19/10: Why I Am Voting for McCain
In no particular order. For Obama see this post.
*He's not a Socialist.
* I do not expect him to govern from the left.
*I expect him to nominate less-activist judges than Obama would.
*He may be serious about cutting spending by the Federal Government.
*He is seasoned and experienced.
*I have no doubt he loves America.
*He is honest and open.
*He can laugh at himself.
*He doesn't seem to hold grudges.
*He will not kill the economy with tax increases and income redistribution.
*Palin as VP.
*He gets it that the War against Radical Islam is long, hard, and difficult.
*World bullies, yes I'm thinking of you Russia and you Iran and you China, would hesitate to push McCain, I think.
*He's not a Socialist.
* I do not expect him to govern from the left.
*I expect him to nominate less-activist judges than Obama would.
*He may be serious about cutting spending by the Federal Government.
*He is seasoned and experienced.
*I have no doubt he loves America.
*He is honest and open.
*He can laugh at himself.
*He doesn't seem to hold grudges.
*He will not kill the economy with tax increases and income redistribution.
*Palin as VP.
*He gets it that the War against Radical Islam is long, hard, and difficult.
*World bullies, yes I'm thinking of you Russia and you Iran and you China, would hesitate to push McCain, I think.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Astute Bloggers has gathered all the information into one place on the massive vote fraud problem coming with this election. Looks like we'll see fraud on a scale that will make 2000 and 2004 seem clean by comparison. Also, tensions have been built up such that if it is a McCain victory, we can expect violence.
Welcome to bananna republic politics.
Link via Infidel Blogger's Alliance.
Welcome to bananna republic politics.
Link via Infidel Blogger's Alliance.
In no particular order, the reasons I am not voting for Obama. (reasons for McCain later)
*Not accomplished enough. He has never run a business and met a payroll; or accomplished serious things in politics; nor does he have a list of serious publications detailing a political philosophy.
*He is not seasoned enough. It appears that his greatest testing came from the nomination contest with Hillary Clinton.
*His hubris. In spite of his weak record, he thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States. And, as Farmer pointed out, he cannot admit mistakes. He also seems unable to laugh at himself, or tolerate it when others laugh at him.
*His voting record in the United States Senate is the most liberal of that body; quite a feat in a group that includes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
*His political style is Chicago intimidation. Attack his critics personally as racist, distort their records, ally himself with voter fraud (do a web search for ACORN and OBAMA).
*He defended killing or allowing to die infants born alive during abortions.
*His long association with Hate Americans such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and others.
*His slippery half-truths and omissions when confronted about his past associations. Obama makes Tricky Dick Nixon seem straightforward.
*His long association with socialists and other leftists makes me assume that his governing philosophy will be hard left.
*I expect a president Obama to nominate judicial activist judges.
*The Democrats probably will control Congress after the elections. Obama in the White House will give Dems a free hand to do whatever they wish to the country.
*Michelle. Notice that she is being kept out of the news. She has a record of hating America, and being whiny and demanding in her jobs.
*I really do want a black president some day. But, I want this step up from our past to be accomplished by someone who will succeed. Someone with a track record of accomplishment.
*Obama seems lost without his teleprompter. His long pauses and stutters during unscripted speaking makes me think he is not quick on his feet.
*He seems naive about foreign policy, and on a deep level naive about power relations in the real world.
*His biggest executive decision so far of the General Election campaign: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate.
*Not accomplished enough. He has never run a business and met a payroll; or accomplished serious things in politics; nor does he have a list of serious publications detailing a political philosophy.
*He is not seasoned enough. It appears that his greatest testing came from the nomination contest with Hillary Clinton.
*His hubris. In spite of his weak record, he thinks he is qualified to be President of the United States. And, as Farmer pointed out, he cannot admit mistakes. He also seems unable to laugh at himself, or tolerate it when others laugh at him.
*His voting record in the United States Senate is the most liberal of that body; quite a feat in a group that includes Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
*His political style is Chicago intimidation. Attack his critics personally as racist, distort their records, ally himself with voter fraud (do a web search for ACORN and OBAMA).
*He defended killing or allowing to die infants born alive during abortions.
*His long association with Hate Americans such as Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and others.
*His slippery half-truths and omissions when confronted about his past associations. Obama makes Tricky Dick Nixon seem straightforward.
*His long association with socialists and other leftists makes me assume that his governing philosophy will be hard left.
*I expect a president Obama to nominate judicial activist judges.
*The Democrats probably will control Congress after the elections. Obama in the White House will give Dems a free hand to do whatever they wish to the country.
