I am pleasantly surprised that John McCain got the pick for VP right. Sarah Palin seems like a great choice for several reasons. Everyone has some baggage, so we'll see what the opposition dredges up. But for now, let's review the positive points.
1. She's Pro-Life. Look at her family: she has five (count 'em) kids, including one who has Down's syndrome. That's love, and that's also a temptation to abort when it is convenient.
2. She's pro-drilling for oil in Alaska. She seems like one of those "Everything is on the table" types, which is good, because it will take oil, natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, bio-mass, water, and any other power sources we can come up with to power our future growth. Voluntary conservation is good too, so I do mean everything is on the table.
3. She is for doing the right thing, even if it means bucking her party. Of course if everybody is a Maverick, then there is not party, only a bunch of people going their own ways, but kow-towing to the party to the point of compromising your core beliefs is not good. If there is corruption (Ted Stevens?) get it out. If there are problems, don't just defend them blindly, nor dump them under the bus in knee-jerk fashion. Get the facts, make a decision based on what is right, and then stick with it! Sarah seems to have done this in Alaska.
4. Have you seen her? She's cheerful, looks strictly business, and speaks clearly and forcefully. She took up the mantle of Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton without the liberal baggage and without Bill. According to Mrs. Ferraro, hillary never mentioned her run for VP in 1988, but Sarah Palin did that first. She gets it, knowing her political roots come from both sides. Let's see her finish the task of shattering the glass ceiling that those other ladies cracked. Note that she will do it mostly in dresses as well, not the de-feminizing pants suits. I believe she will attract a lot of Hillary voters, even if they are not all pro-life. They, like she, are pro-woman, and the Democratic ticket has two men, as usual.
5. Sarah Palin brings more executive experience than Joe Biden. I have never heard of Joe Biden running anything but his mouth, his campaigns and that Accela train home every night from DC to Delaware. Mrs. Palin even has more positive executive experience than Barack Obama, dare I say. The only executive experience Mr. Obama has is running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. The summary of his tenure as and executive of one of the two wings of the non-profit was that they used up $15 million in the first year, drew scrutiny for mismanagement, and had to reorganize, disassociating the group from it's original partnership groups, and then ultimately using up the $50+ million dollars with little to show for the money within six years. I'd say that being a mayor of a town, (albeit small) and then being elected governor over a sitting member of your own party is quite an accomplishment. Sarah Palin also governed for a year and a half, and has had a positive impact in that time.
6. Sarah Palin is an avid hunter, and support gun rights. She also understands that reasonable precautions need to be in place to protect the public. Let's see how she presents her position, as I am not yet as familiar with her positions as I will be in the near future.
7. She's from wa-a-ay outside of Washington. You can't get much further than Alaska, and still be in the USA. Alaska is very near Russia, so she may have some exposure to or understanding of how they work. Again, though, let's see what she says about this in the near future.
8. On foreign policy, if she doesn't have much in that area, she can certainly learn about it from John McCain. John McCain may get the border fence and immigration policy wrong, but he understands other things, like the threat of radical Islam and jihad, and how to deal with Russia and China. Sarah Palin may not bring much to the table in this regard, but she has at least as much foreign policy experience as Barack Obama, and she can learn from McCain as president, which is much better than President Obama learning from the VP Biden.
9. Sarah Palin offers change as historic as Barack Obama. With the choice of Mrs. Palin, there is certain to be someone in the White House who has never been there before, either a black man, or a woman in the highest offices in the land. I would also note that if the McCain/Palin ticket wins, Hillary is pretty much out forever. Sarah Palin is young enough to run in 2012 or 2016 (if McCain hangs in there), thus freezing Hillary out. If Obama wins, Biden won't run in 8 years, and if the Obama/Biden team fails in the first four years, Hillary has an opportunity in 2012. I doubt Hillary will be in the running in 2016, as she will be so old, both in years and in ideology. So I think women will figure this out as well, and vote for the woman who is likely to be the president ofter the winner of this fall's election.
More later, as things develop, but boy, this is a big improvement. I think I might even send the RNC some money!
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2008. Show all posts
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Barack's Big Speech
Unless you are not politically attuned, you probably have heard of the speech that Barack Obama made today, 24 July 2008. You may have even heard some of the speech. Depending on your perspective, you might think it was brilliant, or you might think it was out of place.
