I know I promised to plagiarize more of the Tom Dickinson article that lays out why one more rich white guy shouldn't be president, but I'm tired of playing the game of arguing over things as presented by the two party system that most Americans actually agree over about 99% of the time between elections.
So here it is: I want a president who is thoughtful, intellectually curious, even-tempered, firm in resolve, but not afraid to admit he (or she) doesn't know everything and who is not ruled strictly by ideology or party politics. That's it. I'll deal with just about everything else... party, issues stance, you name it. I just want someone who can and has made sound decisions as opposed to someone who fancies himself "the decider."
Given those requirements, I obviously have to be willing to accept things about that president that I may not agree with. I'm OK with that. I guess that's the liberal in me. But it's worth it to me to buy off on a few issues in exchange for someone who considers more than one option before stubbornly choosing a path the rest of us must follow... and pay for.
There's only one candidate in this race who fits that description. His past performance is a long list of evidence of this mild mannered curiosity both in his personal and public lives and he's demonstrated it throughout the campaign as well. His opponent, on the contrary, has made of career of just the opposite, which, contrary to his claims, makes him exactly like the president we've lived under for that past two terms. How's that workin' for ya. But this post isn't about him.
I wonder if being a self-made man (or woman), acquiring one's wealth and fame (or notoriety) in one's own generation, by one's own efforts is what makes this kind of candidate? Now that I think about it, Bubba Clinton fits that part of the description. Few other candidates have. Most rich white guys that we elect come from legacies they didn't have to earn. In fact, the most recent, if left to their own decisions, would likely have squandered those legacies guaranteeing that no good came of them and that their offspring didn't get the benefit of them.
Barack Obama knows better. He's made his own way. He knows that this nation provided him the opportunities he's taken full advantage of by his own efforts - the definition of the American dream. If he were a Republican, I'd vote for him. If he were pro-life, I'd vote for him. I think too much has been made of his faith, but I'm going to vote for him.
I like the fact that his financial support comes largely in $10 - $100 amounts. Sure, he has the same big contributors that all candidates of his stature have these days, but he's got more grass roots, small contributors than anyone in our era. He's won hearts and wallets one citizen at a time. That may not mean much to everyone, but to me, it means he's beholden to citizens from all walks, not just the big time contributors. He's kind of like the NPR of candidates. They've got their big sponsors, but they can't survive without the little guys too, and they deliver based on that understanding.
I expect the same of my president. Four years from now, we'll check in and see how things went, but I'll put my money on the thinking man (or woman) any time.
Luth
Out
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
I am not George Bush
That's a pretty good line, and while it may be true in most respects, like, say, the names on the birth certificates, much of their lives, political and otherwise, are so similar that they could both be the same character in Oliver Stone's largely fictionalized new movie about W. Or is it about McPain?
Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.
Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.
Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.
Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)
Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.
Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)
Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.
Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.
To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.
Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.
McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.
Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."
Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.
I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!
I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.
Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.
Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.
Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?
Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.
That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)
Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!
Luth,
Out
Both are political opportunists whose platforms change with what they think it will take to get elected. Often, McCain's sole purpose in distancing himself from Bush (though he backs the war and the tax policies he once voted against) is purely where the polls say such a stance will put him.
Both spouted the "we will be greeted as liberators" crap, but now say they knew all along it would be a long, difficult process.
Both have associated with - and McCain was even reprimanded for it - shady, convicted fundraisers.
Both have defended contributing CEOs who run their companies into the ground, bail out under golden parachutes, and then deny any accountability to their shareholders. (and both like to use the term "accountability" when it comes to $28,000/year teachers!)
Both are third generation prodigies who squandered every opportunity provided them by their privileged births and yet, in spite of the failures in their wake, always seemed to end up better off than they were before the screw-up, due not to their own abilities to land on their feet (neither of them usually did) but rather because of their fathers' and grandfathers' stature.
