286 billion dollar invoice in the case of Barack Obama and a 209 billion dollar invoice in the case of Hillary. American people understand the economy very concretely. That is to say, American people weigh the strength of the economy on the basis of how well they can manage their obligations. Can I pay my mortgage? Can I pay my car note? Can I pay my son’s college tuition? Can I pay for gas? It is much easier for the average American to see how they will have more money available to them to pay for their obligations under conservative tax-cuts.

So then, two issues - the war and the economy - that should be winners for the Democrat Party will prove a boon for the Republicans because the Democratic message does not resonate with voters.

- C. Jerome Ruth

The Appeal of Obama

My seven year old son is a budding Presidential scholar and until recently was a strident Obama fan. Not unlike most adults who support the Senator, my son struggled to explain his affinity. When speaking to a group of young professionals about the 2008 elections, I admitted it is difficult for one to dislike Obama: he looks presidential, he walks presidential, he has a presidential posture, he’s articulate, inspiring, has a wholesome family and he’s black. Almost immediately someone from the audience quipped, “and for all those reasons, I like him.” You no doubt have seen the various videos circulating on the internet in which Barack supporters, both paid surrogates and people attending his rallies were unable to provide substantive reasons for their support. (those videos can be viewed HERE and HERE). Hillary Clinton, his chief opponent, has suggested that Obama has not been forthright about his plans for America and that his experience is less then admirable. Barack has argued that opponents who raise these considerations are implying “that the people who have been voting for [him] or involved in [his] campaign are somehow delusional.”

Perhaps not. It occurred to me that his supporters may simply lack the words to explain what seems to me a vexing cry for Presidential statesmanship. I am beginning to believe that the ground swell of excitement surrounding Obama springs forth out of American dissatisfaction with the paucity of statesmanship in Washington. Our country has not been well represented at the Presidential level for nearly twenty years to date. Two scandalous Bill Clinton terms were followed by eight years in which there was truly a dearth of refined gracefulness in the White House, the likes of which has left many Americans avid for respectability. Hmmm…sixteen years of the Beverly Hillbillies: the requisite consequence of electing two men from Arkansas and Texas respectively. Many Americans seem determined to elect someone to the presidency who possesses a quality that is actually worthy of the presidency.

A decision that has to date trumped concerns about his ambiguous past, his apparent liberal worldview and his dubious associations. I am not as concerned about the executive experience of a man who is a double ivy leaguer and who has run a pretty efficient national campaign. However, unlike a native-reared new face, Americans have the challenge of contextualizing Obama in a narrow space of time. We do not have the luxury of visiting his home town, running down his classmates, nor do most Americans have a point of reference for life in Indonesia. That is to ask, how has his cultural, religious and geographic context framed his principles, his temperament and his judgment? His associations seem not unlike the questionable associations of other politicians. However, Obama’s relatively new relationship with the American public intensifies concerns as we scramble to contextualize him. But it is his liberal worldview that most concerns me: his conviction that our health care system requires a government take over; his insistence, during an ongoing war, on announcing our immediately retreat upon his presidency and the 286 billion dollar invoice he plans to send the American people to fund his entitlement programs.

I opened this article by admitting that Obama is likable because he looks presidential, he walks presidential, he has a presidential posture, he’s articulate, inspiring, has a wholesome family and he’s black. I don’t mind a presidential black man, but I’m not voting for a presidential black man, just because he’s a presidential black man. It is imperative we not elevate the aesthetic above the reasonable in our attempt to restore elegance, class, and statesmanship to the presidency.

- C. Jerome Ruth