Why might some think it was brilliant? let me see if I can look at this from the liberal perspective. If you are a liberal and know anything about history, you might think that a great man, going to Berlin and giving a speech is great in the tradition of John F. Kennedy in 1963, and maybe even as Ronald Reagan did in 1987. While the allusion to Reagan might not sit well with too many on the Left, both he and JFK spoke eloquently about a wall coming down. They addressed the issue of their day, and confronted it head-on, with clarity and courage. Barack Obama did the same thing, in the same way with today's issues. He alluded to many moments to tear down many walls, including those of racism, sexism, global warming, and equality of wealth. He said that this is the moment to tackle all these large issues, and they are in the opinion of many people, inarguably the most important things to be confronted.
Barack has the courage to mention them, the courage to challenge the world to join with us in a fight that is too large for any one country to win. Barack is the one, the savior, who will address the most important issues of our times. He will bring the war in Iraq to a close.
One must admit, he looked presidential as he stood at the podium, addressing hundreds of thousands of people. He also delivered the speech with eloquence and conviction, looking like a true statesman. Now that he has capped his world tour with this speech, Barack Obama can simply return home, bask in the glow of the media attention he well deserves for standing up to the forces of stagnation, for presenting bold new initiatives that will benefit the citizens of the world!
If you listened to this from another perspective, that of a Conservative, you heard a very different speech. Some key points stood out to those of this viewpoint, especially that of citizenship. Give the man his due, he did say he was a "Proud Citizen of America", but he also said he was a "Citizen of the World". That American pride was more of a fig leaf as he then blasted away at the country he says he is proud of. The speech entails a lot of things but two things are key to the issues at hand: First, a President must be first, last, and always a citizen to the United States of America. While we live in the world, our first concern must be the good of America, because America is not evil, and wishes no evil on those it shares the world with. Being a citizen of someplace implies that your loyalty is there, not in the contrasting or different place. For example, a French citizen is first concerned with and loyal to France. He may consider what is good for China as well, but his first concern is always with France and how what he does affects France. So it must be for Americans, especially the President. The second thing is that he is not yet the President of the Untied States of America. He may challenge the German people, and by extension, all of the European people, but if he loses his bid to become President, there is little chance he will be back over to take up the fight he is challenging them to today. This highlights the arrogance of addressing a people at a historic sight when you are not yet the victor in your own political battle. Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were President when they made their historic speeches. They were positioned to speak for the American people, as they had been voted into leadership through the established process, and had been in office more than two years. Barack Obama has a lack of understanding of American Exceptionalism. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had a proper view of America as great, a global contributor, and a positive force in the world. I'm not so sure Obama sees the United States that way, though he thinks he can turn America in the right direction again.
Aside from the assumption that he has the authority to challenge Europeans to fight with us for the things he has not yet been given a mandate to do, there is the issue of proving global warming. He mentioned the oceans rising, the ice melting as a result of the cars being driven and fuels being burned around the globe. It is not yet a proven fact that global warming is occurring, and it is even less sure that man-made processes are contributing to said warming. There is recent evidence that smoke from industrial power generation may have clouded the sky, contributing to global cooling. While violence in Darfur and other places is real, and proven, it is not simply because of people not getting along, it is a sort of war. There are political forces at work that drive all such bloodshed, and resolving those issues is not as easy as just talking to the affected parties. Palestinians and Israelites are not ready to just split the difference and settle down, no matter who proposes the idea. They are fighting for their homelands, from each other's perspective. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, and there is no middle ground.
When he talks about tearing down borders, he is inviting non-Americans to share the wealth that Americans have worked hard to establish over the centuries, to take advantage of opportunities that they have not earned nor even truly understand. America is more than a job bank. It is more than a place to get government paid health care. There is a process by which a set number of immigrants, as decided by the people through their representative have the right to become Americans, and the chance to share in the American dream. The right to become citizens is not just to be given out carelessly, as those like Barack Obama would allow to cross our borders with the intent of getting as much benefit as they possibly can.