Both have histories of drug or alcohol influenced, occasionally violent, womanizing episodes they rarely speak of these days. In fact, McCain lost all favor with the Reagans when he divorced his first wife, although that didn't stop him from invoking Uncle Ronnie on the campaign trail. Nancy's endorsement of McCain, long after he was named the party's candidate was a brutally limp, "Well, obviously, this is the nominee of the party." (and he STILL claims he's a Reagan Republican!) (and to be fair on this aspect, Bush seems to have at least put his marital life in order)
Both have, at least at some points in their careers, alternately spoken out against and in favor of campaign finance laws, negative campaigning, deregulation of industry, smaller government and balanced budgets.
Both used their fathers' influence to map out their military careers. McCain used his father's influence to actually participate in a war that Bush used his father's influence to avoid. But both were self serving motivations. McCain saw his quickly fading chance to gain command in the Navy rapidly slipping by unless he somehow parlayed his less than stellar flying record into a combat mission in Vietnam. (At that point, he'd succeeded only in destroying two U.S. Navy planes, and, to be fair, he would later even that record out by destroying two parked Russian MiGs) Most pilots lose that privilege after destroying the first U.S. plane. McCain got two chances and a shot at some medal-worthy missions after that.
To be fair to Bush, he was apparently a better pilot than McCain, but (and to be fair to McCain) due to Bush's cushy assignment to a plane that would never be deployed in Vietnam, we'll never really know) To be fair to McCain, he fulfilled his enlistment and has the paperwork to prove it... a rather long, though undistinguished Navy career compared to Bush's prematurely-ended-without-documentation Air National Guard Career. So yeah, there are some significant differences when it comes to military records to balance out some of the striking similarities. In fact, McCain's record almost makes Bush seem like the honorable one.
Both got into grad school - McCain to War College and Bush; Harvard - in spite of very poor academic performance, due to their pedigrees. In spite of these privileges, both would always suffer the Oedipal curse of never living up to their fathers' examples. And both would parlay their mediocre (at best) military histories to a base of voters who will believe anything the right candidate tells them as long as it sounds macho and especially if it involves fighter planes or Alaskan babes who shoot large animals.
McCain's Navy history really sheds some light on his true character. If you ask him, or listen to his campaign, he is a hero for having ignored protocol, getting shot down, and having been taken prisoner. I'll give him all due respect for surviving the prisoner part, but his previous flying record shows a history of bad decisions in the cockpit consistent with many of his colleagues' stories about how he probably should have (and his aircraft could have) avoided being shot down.
Then there's his story about how he refused the offer of early release, a story McCain has used to build his hero status. Again, all due respect for having survived that ordeal, but so did 600 fellow captives (as well as thousands of others) refuse the offer... in accordance with the Code of Conduct which forbids making deals with one's captors or making statements against the U.S., which was one of the conditions of his early release. This deal was most likely offered to all of McCain's fellow captors and all refused. Yet only one of them is touting it as a qualification to become president. (It should be noted that only one of them received medical care when his captors realized - somehow - that he was the son of a top admiral in the U.S. Navy) McCain himself admits that his POW experience provides him with "a good story to sell." Says retired Air Force Lt. Colonel John Dramesi, also a Vietnam POW, "McCain says his life changed when he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man, but he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."
Dramesi's memory of McCain includes a conversation they had shortly after finishing their stints in military graduate school. (McCain the National War College thanks to dad, Dramesi; the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, without a dad's influence) Both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for graduates so they can gain a little shadowing experience with more experienced military officers on duty overseas. Dramesi told McCain he chose the Middle East because he expected it would play into the nation's future. McCain told him he was crazy... that he was going to Rio where he'd "stand a better chance of getting laid."
Yep, just like he said at the convention...service above self, honor, duty, country... you know, that old chestnut.
