Redstate

I actually think the growing meme that the Obamas are unpatriotic is more potentially damaging. The lack of crossing his heart during the national anthem, the refusal to wear a flag pin and his wife's comments about never be proud of America are much more likely to turn off non-ideological voters than childhood coke usage (at least among my friends).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

For libs and probably several moderates, Obama is a "hero" for admitting to substance abuse. Never forget, liberals are not held to any morals, so being open about immoral behavior is a non-issue. I don't think McCain would do well to bring that up.
Conservatives being led...by McCain will have to strategically attack Obama. "Un-Patriotism", dealings with corrupt middle-eastern men (with possibly terrorist ties), the Born Alive Infant Act are some good starting points.
But I think what McCain and company must do, is unveil Obama's spending package and show what that package will do to the average American's pocket book. Ignorant citizens may like the ideology behind socialized health care, funding for $1/day nations, etc...but if he can show what that is going to cost the average American worker, mountains may be moved.
MelZ

I don't think McCain can point to the effect of Obama's tax package while at the same time advancing a cap-and-trade package for carbon emissions that will cause the cost of nearly everything to skyrocket (though, on the up side, it's promised to create thousands of new "jobs"!!).

The most depressing thing about this election cycle is that, no matter who's elected, we're going to see the imposition of a useless set of restrictions that will effectively shred the economy, all so the GW alarmists can indulge thier superstitions.

The fact that Obama/Hillary will shred the economy AND raise taxes while McCain will be satisfied with simply shredding the economy doesn't exactly sound like a motivation.
_________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

or at least Tangerines and Oranges. Cap/trade bills impose implicit costs, but they are not the same as government spending in terms of visible tax dollar outlays.

Yes, yes, I know the economics. I'm talking about the politics.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

"For libs and probably several moderates, Obama is a "hero" for admitting to substance abuse. Never forget, liberals are not held to any morals, so being open about immoral behavior is a non-issue."

This incident seems mostly similar to Bush's alcoholism and DUI. It is entirely in the past. In this case, Obama didn't try to hide it (like Bush did with the DUI). It shows that he has learned from mistakes. And it wasn't while he was in office.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Obama might have a glass jaw, but I don't see him killing Democrats downticket.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

We can't think this way and let Obama win the White House. With Reid and Pelosi, Obama will socialize health care, waste billions on jobs for the environment, waste billions "ending world poverty", deconstruct our military (remember Bill), leave us vulnerable to attack, divide this country by getting Congress and his cult-like followers to move us to the far left, and the list goes on and on..... Remember what Reagan said -- "The closest thing to eternal life is a government program."

Erik, this is a great post by the way -- very informative. Obama definitely has weaknesses on issues Americans care about. However, let's not forget that he has an army of very mobilized supporters, kind of like Bush did in 2004. We have to mobilize for McCain and leave our disagreements with him for later. The risks are too great.

Hillary is the easier one to beat. There would be a lot of crossover votes for McCain in a Hillary election, and with Nader eroding her support on the far left, McCain would have a chance.

McCain would be the oldest man to assume the presidency, while Obama would be the youngest, and that just about says it all.

It's true that Obama is a featherweight when it comes to new ideas, and he wouldn't stand a chance against McCain if the contest were limited to positions and experience. But the American electorate has long since turned into the American audience. You can think of Hillary is the Lifetime Channel, McCain as the History channel, and Obama as MTV. Guess which one has the highest advertising rates?

______________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

assumed office he was 42.

I'm not convinced McCain will be capable of explaining his positions and experience. His latest blunder about how he will loose if Americans associate Iraq with him and then he tries to retract that statement with:

"If I may, I'd like to retract 'I'll lose.' But I don't think there's any doubt that how they judge Iraq will have a direct relation to their judgment of me, my support of the surge," McCain added. "Clearly, I am tied to it to a large degree."

He is already sounding senile.

I'm praying that the Democrats come into the convention with Obama slightly in the lead for regular delegates, and the Clintone manage to strong-arm the nomination through the superdelegates.

Not only would that leave McCain facing the weaker opponent, but it would also guarantee the Democrats losing the automatic black vote that they've been able to take for granted for a generation.
_________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

a battle of ideas, but I'd by lying if I said I had never thought about this exact scenario. I'm fairly certain Hillary would tear apart her party for a shot at the White House; I'm fairly sure she's already started by pitting latinos vs. blacks.

"I had planned on voting for Fred, because once I'd like to see what it feels like to be able to fully believe in the person I'm voting for."