One final item Barack Obama threw into the speech that would infuriate those with a Conservative perspective is that the war in Iraq is to be "drawn to a close", with no mention of winning. Here Mr. Obama stands in the shadow of an obelisk made in tribute to Hitler and his war effort, with no acknowledgment that the peace in Germany came after we won World War II. There, in Berlin, the method of achieving lasting peace should have been foremost in Barack Obama's mind, yet he didn't even mention winning in Iraq. He seemed intent on scoring points by pledging to get us out of Iraq, as though getting out were the best thing for the citizens of the world. If he had only acknowledged that we are winning in Iraq, and that we can finish the job, then leave when a lasting peace, as there is now in Germany, he would have truly spoken momentous words. Yet the history of Germany, which he touched on but did not cover adequately, teaches us that if we win, as we did in WW I, and then leave the country without the ability to repair and support itself, it would end up in the hands of tyrannical dictators (Hitler?). If after the tactical victory in Iraq, as there was in Germany after the second World War, yet we allow a non-democratic rule to take hold of part or all of the recently vanquished foe, the part of the country under such influence would suffer as badly as before the war. Recall how the Russians ran, ruled and ruined East Germany, surrounded Berlin, and tried to strangle Democracy as it sprouted in the fertile soil of post WWII Germany. It took over 30 years to get that right, and Iran would like to do the same to Iraq after the second Gulf War. If Iraqi society has the infrastructure and freedom in place to support itself, the police and the military to defend itself, Iranian-influenced Muslim extremists would fight to rule part or all of Iraq, with dire consequences. The blood of the many brave soldiers, men and women, spilled in Iraq would have been made to be in vain. Countries do not just "bring a war to a close". It's not a sports season, or a retail shopping center that gives up and moves on. Wars are won or lost, no matter what people say. We won the Vietnam war, but then ultimately the South Vietnamese lost it when we withdrew and allowed the enemy poised across the border to come in and take over.
I was disappointed that Barack Obama did not visit the injured soldiers in Germany who had no doubt been prepared to see him. Democrats often say they support the troops, though they do not support the war. Here was a golden opportunity to do just that, and Mr. Obama turned it down. It is amazing to me when political figures fall into their own stereotypes, and prove there is a basis for them. I'm sure this did not win him many new supporters among the military in his quest to become the Commander in Chief, the President of these United States. No matter the reason, and they certainly will spin him one good one when they realize the impact of such a gaffe, a person who is in the area, and has a heart of concern for the troops would have made the visit. If he had such a desire, and it is his campaign, there is no reason they could not have done it. Schedules can be adjusted, less important people can be rescheduled, flights can be delayed. In my mind, this reveals the true nature of Barack Obama: concerned about political speeches, and not concerned about the troops.
One last point: if it was incumbent on Americans to teach their children a foreign language, why did Senator Obama not try to deliver the speech in German? And was it widely published that the crowd that heard Senator Obama's speech was lured to the venue by a free concert immediately preceding his speech?
Why might some think it was brilliant? let me see if I can look at this from the liberal perspective. If you are a liberal and know anything about history, you might think that a great man, going to Berlin and giving a speech is great in the tradition of John F. Kennedy in 1963, and maybe even as Ronald Reagan did in 1987. While the allusion to Reagan might not sit well with too many on the Left, both he and JFK spoke eloquently about a wall coming down. They addressed the issue of their day, and confronted it head-on, with clarity and courage. Barack Obama did the same thing, in the same way with today's issues. He alluded to many moments to tear down many walls, including those of racism, sexism, global warming, and equality of wealth. He said that this is the moment to tackle all these large issues, and they are in the opinion of many people, inarguably the most important things to be confronted.
Barack has the courage to mention them, the courage to challenge the world to join with us in a fight that is too large for any one country to win. Barack is the one, the savior, who will address the most important issues of our times. He will bring the war in Iraq to a close.
One must admit, he looked presidential as he stood at the podium, addressing hundreds of thousands of people. He also delivered the speech with eloquence and conviction, looking like a true statesman. Now that he has capped his world tour with this speech, Barack Obama can simply return home, bask in the glow of the media attention he well deserves for standing up to the forces of stagnation, for presenting bold new initiatives that will benefit the citizens of the world!
If you listened to this from another perspective, that of a Conservative, you heard a very different speech. Some key points stood out to those of this viewpoint, especially that of citizenship. Give the man his due, he did say he was a "Proud Citizen of America", but he also said he was a "Citizen of the World". That American pride was more of a fig leaf as he then blasted away at the country he says he is proud of. The speech entails a lot of things but two things are key to the issues at hand: First, a President must be first, last, and always a citizen to the United States of America. While we live in the world, our first concern must be the good of America, because America is not evil, and wishes no evil on those it shares the world with. Being a citizen of someplace implies that your loyalty is there, not in the contrasting or different place. For example, a French citizen is first concerned with and loyal to France. He may consider what is good for China as well, but his first concern is always with France and how what he does affects France. So it must be for Americans, especially the President. The second thing is that he is not yet the President of the Untied States of America. He may challenge the German people, and by extension, all of the European people, but if he loses his bid to become President, there is little chance he will be back over to take up the fight he is challenging them to today. This highlights the arrogance of addressing a people at a historic sight when you are not yet the victor in your own political battle. Both John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan were President when they made their historic speeches. They were positioned to speak for the American people, as they had been voted into leadership through the established process, and had been in office more than two years. Barack Obama has a lack of understanding of American Exceptionalism. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had a proper view of America as great, a global contributor, and a positive force in the world. I'm not so sure Obama sees the United States that way, though he thinks he can turn America in the right direction again.