I must disclose the source of all of this revelation - Tom Dickinson's article in March 29's Rolling Stone. And I must tell you that I'm disclosing it because much of Matt Taibbi's recent stories for the same magazine about McPalin include tons of unverified reports that come from the likes of liberal versions of O'Reilly and Limbaugh and which were later destroyed by FactCheck.org... but only after being spread throughout the liberal blog world like documented Alaskan history. But where Taibbi is fun to read due to his blatant, but spot on editorializing about how stupid we are as voters, that same editorializing warns you fairly that he's writing a column, not a hard news story. Dickinson's piece warns you fairly that if you've fallen for McCain's "I'm not George Bush" bullshit, you should really watch something besides Fox News for just a few minutes per day. Start slow... maybe with Sesame Street, and work your way up. Maybe even read a few lines from Faith of My Fathers... who am I kidding, like their president, these people don't read books!
I must also disclose that Dickinson's main source was McCain's books (Faith of My Fathers and !! (since McCain's camp never returned Dickinson's calls) in addition to interviews with former colleagues.
Over the next few days, I hope to hit on some of the other sections of Dickinson's article in order to provide his take on McCain's "character" before election day.
Dickinson cites quite a few Republicans who feel McCain simply is not suited to be president... some even question whether or not he should be a senator. My purpose in posting this is to pass on some information I've never seen before regarding a man's career I once looked favorably upon. I didn't blame Colin Powell for not seeking the presidency in 2000 cuz I wouldn't want to subject my family to this kind of scrutiny, but McCain apparently has no qualms about it even if it looks like he won't stand the test of it.
Now where is the liberal media on this seemingly easy to hit hanging curveball?
Hey, come to think of it, McCain has something in common with Obama too - they "pal around with terrorists." McCain not only co-chaired a committee with Iraqi exile, Ahmad Chalabi, he named him his foreign policy advisor.
That's not all he shares with Obama. In 1993, McCain opposed US involvement in Somalia and, get this, sponsored an amendment to CUT OFF FUNDING FOR US TROOPS there! (I'm pretty sure he said that was unpatriotic when Obama refused to vote for a bill that lacked a timeline... which is a far cry from sponsoring an amendment!) Oh, and they've both been against "trading American blood for Iraqi blood" (McCains words... Obama's vote, though, to be fair, McCain has apparently changed his mind about this too)
Oh man... this is HUGE! I can't wait until the liberal media gets hold of this stuff. It's going to be all over CNN, MSNBC, the networks, all cable except Fox. Those liberal bastards are going to be all over this. It will destroy McCain in the polls and they won't even have to bring up his womanizing like they did with ol' Bubba. When the liberal press finds out about this stuff, most of which is covered in McCain's books or has been a matter of record since the 70's.... hey, wait a minute. What the hell has happened to the vast liberal bias of our press?!
Luth,
Out
Monday, October 20, 2008
Christians, please consider the unborn in your vote
Given the actual issues facing our nation, to even be reminded that presidential elections in this country have come down to this philosophical tail-chase makes me want to move to Canada, or some other place where folks outscore us on those achievement tests on which we keep falling so far behind.
NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT has ever had an abortion and given the candidates we have now, that will be true for at least another 4 years so his stance on the issue is moot. Irrelevant. Not likely to come up in the next Iraq summit. Not likely to come up in the next bailout hearing. Not likely to come up in the next energy policy development session. Not likely to come up in the next "what will replace our auto industry" discussion. Not likely to come up in the N. Korea... well you get the point.
Look people, I think we can all agree that to even be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion means you're in a horrible situation. For it to be the favorable choice, it's probably even worse. No one WANTS to have an abortion. No one sets out to be in that position. But there ARE circumstances under which... no, forget that. Let's not even talk about it. It's not the point. The point is, it's NOT presidential selection material by at least 10 or 1000 more pressing, day to day national issues. This is indisputable for many, many reasons, but I'll list just a few.