I had the same plan, and for the same reason.

but for a slightly different reason. She's the more conservative electable candidate. I'm pretty much convinced that barring a Democrat meltdown in the convention the outcome in the fall is foregone.

I'd be more worried about the cocaine use than the pot use. And, in any event, of course it did not work. It was a Democratic primary.

Fight On!

Speaking only for myself, the cocaine thing is probably not the best use of the campaign's energy. With a little effort, that one could probably be turned into a positive, e.g. "I learned that the false hope of cocaine was a poor substitute for the REAL hope of change" or some such blather.

Current events include the invasion of Pakistan, the far out of the mainstream anti-gun stands, the pro-porn vote you mentioned, nationalized health care, his left of left abortion stands, and the general vacuity of most of his rhetoric.

You can't afford the price of free corn.

Who said anything about the McCain campaign using it? I doubt McCain will do anything negative.

Fight On!

don't distinguish between the official campaign and its sympathizers.

As you point out, Obama should be batting practice on the issues, and my concern is that the more we let Obama talk about his victory over his past demons (a la George W and his alcoholism), the worse it is for McCain.

To the extent it can be made an issue, it would probably have to be framed as a "poor judgment" and "easily-led" issue, neither of which are big pluses in a Commander-in-Chief.
You can't afford the price of free corn.

I think going after Obama's past cocaine use is a road we don't want to tread. I don't believe it paints his character that negatively; it might even help it. We need to go after him on the issues, like where all of the money for his universal healthcare system is coming from, etc.

I saw reports with numbers ranging from 4 million to 20 million. My guess is its probably more like 50 maybe as high as 75 million. ( If you were at the tunnel, or the limelight in the 80's you'd think it was probably in the 99 percent range)

This determines how effective the issue is. If the number is large the issue is small and vice versa.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

McCain's already been in one war that was fought half-way. It cost him five and half years of hell on earth. I don't think he'll fight this one half-way.

Not when we're done with it. Think about this: Obama is going to have to hold Kerry's states and pick up some of Bush's. I bet he can take Ohio.

But then, stuff like this sways blue collar voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, etc.

The gun stuff will hurt him in New Hampshire.

And all of this together will solidify McCain in places like Colorado.

The cumulative effect will really be powerful.

Fight On!

Fwiw, I think the strained porn shop/elementary school meme seems a bit too "church ladyish" to draw in swing voters.

Not really. It wasn't just "porn shops" per se but also local convenience stores who decided to augment their income by creating sections of their store to sell porn.

My local polling station in Illinois was a public elementary school. Click on this link to see the Google Map of the area, at the intersection of W. Lawrence Avenue and N. Wolcott Avenue. Spin the camera.

Looking due South down Wolcott Avenue, the large cluster of buildings on the right is a public K-12 elementary school. If you spin 180 degrees and look north, on the east side of the street there's a convenience store that immediately took advantage of the rule to start selling porn -- DVDs, videotapes, magazines and movies -- on the front counter. That store was absolutely mobbed every day with kids on their way to and from school, most of them lived in the neighborhood (which was about 35% Hispanic.)

After about two weeks, the parents got wind of it and were so outraged that they pressured the store owner to at least move the material out of direct view, behind the frount counter. Previously they had set it up right next to the candy and gum, and kids were grabbing the boxes. You might think that sounds "church ladyish," but I can assure you that most of the residents of my neighborhood were Democrats -- by an overwhelming majority -- and they were still outraged that their 9 year olds were being exposed to hard core pornography on their way to school in the morning. And this stuff wasn't the Spice TV or Playboy variety, either -- this was the heavy-duty trenchcoat crowd stuff.

True story of Obama's time in the Illinois Legislature.

Support the Patriot Post | Defend Liberty - Join the NRA | Visit me at TMR

"...the home-schooled readers of Tim LaHaye..."

Just for the record, not all homeschoolers buy into the "Last Days" nonsense. Many of us are standard amil/postmil, and some of us are even preterist.

I realize that strictly speaking your comment doesn't logically equate homeschoolers with Tim LaHaye readers, but all the same, I want people to realize they don't always go hand in hand.

Agreed...and thank you for emphasizing the distinction.

The landscape isn't what it seemed 15 years ago--maybe more Reformed are homeschooling, or more homeschoolers are becoming Reformed!

soli Deo gloria

keep hope alive

He has written some works of fiction that paint an interesting scenario about how the last days might play out. Why the scorn?