Aside from the assumption that he has the authority to challenge Europeans to fight with us for the things he has not yet been given a mandate to do, there is the issue of proving global warming. He mentioned the oceans rising, the ice melting as a result of the cars being driven and fuels being burned around the globe. It is not yet a proven fact that global warming is occurring, and it is even less sure that man-made processes are contributing to said warming. There is recent evidence that smoke from industrial power generation may have clouded the sky, contributing to global cooling. While violence in Darfur and other places is real, and proven, it is not simply because of people not getting along, it is a sort of war. There are political forces at work that drive all such bloodshed, and resolving those issues is not as easy as just talking to the affected parties. Palestinians and Israelites are not ready to just split the difference and settle down, no matter who proposes the idea. They are fighting for their homelands, from each other's perspective. Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel, and there is no middle ground.
When he talks about tearing down borders, he is inviting non-Americans to share the wealth that Americans have worked hard to establish over the centuries, to take advantage of opportunities that they have not earned nor even truly understand. America is more than a job bank. It is more than a place to get government paid health care. There is a process by which a set number of immigrants, as decided by the people through their representative have the right to become Americans, and the chance to share in the American dream. The right to become citizens is not just to be given out carelessly, as those like Barack Obama would allow to cross our borders with the intent of getting as much benefit as they possibly can.
One final item Barack Obama threw into the speech that would infuriate those with a Conservative perspective is that the war in Iraq is to be "drawn to a close", with no mention of winning. Here Mr. Obama stands in the shadow of an obelisk made in tribute to Hitler and his war effort, with no acknowledgment that the peace in Germany came after we won World War II. There, in Berlin, the method of achieving lasting peace should have been foremost in Barack Obama's mind, yet he didn't even mention winning in Iraq. He seemed intent on scoring points by pledging to get us out of Iraq, as though getting out were the best thing for the citizens of the world. If he had only acknowledged that we are winning in Iraq, and that we can finish the job, then leave when a lasting peace, as there is now in Germany, he would have truly spoken momentous words. Yet the history of Germany, which he touched on but did not cover adequately, teaches us that if we win, as we did in WW I, and then leave the country without the ability to repair and support itself, it would end up in the hands of tyrannical dictators (Hitler?). If after the tactical victory in Iraq, as there was in Germany after the second World War, yet we allow a non-democratic rule to take hold of part or all of the recently vanquished foe, the part of the country under such influence would suffer as badly as before the war. Recall how the Russians ran, ruled and ruined East Germany, surrounded Berlin, and tried to strangle Democracy as it sprouted in the fertile soil of post WWII Germany. It took over 30 years to get that right, and Iran would like to do the same to Iraq after the second Gulf War. If Iraqi society has the infrastructure and freedom in place to support itself, the police and the military to defend itself, Iranian-influenced Muslim extremists would fight to rule part or all of Iraq, with dire consequences. The blood of the many brave soldiers, men and women, spilled in Iraq would have been made to be in vain. Countries do not just "bring a war to a close". It's not a sports season, or a retail shopping center that gives up and moves on. Wars are won or lost, no matter what people say. We won the Vietnam war, but then ultimately the South Vietnamese lost it when we withdrew and allowed the enemy poised across the border to come in and take over.
I was disappointed that Barack Obama did not visit the injured soldiers in Germany who had no doubt been prepared to see him. Democrats often say they support the troops, though they do not support the war. Here was a golden opportunity to do just that, and Mr. Obama turned it down. It is amazing to me when political figures fall into their own stereotypes, and prove there is a basis for them. I'm sure this did not win him many new supporters among the military in his quest to become the Commander in Chief, the President of these United States. No matter the reason, and they certainly will spin him one good one when they realize the impact of such a gaffe, a person who is in the area, and has a heart of concern for the troops would have made the visit. If he had such a desire, and it is his campaign, there is no reason they could not have done it. Schedules can be adjusted, less important people can be rescheduled, flights can be delayed. In my mind, this reveals the true nature of Barack Obama: concerned about political speeches, and not concerned about the troops.