*Michelle. Notice that she is being kept out of the news. She has a record of hating America, and being whiny and demanding in her jobs.
*I really do want a black president some day. But, I want this step up from our past to be accomplished by someone who will succeed. Someone with a track record of accomplishment.
*Obama seems lost without his teleprompter. His long pauses and stutters during unscripted speaking makes me think he is not quick on his feet.
*He seems naive about foreign policy, and on a deep level naive about power relations in the real world.
*His biggest executive decision so far of the General Election campaign: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate.
12/10: Enough With the Race Card!!!
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
John Lewis: "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."
Lewis also compares McCain and Palin to George Wallace, likening their 2008 campaign rhetoric to the incendiary political speech that contributed to the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls.
See the full statement from the civil rights icon here.
McCain's reaction (as reported by ABC News):
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign."
"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track."
"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
MY REACTION:
Just when I was getting ready to sit back and make the most out of defeat, these guys keep kicking sand in my face.
A huge number of white people in this nation, for a myriad of reasons, desperately want to elect the first African American president of the United States. Am I saying that this sentiment is unanimous? No. Undoubtedly, there are large numbers of whites in America who are horrified at the thought of a black president. Having said that, I have a VERY STRONG hunch that the number of citizens who will cast their vote for a forty-seven-year-old political neophyte because he is black dwarfs the contingent of voters who will vote against him solely because of race.
For me, the potential good that might come as a result of a black president (simply because he is black) is something of a counterweight to the potentially disastrous scenario of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress. But, the axis of liberalism (the academy, Hollywood, and the mainstream media) is not about to let me enjoy this "silver lining" aspect of my impending defeat.
The liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Answer: because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I start salivating like Pavlov's pooch.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to swallow news analysis like the David von Drehle piece in TIME, which argues that as the economy falters, white America has no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. I suppose this assumption is based on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
Of course, this attack by John Lewis on John McCain is more in keeping with the old playbook. Back when the Obama Nation was chastising that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, for his incendiary comments, this thought kept running through my mind: what did he say, exactly?
The accepted evidence that served as the baseline for every one of those "racist Bill" stories was that Clinton repeatedly spewed patently racist comments during the campaign. But every time I read or viewed some form of that story line, it always reminded my of one of those Wikipedia entries in which some statement is followed by the phrase "[citation needed]."
What did he say? When did he say it? Where? What was the quote exactly?
In reality, Clinton simply suggested that the main reason better than 90 percent of African American Democratic primary voters (ironically, previously nearly 100-percent loyal to him) were now voting for an unknown African American candidate might be that Obama himself was an African American.
Was that racist? polarizing? unfair? implausible?
Polarizing maybe. But, seriously folks, did anyone ever really believe Clinton's assertion to be anything other than manifestly correct?
Now Johnny McCain and Sarah Palin are racist (again).
Why?
Because the McCain-Palin campaign has asserted that Barack Obama "pals around with a terrorist," which may or may not be true. We will probably never know. Why? Rather than address the true nature of the relationship with Bill Ayres, the Obama campaign and his "willing accomplices" in the prObama press shout down the question as racist.
When the Keating Five history comes up, McCain addresses the charge rationally and methodically. It is, in fact, an unfair charge--but we understand why it comes up (over and over again). McCain had a relationship with Charles Keating. Every official and/or objective entity that has ever looked at the imbroglio agrees that McCain showed poor judgment but did nothing (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) illegal or unethical.
But it continues to come up, and McCain continues to refute the charge. It is an association that invariably invites many questions.
How is "Ayres and Obama" different?
Part of it is style. Barack Obama has a strong tendency to be right all the time. He was right to say he would meet with rogue leaders without preconditions. Actually, he waffles on that one. Either he did not really say it, or, he said it, and he was right to say it--and now all of McCain's smartest advisers agree that he was right to say it. What he never says is that he misspoke.
He was right to say that the SURGE would not work. Actually, he waffles on that too, alternating between the SURGE really did not work and nobody in their right mind could have expected it to work--and it would have actually worked better if it had not worked. But never, "thankfully, I was wrong about the surge."
On Ayres: it doesn't really matter because Obama was eight years old when Ayres committed acts of terror, and he does not really know the man that well, and, if he does know him well, which he might, it is okay because Ayres is a college professor and a strong ally of Mayor Daley. But, in truth, none of it matters because the whole issue is soaked with racism and should be disqualified on that count. Next Question!!!
This has some backfire potential. John Lewis should have let sleeping dogs lie.
Lewis also compares McCain and Palin to George Wallace, likening their 2008 campaign rhetoric to the incendiary political speech that contributed to the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that killed four young girls.