1) It doesn't matter. Given Bush's track record in his first term, I have to assume that a large number of folks voted for him the second time purely on the abortion issue. He's probably the most outspoken anti-abortion candidate we've had in a long time and yet what has he accomplished for those folks in return for that vote? Nada. Zip. No change whatsoever. So what did that pro-life vote get us? (here you should list: the war, the economic crisis, the failed response to one national disaster after another, the largest deficit in our history, the largest sale of that debt to foreign nations ever)
2) Economic policy has a far greater impact on the number of abortions than a president's personal views. Check back through CBO and Catholic Charities stats... the numbers of abortions go down when social program spending goes up. (note: this includes jobs programs as well as flat out welfare, so we're not just talking handouts and note that on this issue in particular, jobs programs have a far more dramatic effect than trickle down theories, but that's only based on the stats - I'm no economist) I'll venture a guess that our current economic situation will end up having an adverse effect on Bush's ability to curtail abortions. (it almost sounds ridiculous to say that, doesn't it? "Bush's ability to curtail abortion..." You're right, it's not part of the job description. It's not up to him. That's another reason why it's a stupid factor to consider anywhere near the top of the list.)
3) A true sign of leadership is one's ability to put one's personal views aside and consider the needs of all first. Now I obviously feel that this means stopping the abortion discussion before it starts and tackling the national issues that are the most pressing. You don't have to agree with me on that, but you have to admit, the inverse of what I'm saying here is that leadership = selfishness. I know it's a fallacy to try to prove a point by disproving it's inverse, but given the number of folks who believe Palin is a legitimate candidate to be president, I figured I'd offer an easy to follow, Limbaugh-esque argument. Besides, W has proven what happens when you get the inverse, so I don't really have to rely on the fallacy.
4) see the last two sentences in #2
5) Often, the selection based on this particular non-criterion is deeply religious based. That's fine for an individual, but don't try to impose that irrational motivation on the rest of us. Believe or not, there are folks in the world (religious and otherwise, pro-life and otherwise) who like to apply a little bit of rationality to their important decisions. I'm not saying faith should never play a part in an individual's decision, but faith, by definition is irrational, so don't try to invoke it as part of a rational argument when attempting to convince others. If you want religion to play a greater role in your government, move to southwest Asia. They're big on that kind of thing. We have a constitution designed to make rationality the basis of our laws. It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating.
That's enough of that. I wanted to shed light on some of the other crazy-assed things I've heard from McPalin backers:
"Clinton sold us out to China" (not sure what the basis of this one is, but I know our debt became real easy for China to buy AFTER Bush spent the last of Clinton's surplus and began spending us into the place where we are now. We're cheaper and easier to buy today than we've ever been and it's true... China's doing the buying, but Clinton ain't at the helm.)
"I like her (Palin) she seems real." (I agree... a real girl next door... a real Miss Alaska... a real totally unqualified to lead the country neighbor. I'd probably like her too, but not as the leader of the free world. Doesn't anyone remember where the old "I'd rather have a beer with that one" standard got us?)
"Obama's an Arab/Muslim" I hope Colin Powell put both of the reasons why this is idiotic to rest: 1. He's not. 2. So what if he were? Saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists is as crazy as saying all Christians are David Koresh or Jim Jones or Rev. Wright Carter was a Baptist. Kennedy was Catholic. If this argument holds any weight, it's an argument in favor of electing an atheist. After all, if A religion can be wrong, then ALL religions can be wrong. Ironically, atheism is probably the only "spiritual" denomination that CAN'T get elected in this dumbass country.
"McCain's the true Christian" Not only is the idea of a religious litmus test strictly prohibited by our constitution, but this idea isn't supported by his actions. Obama is a Christian as the result of a lifetime of searching for his own spirituality, which included having observed a number of varying faiths. He asked a lot of questions and continues to search for answers. That's faith. That's a spiritual journey. That's believing in something. McCain, on the other hand, is a "Christian" by virtue of something he wrote down on a congressional bio a number of years ago. This is no secret... the church-going only seems to come out when cameras are around prior to an election. McCain all but admits to this... the news hounds have the evidence making the admission unnecessary, but those liberal bastards are keeping all this to themselves! This is actually one of the reasons I liked the pre-party-mind-melded McCain.