To really explain this would cause a threadjack of monumental proportions. To summarize (hopefully beneath the threadjack radar), let me just say that LaHaye's interpretation of escatology is based on some very unnatural readings of scripture. The "Left Behind" works of fiction are interesting to be sure, but Jesus indicated that the end of the age and his coming would be before all the disciples had died. These things have all been fulfilled ages ago.

Perhaps I should write a diary about this so people can discuss?

there is nothing unnatural about a premil position. However, as you say, this would be a un-necessary threadjack.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

these works as fiction. Nothing more, nothing less.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

soli Deo gloria

I think McCain has a good chance at beating this punk--err, I mean, guy. But the amoral, hyper-emotional, anti-intellectual, Euro-wannabe masses of this country can still be a force to be dealt with.

Yes, they will respond in the same way their equivalent on the right did to Mike Huckabee -- in a way that emboldens people who normally aren't too involved to get involved in support of the person these elites are attacking.

Fight On!

This is why I fear Obama will never have to answer specifics on any policy change he talks about until he's residing @ 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Anyone see the opening bit to SNL this weekend? Who exactly is gonna press him on specifics?

McCain? Maybe in debates - but a good orator like Obama can talk all night and not say anything.

MSM? Yeah, right. (See SNL above)

FOX or talk radio? Preaching to the choir.

I'm afraid the majority of voters can't see past the 'change' message and won't until it's too late.

Nepper

So I have no real reason not to note that going negative on the challenging candidate that year worked like nobody's business.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

So I have no real reason not to note that going negative on the challenging candidate that year worked like nobody's business.

It could never have worked if Bush Senior hadn't been running on a platform to continue the Reagan policies, which were both successful and popular. ("Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!")

Bush Senior ran as Reagan's heir.

That option is not open to McCain. He cannot run as Bush's heir and expect to win.

Gore tried it first in the D primaries and it didn't sink Dukakis. The general electorate was not as forgiving.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

They did go negative, but it was far from the deciding factor.

Goldwater lost primarily because of a major split in the GOP. The Rockefeller moderates simply refused to support him. Whereas the incumbent, Lyndon Johnson, was running as the heir to the beloved JFK.

Nixon won re-election because of his successful foreign policy in his first term. By the time McGovern took him on, most American troops were out of Vietnam and the Vietnam War had largely evaporated as an issue for all but hard-core liberals.

The examples I referred to--1968, 1980, 1992--where when the incumbent party was UNABLE to run on their record and was reduced to ONLY going negative on the challenger. Humphrey in 1968, Carter in 1980, had very little they could point to with pride as genuine achievements. All they could do was attack their political opponents.

In 1964, LBJ ran the ad that is generally considered to be the most negative and effective TV ad ever -- the Daisy ad. A little girl pulls the petals of a daisy counting one..two--three...gradually superimposed by a ten...nine...eight countdown followed by the mushroomloud.

It ran just before the election adn was understood by all to be a reference to Goldwater=nuclear war. Not negative??

In 1972 nixon ran an extremely negative campaign on Mcgovern (warranted, in my opinion, as McGovern was a dangerously left-wing isolationist and defeatist). The Democrat party and its candidte were described as the party of 'acid, amnesty and abortion'. (In those days it was amnesty for vietnam war deserters).

I don't think McCain needs to run anegative campaign against Obama. He will, as he started to do after Wisconsin, draw the contrasts. The problem for Hillary was that the contrasts were not all that great between her & Obama. Neither has any executive experience, military or business experience, etc. That is not the case with mcCain.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

my dad cast his last vote for a national D in '64 because he thought Goldwater would start a nuclear war. And my dad hated LBJ. Negative ads work.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I was nine years old and I thought Goldwater would start a nuclear war. I didn't read that in the Op-Ed section of the Times. LBJ swiftboated Goldwater so badly, even 4th graders got the message. Negative ads do work.

"You're gonna need more than one lesson. And you're gonna get more than one lesson."

First, the Republicans will not use the race card.
Second, the democrats will accuse them of using the race card.
Third, the accusation will stick.

Argue your differences. If your opponents accuse you of being racist for taking a political stand, doesn't it really show that they are racist and think along racist lines?

Stand by what you believe, state it is polite but serious way, and don't ever apologize for it.

No need for private polls!

It depends on the nature of the attack.

Stating your policy differences does not leave you open to a charge of racism.

But attacking the character of Obama, a man who is happily married and never been divorced, relatively free of personal scandal, when the GOP had popular candidates with more questionable personal histories (like Giuliani) is going to backfire big-time.

