Thursday, January 31, 2008

Obama=Most Liberal Senator in Congress

As sort of a follow-up to the last post, this also highlights the importance of putting forth a conservative for the GOP nomination.

I think Allahpundit says it best:
In case you were wondering why his message is 10 parts gassy “change” to every one part specific policy proposals, here's why...How doctrinaire is he? He’s to the left of Russ Feingold. And moving leftward every year relative to his colleagues: He was the 16th-most liberal senator in 2005, 10th-most in 2006, and number one with a bullet now. Election year pandering to outflank Hillary among the base or is he really “evolving” in office, as the left likes to say of politicians who drift this way? Whatever the answer, it ain’t good. In fairness, he’s only very marginally worse than Hillary, the difference coming in her commendable willingness to take a hard-ish line on the Revolutionary Guard.
I've heard some people say they might just vote for Obama out of spite for both Hillary and the GOP, usually citing an argument along the lines of, "Well, if we're going to have a liberal president no matter what, I'd rather it be a Democrat. At least they're predictably liberal and if things go badly, we can blame their party instead of ours. Then we'll blow them out of the water in 2012!"

I heard similar arguments during the 2006 midterm elections, and frankly I think they're absurd. People seem to forget that election years aren't the only times important things have to be dealt with. September 11th wasn't during an election year. The Bush tax cuts weren't. The amnesty bill this past summer wasn't either. The idea is to vote for somebody who you think will do what is best over the course of four years as President, not just who seems interesting right now. If another terrorist attack happens, if the country falls into a recession, if a tax cut (or tax increase, for that matter) passes Congress...who do you want sitting in the Oval Office?

No comments: