Paul Christian Guest Column: Unity is a ‘no-go’ for President ‘O’

Hold on, America! If you think that we are no longer a “blue and red state” country because of President “O’s” victory, you are naively mistaken.

Why Barack Obama supporters are so quick to call this a “landslide” or “unifying” victory for the country is ludicrous -- and plain false.

Let’s return to Earth, also known as a metaphor for reality. The popular vote of this election is not so different than 2004. In that Bush victory, he attained just over 50 percent of the vote. He almost had 50 percent popularity in the debacle of the 2000 election.

In this 2008 cycle, Obama has approximately 53 percent of the popular vote.

Were there any Washington pundits and political columnists not complaining about a split American opinion last cycle?

The silence is deafening.

When President-elect Obama had his first chance at national stardom, he was toasted and revered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He exclaimed in his poignant keynote speech that there are no “blue states or red states -- just the United States.”

Craving a unifying leader, Americans have pointed to this speech as the stalwart example of neo camaraderie in a brand new century of the American story.

Sorry, soon-to-be President “O,” but your now famous speech was “just words.”

Why is America still divided?

Obama’s record indicates extreme leftism.

Great speeches of “hope” and “change” for a better tomorrow does not remove the facts of a sparse and extreme record -- a record that when compared to “new beginning” rhetoric indicates paradoxical reality.

Enter a “maverick,” John McCain, a supposedly centrist candidate who could have actually made us a country of purple tint.

Let me first recognize the huge elephant in the room for McCain: George W. Bush.

Despite the “he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time” rant by liberals, McCain is lauded by Democratic Party leaders as an “honorable man,” as Hillary Clinton called him at this year’s Democratic National Convention.

His positions did not mirror the Bush Administration’s on the issues of torture, the strategy in Iraq and government spending, to name a few contrary positions.

Nonetheless, McCain could not remove himself from the Machiavellian stigma following the Bush Administration. And the Bush specter that was able to be thrust onto the Republican Party in such injurious fashion was the most obvious GOP anomaly this election cycle.

Notwithstanding the Bush injury, McCain made it a close race. Where did he ruin his chances?

The maverick attempted to make concessions to the base, but it was too little too late, nestled in one lackadaisical choice that indelibly churned the stomachs of many moderates.

Gov. Sarah Palin.

The governor’s interview trepidation and limited answers on foreign policy and judicial prudence left a tremendous void in her VP credibility. The critical question for conservatives: Were there better choices for a Republican VP nominee?

If we are honest with ourselves, our answers should be a resounding “yes.”

Palin increased the respect of the base of Republicans for the ticket but polarized McCain.

And why did McCain champion a huge spending bill of government socialism, the bailout?

One question for McCain: How can you call your undeterred need to slash spending with a “hatchet” coupled with the biggest government safety net in the history of the country a consistently conservative position?

Outside of the above, conservatives just showed up to vote against someone -- rather than vote for McCain. Indeed, this election had the fear factor bandwagon of conservatives flooding the polls.

Republicans believe that president-elect Obama is the Manchurian candidate. The trepidation of questionable associations and liberalism led right-wingers to the polls on Nov. 4.

President “O” won the presidency by stimulating some fresh faces, with his rallying call for “change” and “hope,” but even with this call for solidarity could not spoil the partisanship juggernaut.