So anyway, yeah, consider the unborn in your vote, but only if you're Christian... that's what the signs say. I guess everyone else is free to consider where we want to be as a nation in four years.
Luth,
Out.
NO AMERICAN PRESIDENT has ever had an abortion and given the candidates we have now, that will be true for at least another 4 years so his stance on the issue is moot. Irrelevant. Not likely to come up in the next Iraq summit. Not likely to come up in the next bailout hearing. Not likely to come up in the next energy policy development session. Not likely to come up in the next "what will replace our auto industry" discussion. Not likely to come up in the N. Korea... well you get the point.
Look people, I think we can all agree that to even be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion means you're in a horrible situation. For it to be the favorable choice, it's probably even worse. No one WANTS to have an abortion. No one sets out to be in that position. But there ARE circumstances under which... no, forget that. Let's not even talk about it. It's not the point. The point is, it's NOT presidential selection material by at least 10 or 1000 more pressing, day to day national issues. This is indisputable for many, many reasons, but I'll list just a few.
1) It doesn't matter. Given Bush's track record in his first term, I have to assume that a large number of folks voted for him the second time purely on the abortion issue. He's probably the most outspoken anti-abortion candidate we've had in a long time and yet what has he accomplished for those folks in return for that vote? Nada. Zip. No change whatsoever. So what did that pro-life vote get us? (here you should list: the war, the economic crisis, the failed response to one national disaster after another, the largest deficit in our history, the largest sale of that debt to foreign nations ever)
2) Economic policy has a far greater impact on the number of abortions than a president's personal views. Check back through CBO and Catholic Charities stats... the numbers of abortions go down when social program spending goes up. (note: this includes jobs programs as well as flat out welfare, so we're not just talking handouts and note that on this issue in particular, jobs programs have a far more dramatic effect than trickle down theories, but that's only based on the stats - I'm no economist) I'll venture a guess that our current economic situation will end up having an adverse effect on Bush's ability to curtail abortions. (it almost sounds ridiculous to say that, doesn't it? "Bush's ability to curtail abortion..." You're right, it's not part of the job description. It's not up to him. That's another reason why it's a stupid factor to consider anywhere near the top of the list.)
3) A true sign of leadership is one's ability to put one's personal views aside and consider the needs of all first. Now I obviously feel that this means stopping the abortion discussion before it starts and tackling the national issues that are the most pressing. You don't have to agree with me on that, but you have to admit, the inverse of what I'm saying here is that leadership = selfishness. I know it's a fallacy to try to prove a point by disproving it's inverse, but given the number of folks who believe Palin is a legitimate candidate to be president, I figured I'd offer an easy to follow, Limbaugh-esque argument. Besides, W has proven what happens when you get the inverse, so I don't really have to rely on the fallacy.
4) see the last two sentences in #2
5) Often, the selection based on this particular non-criterion is deeply religious based. That's fine for an individual, but don't try to impose that irrational motivation on the rest of us. Believe or not, there are folks in the world (religious and otherwise, pro-life and otherwise) who like to apply a little bit of rationality to their important decisions. I'm not saying faith should never play a part in an individual's decision, but faith, by definition is irrational, so don't try to invoke it as part of a rational argument when attempting to convince others. If you want religion to play a greater role in your government, move to southwest Asia. They're big on that kind of thing. We have a constitution designed to make rationality the basis of our laws. It's reasonable to discuss the issue in legal terms, compare it to murder, etc. but don't just tell me it's wrong, especially when it will save the life of an underage rape victim sentenced to death by an ectopic pregnancy she had no say in creating.
That's enough of that. I wanted to shed light on some of the other crazy-assed things I've heard from McPalin backers:
"Clinton sold us out to China" (not sure what the basis of this one is, but I know our debt became real easy for China to buy AFTER Bush spent the last of Clinton's surplus and began spending us into the place where we are now. We're cheaper and easier to buy today than we've ever been and it's true... China's doing the buying, but Clinton ain't at the helm.)
