Kerwick's Corner: Why Barack Obama Won
Tuesday November 18, 2008
I offered my opinion, and you had your say.
Now, About.com guest writer Jack Kerwick offers his two cents about the factors that contributed to Democrat Barack Obama's victory over Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
Kerwick seems to agree that the deck was stacked against McCain from the very beginning, and what chances he did have, he squandered. Kerwick also apparently believes that McCain's lack of solid conservative credentials might have had a role in the election's outcome.
From the column:
McCain and Obama differ in degree, not in kind. The latter is an out and out leftist, but the former leans left on several issues also: there is a fine line between “centrism” and “leftism.” A left-leaning Republican candidate, or “RINO” (Republican In Name Only), especially one like McCain who had long ago fallen out of favor with the base of his party, can’t but fail to elicit the type of passion and excitement characteristic of Obama’s supporters. It is true that his pick of Sarah Palin breathed life back into his base, but the inescapable fact is that McCain was at the top of the ticket, not Palin.Photo © Scott Olson/Getty Images
More from Kerwick:
Comments
Kerwick seems to have trouble dealing with reality:
“It is true that his pick of Sarah Palin breathed life back into his base, but the inescapable fact is that McCain was at the top of the ticket, not Palin.”
Of course, the rash and irresponsible selection of her as his running mate spoke volumes about him. Does Kerwick mention this? No. Does Kerwick write about how Sarah Palin’s poll numbers declined faster than you can say “hockey mom” after she was revealed to be horribly unqualified and ill-informed patholigical liar? No. Has he EVER acknowledged that she probably cost him several thousand (probably hundreds of thousands) of votes from right-leaning independents like myself? Not once.
Jack Kerwick isn’t doing anything to identify the problems with the current Republican Party because he’s part of the problem, or at the very least he is defending what’s wrong with it. As soon as he is willing to be intellectually honest for once, I’ll consider his commentary. Until then, he’s nothing more than an eloquent Rush Limbaugh.