See the full statement from the civil rights icon here.
McCain's reaction (as reported by ABC News):
"Congressman John Lewis' comments represent a character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond the pale. The notion that legitimate criticism of Senator Obama's record and positions could be compared to Governor George Wallace, his segregationist policies and the violence he provoked is unacceptable and has no place in this campaign."
"I am saddened that John Lewis, a man I've always admired, would make such a brazen and baseless attack on my character and the character of the thousands of hardworking Americans who come to our events to cheer for the kind of reform that will put America on the right track."
"I call on Senator Obama to immediately and personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments that are so clearly designed to shut down debate 24 days before the election. Our country must return to the important debate about the path forward for America."
MY REACTION:
Just when I was getting ready to sit back and make the most out of defeat, these guys keep kicking sand in my face.
A huge number of white people in this nation, for a myriad of reasons, desperately want to elect the first African American president of the United States. Am I saying that this sentiment is unanimous? No. Undoubtedly, there are large numbers of whites in America who are horrified at the thought of a black president. Having said that, I have a VERY STRONG hunch that the number of citizens who will cast their vote for a forty-seven-year-old political neophyte because he is black dwarfs the contingent of voters who will vote against him solely because of race.
For me, the potential good that might come as a result of a black president (simply because he is black) is something of a counterweight to the potentially disastrous scenario of a Democratically controlled White House and Congress. But, the axis of liberalism (the academy, Hollywood, and the mainstream media) is not about to let me enjoy this "silver lining" aspect of my impending defeat.
The liberal establishment in this country has a huge stake in the accepted notion that I am a racist. Why else would a middle-class American continue to vote Republican? Answer: because I am a simpleton who does not understand my own interests. The GOP waves the bloody shirt of race hatred, homophobia, and evangelical sophistry in front of my face, and I start salivating like Pavlov's pooch.
Not too long ago America was "too racist" to elect Obama. But as his election grows more probable, we are now forced to swallow news analysis like the David von Drehle piece in TIME, which argues that as the economy falters, white America has no choice but to accept Obama. Economic fear trumps race prejudice. I suppose this assumption is based on the well-known fact that Barack Obama is an expert on the economy.
Of course, this attack by John Lewis on John McCain is more in keeping with the old playbook. Back when the Obama Nation was chastising that well-known racist, Bill Clinton, for his incendiary comments, this thought kept running through my mind: what did he say, exactly?
The accepted evidence that served as the baseline for every one of those "racist Bill" stories was that Clinton repeatedly spewed patently racist comments during the campaign. But every time I read or viewed some form of that story line, it always reminded my of one of those Wikipedia entries in which some statement is followed by the phrase "[citation needed]."
What did he say? When did he say it? Where? What was the quote exactly?
In reality, Clinton simply suggested that the main reason better than 90 percent of African American Democratic primary voters (ironically, previously nearly 100-percent loyal to him) were now voting for an unknown African American candidate might be that Obama himself was an African American.
Was that racist? polarizing? unfair? implausible?
Polarizing maybe. But, seriously folks, did anyone ever really believe Clinton's assertion to be anything other than manifestly correct?
Now Johnny McCain and Sarah Palin are racist (again).
Why?
Because the McCain-Palin campaign has asserted that Barack Obama "pals around with a terrorist," which may or may not be true. We will probably never know. Why? Rather than address the true nature of the relationship with Bill Ayres, the Obama campaign and his "willing accomplices" in the prObama press shout down the question as racist.
When the Keating Five history comes up, McCain addresses the charge rationally and methodically. It is, in fact, an unfair charge--but we understand why it comes up (over and over again). McCain had a relationship with Charles Keating. Every official and/or objective entity that has ever looked at the imbroglio agrees that McCain showed poor judgment but did nothing (ABSOLUTELY NOTHING) illegal or unethical.
But it continues to come up, and McCain continues to refute the charge. It is an association that invariably invites many questions.
How is "Ayres and Obama" different?
Part of it is style. Barack Obama has a strong tendency to be right all the time. He was right to say he would meet with rogue leaders without preconditions. Actually, he waffles on that one. Either he did not really say it, or, he said it, and he was right to say it--and now all of McCain's smartest advisers agree that he was right to say it. What he never says is that he misspoke.
He was right to say that the SURGE would not work. Actually, he waffles on that too, alternating between the SURGE really did not work and nobody in their right mind could have expected it to work--and it would have actually worked better if it had not worked. But never, "thankfully, I was wrong about the surge."