"I like her (Palin) she seems real." (I agree... a real girl next door... a real Miss Alaska... a real totally unqualified to lead the country neighbor. I'd probably like her too, but not as the leader of the free world. Doesn't anyone remember where the old "I'd rather have a beer with that one" standard got us?)
"Obama's an Arab/Muslim" I hope Colin Powell put both of the reasons why this is idiotic to rest: 1. He's not. 2. So what if he were? Saying all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists is as crazy as saying all Christians are David Koresh or Jim Jones or Rev. Wright Carter was a Baptist. Kennedy was Catholic. If this argument holds any weight, it's an argument in favor of electing an atheist. After all, if A religion can be wrong, then ALL religions can be wrong. Ironically, atheism is probably the only "spiritual" denomination that CAN'T get elected in this dumbass country.
"McCain's the true Christian" Not only is the idea of a religious litmus test strictly prohibited by our constitution, but this idea isn't supported by his actions. Obama is a Christian as the result of a lifetime of searching for his own spirituality, which included having observed a number of varying faiths. He asked a lot of questions and continues to search for answers. That's faith. That's a spiritual journey. That's believing in something. McCain, on the other hand, is a "Christian" by virtue of something he wrote down on a congressional bio a number of years ago. This is no secret... the church-going only seems to come out when cameras are around prior to an election. McCain all but admits to this... the news hounds have the evidence making the admission unnecessary, but those liberal bastards are keeping all this to themselves! This is actually one of the reasons I liked the pre-party-mind-melded McCain.
So anyway, yeah, consider the unborn in your vote, but only if you're Christian... that's what the signs say. I guess everyone else is free to consider where we want to be as a nation in four years.
Luth,
Out.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Another disappointing debate
Now that the Clintons are firmly in the Obama camp, Bill needs to give a few lessons to Obama on how to poke the bear with a smile on his face. On several occasions during this week's debate, McCain was clearly on the verge of exploding. All it would have taken was just a little stirring of his boiling pot and he would have lost it. I kept having day dreams of McCain tearing off his lapel mic, throwing it down on the desk and stomping off, but instead, Obama remained cool and calm, as always, and took the high road most of the night.
I'm torn, because this is one of the things I like most about Obama. I look forward to our nation being lead by a calm, educated, rational (for the most part) thinker who actually listens, considers, seeks input, and is clearly willing to admit he doesn't know everything before flying off and firmly declaring his next stubborn intention.
But just once I'd like to see McCain lose it and show his true colors. His temper is no secret and as long as we're deciding our next president based on ridiculously irrelevant factors, one's ability to maintain self control actually sounds pretty important. Why won't Obama just push him a little closer to that edge?
I mentioned this to a colleague the morning after the debate and he noted that Obama can't risk appearing to be "the angry black man." I hadn't thought of that, but it sure made sense once he said it. After all, look at what the media (yeah, those dirty liberals) did to Michelle! People still think she's angry and I suppose this is what scares me the most... that the "Bradley Effect," a euphemism for racist ignorance, will render the actual election a lot closer than the polling shows. The special edition of SNL tonight noted this rather succinctly when a Jesse Jackson character on "SNL News" quoted a poll saying 87% of Americans said they would, in fact, vote for a black man. The follow up question was, "Really?" and the numbers were almost a reciprocal... with only 25% saying they would. Under the cover of the voting booth curtain, I'm afraid we're still a lot more racist than we like to believe.
But back to the debate. There were so many easy pitches to hit that Obama just laid off of I almost wanted to scream. Seriously... that question about why you think your running mate is more qualified to run the country? If I were McCain, I would have asked if I could just pass on that one! Obama had the perfect opportunity to note how his own experience (which makes him seem like a seasoned old pro when compared to Palin) was a favorite topic of McCain's up until Palin was selected, but instead he simply replied with "we'll let the American voters decide."