That's what the GOP is worried about. They can't be "holier than thou" when Obama has a cleaner lifetime history than many of their own Republicans do.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

McCain should definitely go after Obama's foreign policy and national defense naivete.

improve. Otherwise that will be a tough sell in November.

Even given the percentage of Americans that are (essentially) pacifists, and adding a portion of those who have grown tired due to the duration and MSM-reported mishandling and lack of progress, the fact remains that Americans hate to lose. McCain can win by promising progress and victory. He's not the President now, so he doesn't get blamed for the mistakes. And by pushing for the surge as a Senator, and with his military background, he'll be a credible choice, especially compared to the naive "let's bring the troops home now and damn the consequences" Obama.

be far easier to make the argument that he was right all along and Obama was out of touch. If things go poorly he will catch at least some of the blame as a result of being Republican, unless he is willing to blame Bush outright which I doubt.

If I were working for McCain and developing contingency plans for a "worst case" scenario on the war, I would suggest he go back to throwing Rumsfeld under the bus, paint it as a management problem and push the need for "real solutions" not just knee jerk reactions.

McCain can win by promising progress and victory. He's not the President now, so he doesn't get blamed for the mistakes.

The problem is that McCain has NOT been promising "victory" as Americans have traditionally understood it--the enemy throws in the towel and surrenders, and then our troops come home to victory parades. What McCain has said is this:

McCain: "The American people also deserve to know that the path ahead will be long and difficult. They have heard many times that the violence in Iraq will subside soon - when a transitional government is in place, when Saddam is captured, when elections are held, when a constitution is in place. John McCain believes it is far better to describe the situation just as it is - difficult right now, but not without hope."

http://tinyurl.com/3ylqqu

That kind of "Straight Talk" may be honest, but to the average voter it sounds pretty grim and downbeat. It contrasts sharply with Obama's optimism ("Yes, We Can!"). It also contrasts sharply with Reagan's visionary boldness in predicting the imminent collapse of Communism "on the ash heap of history."

I haven't heard McCain predicting that Islamic terrorism will soon be "on the ash heap of history."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/wuspols2...

If McCain wants to succeed in this election he has to cut some ties with all these wishy washy independents and maverick Republicans. Makinnon has loser written all over him.

Sounds like this guy will take himself out of the mix.

Good riddance.

He's endorsed McCain, worked for McCain and promises to support McCain regardless. Because he feels he would be conflicted in a McCain-Obama race, he will voluntarily step down and work from the outside.

We need more honesty and integrity like that in campaigns.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I think our field was so divided with soe many candidates, no one really was willing to go all in on fundraising. Now that we've selected a nominee, I'd expect the big money to start comingiin heavily. I was waiting to donate for the general election because I didn't wanna give heavily to a guy that could lose-I suspect I'm not alone.

"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.

The problem, as I understand it, comes from the FEC. Because McCain indicated he would take public financing, the FEC is not allowing him to use any campaign contributions until after the convention, if I remember correctly. That means he will only be able to spend the less than $5 million he currently has between now and September. In the meantime, Obama sits on enough money to feed and house an entire continent.

Does anyone think the FEC issue will be resolve any time soon?

It's not a matter of whether the FEC allows the spending or not. McCain will spend the money. The question is whether or not he will be subject to prosecution (maybe not the right word) for violating rules later.

I'm not a lawyer but accountants define an 'asset' as a future expected benefit. It sounds like he treated the matching funds as an asset in securing a loan. Even though he didn't take possession of the money he did 'use' the money. He will argue that he didn't use the money he just promised that he would have access to the money. This will keep the lawyers busy.

The problem is that he has taken a loan out with the matching funds for public financing as collateral. McCain's bill states that you are only allowed to spend $56 million before getting the nomination of your party and he has spent $49 million already. That means he has 7 million to spend from now until the nomination, and that is not including what he spent in February.

-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'

I posted this a while ago...

McCain's FEC Problem

言わぬが花

Plus, Obama is holding up the nomination of an FEC chairman, thereby denying them a quorum, so they can't do anything on this yet. I think that is the real story here. Obama playing partisan politics.

Also, there is that guarantee that Obama gave that he would take matching funds if the Republican would too. It looks like he is not a man of his words. Granted, I think it is stupid to take matching funds, especially with the fundraising he has been doing, but if you give your word, you ought to live up to it. Obama isn't.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

stuff. The loan, IMO, is a non-issue. It's the Ohio ballot that I think will be the sticking point here. Granted, I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like they can get him on that point. And that sucks.