On Ayres: it doesn't really matter because Obama was eight years old when Ayres committed acts of terror, and he does not really know the man that well, and, if he does know him well, which he might, it is okay because Ayres is a college professor and a strong ally of Mayor Daley. But, in truth, none of it matters because the whole issue is soaked with racism and should be disqualified on that count. Next Question!!!
This has some backfire potential. John Lewis should have let sleeping dogs lie.
Here.
Everything you need to know about the Sub-Prime Loan mess we now are in, and as taxpayers are now committed to bailing out.
Everything you need to know about the Sub-Prime Loan mess we now are in, and as taxpayers are now committed to bailing out.
Now this is funny right here, I don't care who you are.
Machina Est Deus
From Iowahawk via the Rottweiler.
Machina Est Deus
From Iowahawk via the Rottweiler.
27/09: More Post-Debate Analysis
Commenting on my post, in which I asserted McCain won on foreign policy but nobody cares very much, one of my friends (RB) came away seeing McCain as rigid:
"McCain looked every bit the over-zealous Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,...Bomb, Bomb, Iran candidate with his stiff body language and his even stiffer rhetoric that allows no flexibility for a political world that is far different than the one that McCain grew up in."
BTW, kudos to Obama for inserting McCain's "lighthearted" Dr. Strangelove moment into the debate. It was the only time McCain actually winced. It is obviously an exceedingly embarrassing incident, which Team McCain would rather forget. After last night, not bloody likely. The old clip received a new life in the post-debate coverage.
RB also agreed with me (and the conventional wisdom) "that foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's territory, but it came across as more of a draw...that's not good enough for McCain who has to land knockout punches to overcome...his voting record over the last eight years."
While I actually agreed in large part with RB's analysis in re style, our differences in re substance speak to the human propensity to see these things depending on our predispositions.
Nothing that might have happened in the debate last night was likely to change my opinion or that of RB.
Who were they talking to?
What is the import of these productions?
The big TV debates are meaningful in changing people's minds in two ways:
1. for the very small number of actual voters who are so un-interested in politics that they have not formed an opinion yet, but for some reason tuned in on a Friday night, the TV duel might have made an impact (did I mention this is a very small number).
2. much more important is the buzz (non viewers who will hear who won). This is why whoever wins the spin really won this debate. Right now RB's analysis is emerging as the consensus (another reason why McCain had little advantage in showing up to the debate--although he had no better option).
Without the knockout, or knockdown, or even a stagger--nothing changed. Obama went into the round ahead on points, and he emerged from the round still ahead on points, and he is now one round closer to the conclusion of the contest.
It was a good night for Obama.
See also Tocqueville's addition of Quin Hilyer's take, which also asserts that McCain lost in the perception wars.
"McCain looked every bit the over-zealous Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,...Bomb, Bomb, Iran candidate with his stiff body language and his even stiffer rhetoric that allows no flexibility for a political world that is far different than the one that McCain grew up in."
BTW, kudos to Obama for inserting McCain's "lighthearted" Dr. Strangelove moment into the debate. It was the only time McCain actually winced. It is obviously an exceedingly embarrassing incident, which Team McCain would rather forget. After last night, not bloody likely. The old clip received a new life in the post-debate coverage.
RB also agreed with me (and the conventional wisdom) "that foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's territory, but it came across as more of a draw...that's not good enough for McCain who has to land knockout punches to overcome...his voting record over the last eight years."
While I actually agreed in large part with RB's analysis in re style, our differences in re substance speak to the human propensity to see these things depending on our predispositions.
Nothing that might have happened in the debate last night was likely to change my opinion or that of RB.
Who were they talking to?
What is the import of these productions?
The big TV debates are meaningful in changing people's minds in two ways:
1. for the very small number of actual voters who are so un-interested in politics that they have not formed an opinion yet, but for some reason tuned in on a Friday night, the TV duel might have made an impact (did I mention this is a very small number).
2. much more important is the buzz (non viewers who will hear who won). This is why whoever wins the spin really won this debate. Right now RB's analysis is emerging as the consensus (another reason why McCain had little advantage in showing up to the debate--although he had no better option).
Without the knockout, or knockdown, or even a stagger--nothing changed. Obama went into the round ahead on points, and he emerged from the round still ahead on points, and he is now one round closer to the conclusion of the contest.
It was a good night for Obama.
See also Tocqueville's addition of Quin Hilyer's take, which also asserts that McCain lost in the perception wars.
26/09: Stop with all the Silliness
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Enough with all the talk about whether McCain is going to show up for the debate, whether he made a good political move asking for a postponement, or whether he blinked by relenting.
If this were some ordinary time, all that campaign kibbitzing might be tolerable (perhaps even enjoyable).