PUHLEASE!
And how many times do we have to go over the Bill Ayers thing? If you get your news from anyone other than Hannity, you must know by now how ridiculous McPalin's claims are regarding the work Obama did on a bi-partisan committee that just happened to include Ayers as well as several noted Republicans. Why aren't the Republicans on that committee included as having run around with terrorists?
And ACORN? Apparently they're a real patriotic organization when they register Republicans, but when they register Dems, they're cheaters and liars. McCain was their keynote speaker at an immigration event in Florida in 2006 and has supported the grass roots organization fairly consistently up until very recently. Perhaps his newest backers don't like the organization made up primarily of low and middle income American citizens. The membership apparently isn't patriotic enough these days.
Then there's the Palin record that McCain spoke so much about... her tax cutting record?... that's not how most Wasilla residents who are still paying for the hockey arena that seats more people than live in the town see it. And what was that bridge going to cost taxpayers?
Which brings me to another question I've been pondering... Republicans often accuse Dems of saying "trust us to spend your money." And with that, I've often seen the point. But after the last seven years... and throughout the Reagan-Bush era, the alternative seems to be "trust our rich friends with your money and maybe some of it will make it back down to you." That too has some theoretical validity, but practice has proven over and over again (a 12 year stint for Reagan-Bush and now nearly 8 more) that it just doesn't work. Under Republicans, not only has government expanded, but it's cost more than ever. That's not technically a tax increase, but we're paying for it no matter what you call it. Over the last 7 years we've seen that the true difference between Repub and Dem economic policy is that while Dems tax and spend, Repubs just spend. The fact that all that spending will somehow have to be paid for by taxpayers will be ok as long as it's not called a tax increase.
Call it what you want - if it feels better for you, I'll pretend it's not really a tax increase - but when the American public pays off the debt this Republican administration has racked up, it's a tax... on us and our kids and their kids.
And finally, Joe the (not a) plumber. I don't care if the guy's got a license or not. What really pisses me off is the idea that a real guy and a purely hypothetical problem were all presented as actual as though Obama actually yanked the American dream from this guy who apparently didn't even take high school accounting. If a two-employee business is really clearing $250 grand a year, then they should be taxed at a ridiculous rate. The tax will teach them to hire a better accountant or give themselves better salaries (you know, expenses that reduce their profit) Every small business with half a brain knows the business itself never makes a profit, let alone $250k.
And speaking of distorted interpretations of tax plans, Parade magazine ran an article this weekend headlined "How much will you pay?" Note the last word in that headline: PAY. The most prominent text in the article was a table that actually listed how much taxpayers in each category would SAVE, not PAY. Most folks (those making less than $250k a year) make out far better under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan, but if all you read is the headline and the table, just the opposite appears to be true. Is this the kind of LIBERAL media trick folks are always talking about? Yep, for 95% of Americans and even a slightly higher percentage of small businesses, the Obama plan represents a tax cut. So if that's what you're looking for and you don't earn McCain-type money, O's your man.
I don't think I'm done quite yet, but I'm tired of this again.
Luth,
Out.
I'm torn, because this is one of the things I like most about Obama. I look forward to our nation being lead by a calm, educated, rational (for the most part) thinker who actually listens, considers, seeks input, and is clearly willing to admit he doesn't know everything before flying off and firmly declaring his next stubborn intention.
But just once I'd like to see McCain lose it and show his true colors. His temper is no secret and as long as we're deciding our next president based on ridiculously irrelevant factors, one's ability to maintain self control actually sounds pretty important. Why won't Obama just push him a little closer to that edge?