Those words seem to suggest that people will make some sort of judgment about Barack on the basis of his name only--I sincerely hope that's not the intention. There are lots of words to describe that suggestion and none of them belong here.

I hope republicans will stick to the high road on this issue - the low road goes as low as you want it to.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

There's a world of difference between saying Barack Hussein Obama, and saying B. Hussein Obama or just Hussein Obama.

The people we went after were doing the latter two.

Spelling out a candidate's name more fully than a normal person's is an old thing to do: Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Further [edit: site policy] complaints go to the contact form, by the way, though if you're so freaking ashamed of Red State, just go to Daily Kos already.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Rodham is her maiden name, the W is obviously used to differentiate between the Presidents. No one here is writing about Senator John Sidney McCain. I don't think people use it because it's an "old" thing to do, but more often to stir up xenophobia about him.

And I don't think Erick was using it in that tense. I think he was simply pointing out that in a general campaign his middle name will receive much more attention. There is really no marker to determine whether this would swing potential voters away from him or not.

lots of references to "George Herbert Walker Bush" when there was no need to differentiate between himself and his son, long before his son was even in the political spotlight. I'm sure this was done to stir up the democrat rhetoric of being born with a silver spoon in his mouth. And there were many references to Ronald Wilson Reagan.

So let's get off this canard and get to the substance of what Barack Hussein Obama stands for and believes in. From what I can see, it isn't much.

John Sidney McCain here lately. I've seen it used several times over the course of the last week.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I was being distracted by my 7th grader freakingout over continental drift. ACK!

"Sidney?" His middle name is Sidney? Is it too late for him to change it to Hussein?

In the end the problem isn't Erick it is everyone who doesn't make an immediate comment saying don't do that.

Believe me, I've been making the case on other conservative blogs that the GOP has to take the high road and avoid being tagged with labels of bigotry or hypocrisy (Giuliani has a more questionable personal history than Obama has, but he's going to be an honored speaker at the GOP convention I'm sure).

It will backfire: The media will keep after McCain, asking him if he agrees with such charges. It will force McCain to keep distancing himself from various parts of the GOP base that employ such tactics, splitting the party and the movement even more.

I'm just tired of posting the same thing on every blog, that's all.

and is standing opposite Chief Justice John Roberts, he will place his hand on the bible and be inaugurated as Barack Hussien Obama, the 44th President of the US. It is his name and we should not be afraid to use it. There is no low road here. It is the man's given name. It speaks of his heritage, which he is using as a selling point on the campaign trail.
You people need to get over this PC nonsense.

You are indignant that anyone would suggest Obama's name can't be used, but that is not what most consider objectionable. The issue is using his name against him as a cultural or racial attack. My first name is Liandro, and anyone can feel free to use it as such. But if I were seeking a job, and an opponent or rival used the "exotic" nature of my name against me, I would certainly find that objectionable. Any argument made by said rival that he/she was "just using my name" and that there was "no low road" would be incredibly dishonest and manipulative.

Among other things, you are trying to pretend that the name Hussein has no negative American preconception, while simultaneously ignoring that some individuals will use Obama's middle name profusely despite rarely, if ever, using any other politician's middle name. You are also ignoring those who swap out "Obama" with "Osama", or use them together in little rhymes they think are witty, or any other name-related attack.

There are plenty of areas of substance on which to attack Obama. I find it hypocritical that some choose to attack him on how abstract his rhetoric is (a valid line of attack) then turn around and use something as shallow as his name against him. It is, quite frankly, insulting to many more then just Obama, and it is disgraceful to any who engage in it.

If we are going to be honest, then you must acknowledge that it is HOW we invoke his name that can put us on the low road.

What kind of cheap, pathetic, substanceless Potemkin candidate is Barack Obama, that people get so worked up over saying his name?

I'm one of those who freely guns after RS posters who are clearly *modifying* his name in a way to try to bait, but saying his full name is a standard thing.

If you people can't handle that, you're basically admitting the candidate has nothing but fluff holding him up, if he has no substantive issues to fall back on once the glare comes.

Again: Barack Hussein Obama will be the most underqualified presidential nominee in the history of the United States of America, if he'll be sunk by people saying his full name.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I believe Obama has as much or more experience then Honest Abe.

Who, as a side note, tore the Constitution to shreds to keep the Union together.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Lincoln had only two years in DC before becoming President. That's less then Barack.

However, not sure about how much stste level experience he had.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

Barack does have more experience.

You're usually more on top of your game.