Well, it’s a reasonably well put together peice. Running it down, their points boil down to this:
Obama is inexperienced. It’s a valid point. It’s not terribly convincing in terms of voting for the other ticket, though.
Obama is pro-choice. This is true. However, it’s appealing if you are pro-choice.
Obama would raise capital gains taxes. This is a valid criticism. It’s not a good idea, and he’s been unable to explain why he’d do it aside from its popularity.
Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.
At this point I have to admit my skepticism meter pegged. Obama’s association with Ayers is professional at most - they are not best buddies - and of absolutely no relevance to anything; Ayers was a criminal 38 years ago and it’s not like he killed anyone. Almost everyone knows SOMEONE who committed crimes in their youth. Ayers has been accepted back into society by pretty much everyone in Chicago, right or left, and it’s a criticism of the most pathetic irrelevance.
As to Wright, two thirds of the pastors in the world are fucking crazy, fucking idiots, or fucking their altar boys, and I’m not prepared to say most churchgoers are evil as a result.
The instant the blog went to the Wright-Ayers well it lost a lot of credibility. Obama is not perfect, and a lot of his policy positions are very attackable. He has been asked several times how he would prioritize spending and have tax cuts at the same time and has never explained it. His protectionist rhetoric is economically ludicrous. Why not attack those things? If you have to go to Bill Ayers… well, you show me a career politician who hasn’t shaken hands with a criminal and I’ll eat a hat.
ACORN. Skepticism meter is now pegged at 11. ACORN is a tempest in a teapot. It’s bullshit up and down and any objective observer can see that. When are they going to criticize Obama’s trade policy? Why this ACORN shit?
The Iraq War and the surge.
On this issue they at least return to the facts, but have a curious take:
- Obama was against the war but that’s irrelevant.
- Obama was against the surge and that’s relevant.
Sorry; you can’t have one without the other. Now, in my personal opinion, Obama was right on both; the “Surge” isn’t why you’re hearing less out of Iraq, you’re hearing less out of Iraq because it’s been ethnically cleansed for the most part. But even if you assume he was wrong about the surge, again, he was RIGHT about the more critical of the two decisions; he’s 1 for 2, and McCain is 1 for 2, so how is this a point against Obama?
- “Meeting Iran without preconditions”
Semantic bullshit. How can you engage someone in dialogue with conditions (spare me the idiotic, tautological construction “preconditions”) if you did not already meet with them to set the conditions?
- Obama hates Middle America.
- Obama plays the race card.
There’s some truth to this, though it’s unclear how much is offense and how much is defense.
- OBama lacks experience.
True, but it’s the same as Point 1.
So in summation:
Point 1 and Point 10. Lack of experience. Valid, though its effect may or may not be a negative.
Point 2. Pro-choice. Good to some people, bad to others.
Point 3. Ca[ital gains taxes. A valid criticism.
Point 4. Ayers and Wright. Total bullshit.
Point 5. ACORN. Total bullshit.
Point 6. The surge. Debateable.
Point 7. “Meeting Iran without preconditions.” Total bullshit.
Point 8. Obama hates Middle America. Total bullshit.
Point 9. Obama plays the race card. Vaguely true; importance minimal.
So of 9 points, one is unquestionable a valid critique, one is a concern, two are debateable, four are total bullshit, and one is of limited interest.
What’s amazing to me is THEY MISSED HIS BIGGEST POLICY WEAKNESSES. His policies of protectionism are terrible, terrible ideas. His support of the union bill is probably unwise (at least in this business climate.) He offers no realistic plan to balance the budget. Those are the things that he should be questioned on and this article did not even mention them, choosing instead to focus on the ridiculous, pointless Bill Ayers thing.
It’s a terrible effort.