If this were some ordinary time, a McCain "snub" of David Letterman might be of some interest and comedic value.
If this were some ordinary time, a televised presidential debate might be a harmless and entertaining diversion.
But clearly this is no ordinary time.
Shame on McCain for giving in to the clamor.
More importantly, shame on us for acting like David Letterman and presidential debates have any substantive importance. Sure, modern TV debates are consequential because they shape perception--and perception is reality--but nothing is ever actually revealed in one of these spectacles. Surely, no one expects either candidate to seriously address substantive issues in a format designed to create soundbites and retain the attention of a serially inattentive nation. Surely, we will discover nothing new about Senators Obama and McCain tonight that any reasonably informed voter did not already know.
But the show must go on.
McCain backed down because his opponents across the aisle and in the media would have likely spun his refusal as cowardice and/or a cynical ploy--but so what? If you truly are genuine about saving the country at any personal price, what does it matter what the dream merchants say about you?
The REAL ISSUE. This economic precipice is a defining moment in American history. We are not treating this crossroads with the seriousness it deserves. Rather, we continue to react to the potentially crippling financial crisis as if it is just one more installment of a melodrama in which the fate of the characters bear no relation to our real lives. Will the Wall Street fat cats bilk the people once again? Will Bernanke and Paulson talk Congress into a deal? Will the House Republicans outsmart the Democrats? "Turn it up, dear, this is getting good." Or, more likely, "what else is on?"
Tune in next week to see if the USA survives.
If this were some ordinary time, all that campaign kibbitzing might be tolerable (perhaps even enjoyable).
If this were some ordinary time, a McCain "snub" of David Letterman might be of some interest and comedic value.
If this were some ordinary time, a televised presidential debate might be a harmless and entertaining diversion.
But clearly this is no ordinary time.
Shame on McCain for giving in to the clamor.
More importantly, shame on us for acting like David Letterman and presidential debates have any substantive importance. Sure, modern TV debates are consequential because they shape perception--and perception is reality--but nothing is ever actually revealed in one of these spectacles. Surely, no one expects either candidate to seriously address substantive issues in a format designed to create soundbites and retain the attention of a serially inattentive nation. Surely, we will discover nothing new about Senators Obama and McCain tonight that any reasonably informed voter did not already know.
But the show must go on.
McCain backed down because his opponents across the aisle and in the media would have likely spun his refusal as cowardice and/or a cynical ploy--but so what? If you truly are genuine about saving the country at any personal price, what does it matter what the dream merchants say about you?
The REAL ISSUE. This economic precipice is a defining moment in American history. We are not treating this crossroads with the seriousness it deserves. Rather, we continue to react to the potentially crippling financial crisis as if it is just one more installment of a melodrama in which the fate of the characters bear no relation to our real lives. Will the Wall Street fat cats bilk the people once again? Will Bernanke and Paulson talk Congress into a deal? Will the House Republicans outsmart the Democrats? "Turn it up, dear, this is getting good." Or, more likely, "what else is on?"
Tune in next week to see if the USA survives.
25/09: Next Move
Quick Thought:
Team McCain should suggest that the VP debate be moved to Friday. This flies in the face of the media template that Sarah Palin must be protected. Let everybody know that Sarah is ready for prime time. Bring on Joe and the pr0bama press volcano.
The VP debate will be a circus. Let the crowds watch the spectacle while the business of government is done in executive session over the weekend.
Plan B: if Obama insists on showing up on Friday, send Sarah Palin to debate him (while McCain stays "suspended" and engaged in important matters of state).
Team McCain should suggest that the VP debate be moved to Friday. This flies in the face of the media template that Sarah Palin must be protected. Let everybody know that Sarah is ready for prime time. Bring on Joe and the pr0bama press volcano.
The VP debate will be a circus. Let the crowds watch the spectacle while the business of government is done in executive session over the weekend.
Plan B: if Obama insists on showing up on Friday, send Sarah Palin to debate him (while McCain stays "suspended" and engaged in important matters of state).
George Will says it here. I have been thinking it for weeks:
John McCain's best argument for why we should elect him president in 2008 is divided government.
That is, if McCain does not win, prepare yourself for a tsunami of liberal legislation that will make the New Deal and the Great Society look like a day at the beach.
If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, you will want to vote for the contrarian McCain and hope for vetoes.
John McCain's best argument for why we should elect him president in 2008 is divided government.
That is, if McCain does not win, prepare yourself for a tsunami of liberal legislation that will make the New Deal and the Great Society look like a day at the beach.
If you believe that government governs best when it governs least, you will want to vote for the contrarian McCain and hope for vetoes.