I mentioned this to a colleague the morning after the debate and he noted that Obama can't risk appearing to be "the angry black man." I hadn't thought of that, but it sure made sense once he said it. After all, look at what the media (yeah, those dirty liberals) did to Michelle! People still think she's angry and I suppose this is what scares me the most... that the "Bradley Effect," a euphemism for racist ignorance, will render the actual election a lot closer than the polling shows. The special edition of SNL tonight noted this rather succinctly when a Jesse Jackson character on "SNL News" quoted a poll saying 87% of Americans said they would, in fact, vote for a black man. The follow up question was, "Really?" and the numbers were almost a reciprocal... with only 25% saying they would. Under the cover of the voting booth curtain, I'm afraid we're still a lot more racist than we like to believe.
But back to the debate. There were so many easy pitches to hit that Obama just laid off of I almost wanted to scream. Seriously... that question about why you think your running mate is more qualified to run the country? If I were McCain, I would have asked if I could just pass on that one! Obama had the perfect opportunity to note how his own experience (which makes him seem like a seasoned old pro when compared to Palin) was a favorite topic of McCain's up until Palin was selected, but instead he simply replied with "we'll let the American voters decide."
PUHLEASE!
And how many times do we have to go over the Bill Ayers thing? If you get your news from anyone other than Hannity, you must know by now how ridiculous McPalin's claims are regarding the work Obama did on a bi-partisan committee that just happened to include Ayers as well as several noted Republicans. Why aren't the Republicans on that committee included as having run around with terrorists?
And ACORN? Apparently they're a real patriotic organization when they register Republicans, but when they register Dems, they're cheaters and liars. McCain was their keynote speaker at an immigration event in Florida in 2006 and has supported the grass roots organization fairly consistently up until very recently. Perhaps his newest backers don't like the organization made up primarily of low and middle income American citizens. The membership apparently isn't patriotic enough these days.
Then there's the Palin record that McCain spoke so much about... her tax cutting record?... that's not how most Wasilla residents who are still paying for the hockey arena that seats more people than live in the town see it. And what was that bridge going to cost taxpayers?
Which brings me to another question I've been pondering... Republicans often accuse Dems of saying "trust us to spend your money." And with that, I've often seen the point. But after the last seven years... and throughout the Reagan-Bush era, the alternative seems to be "trust our rich friends with your money and maybe some of it will make it back down to you." That too has some theoretical validity, but practice has proven over and over again (a 12 year stint for Reagan-Bush and now nearly 8 more) that it just doesn't work. Under Republicans, not only has government expanded, but it's cost more than ever. That's not technically a tax increase, but we're paying for it no matter what you call it. Over the last 7 years we've seen that the true difference between Repub and Dem economic policy is that while Dems tax and spend, Repubs just spend. The fact that all that spending will somehow have to be paid for by taxpayers will be ok as long as it's not called a tax increase.
Call it what you want - if it feels better for you, I'll pretend it's not really a tax increase - but when the American public pays off the debt this Republican administration has racked up, it's a tax... on us and our kids and their kids.
And finally, Joe the (not a) plumber. I don't care if the guy's got a license or not. What really pisses me off is the idea that a real guy and a purely hypothetical problem were all presented as actual as though Obama actually yanked the American dream from this guy who apparently didn't even take high school accounting. If a two-employee business is really clearing $250 grand a year, then they should be taxed at a ridiculous rate. The tax will teach them to hire a better accountant or give themselves better salaries (you know, expenses that reduce their profit) Every small business with half a brain knows the business itself never makes a profit, let alone $250k.
And speaking of distorted interpretations of tax plans, Parade magazine ran an article this weekend headlined "How much will you pay?" Note the last word in that headline: PAY. The most prominent text in the article was a table that actually listed how much taxpayers in each category would SAVE, not PAY. Most folks (those making less than $250k a year) make out far better under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan, but if all you read is the headline and the table, just the opposite appears to be true. Is this the kind of LIBERAL media trick folks are always talking about? Yep, for 95% of Americans and even a slightly higher percentage of small businesses, the Obama plan represents a tax cut. So if that's what you're looking for and you don't earn McCain-type money, O's your man.
I don't think I'm done quite yet, but I'm tired of this again.
Luth,
Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)