One last point: if it was incumbent on Americans to teach their children a foreign language, why did Senator Obama not try to deliver the speech in German? And was it widely published that the crowd that heard Senator Obama's speech was lured to the venue by a free concert immediately preceding his speech?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Fear: not the motivation we need, from Hillary or McCain
I wrote a reply to Gary Bauer's article of 2/29/08 on why we should vote for anybody but Obama. I am not an Obama supporter, let me make that clear. However, Gary was using fear as the key argument against voting Democrat, no matter who wins. I'll try to put the link in here:
John McCain may be strong on the war, but he too, would close Gitmo. He would limit our ability to interrogate (waterboarding, anybody?). McCain would fight the war "over there" while letting illegals in over here: ask Juan Hernandez, his adviser on immigrant affairs.
Yes, Obama is a leftist with some even more leftist supporters. However, I can't count on McCain with a Democrat house and Senate to do Republican things. With the Gang of 14 ideology and his signature piece, McCain-Feingold on the line, he won't push strongly for strict constructionist supreme court nominees, Ted Olson not withstanding. For every Ted Olson, there is a Warren Ruddman (David Souter, anyone?)in his campaign.
McCain is doomed to fail, because if he moves right, the libs who nominated him will bail. He will also be a flip flopper, which doesn't attract most people, if he moves right. If he moves left, Obama will be the true lib, and we, the true conservatives on social, defense, moral, and immigration issues, will stay home or vote Ann Coulter-style.
John McCain is not moving right, and he is not naturally conservative. He curses people out, holds grudges (Bush 2000), and does not admit his failures. I think McCain's Freudian slip was showing when he said his upcoming debates would be "dispirited", and he is "a proud Conservative Liberal Republican". I know what he was trying to say, but I also saw his heart. Nobody is perfect, and I certainly do not expect a candidate for President to be perfect. However, I do expect a person who seems to have a humble heart (G. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan), and who is not just the lesser of two evils. I think a good strong Republican congress and senate are the best checks against a probable Democrat president next year. Fear will not motivate enough people to swallow their principles and vote McCain in, especially when McCain is not likely to protect us much better than his opponents.
John McCain may be strong on the war, but he too, would close Gitmo. He would limit our ability to interrogate (waterboarding, anybody?). McCain would fight the war "over there" while letting illegals in over here: ask Juan Hernandez, his adviser on immigrant affairs.
Yes, Obama is a leftist with some even more leftist supporters. However, I can't count on McCain with a Democrat house and Senate to do Republican things. With the Gang of 14 ideology and his signature piece, McCain-Feingold on the line, he won't push strongly for strict constructionist supreme court nominees, Ted Olson not withstanding. For every Ted Olson, there is a Warren Ruddman (David Souter, anyone?)in his campaign.
McCain is doomed to fail, because if he moves right, the libs who nominated him will bail. He will also be a flip flopper, which doesn't attract most people, if he moves right. If he moves left, Obama will be the true lib, and we, the true conservatives on social, defense, moral, and immigration issues, will stay home or vote Ann Coulter-style.
John McCain is not moving right, and he is not naturally conservative. He curses people out, holds grudges (Bush 2000), and does not admit his failures. I think McCain's Freudian slip was showing when he said his upcoming debates would be "dispirited", and he is "a proud Conservative Liberal Republican". I know what he was trying to say, but I also saw his heart. Nobody is perfect, and I certainly do not expect a candidate for President to be perfect. However, I do expect a person who seems to have a humble heart (G. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan), and who is not just the lesser of two evils. I think a good strong Republican congress and senate are the best checks against a probable Democrat president next year. Fear will not motivate enough people to swallow their principles and vote McCain in, especially when McCain is not likely to protect us much better than his opponents.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
McCain: not saved by the NYT Attacks
Today I heard of the salacious stories about John McCain and some lobbyist named Iseman. She looks good, for an old guy like him, but she's not much different than his trophy wife. Putting aside the obvious target of a candidate fooling around on the campaign trail, and focusing on the ethics issues, it seems awfully suspicious that Mr. McCain was close to a lobbyist when he is trying to build and maintain this image of a good, clean incorruptible guy.
Now as a guy, I know how easy it is to be influenced by pretty women. They are all over, and if one is not careful, he could be attracted to, and therefore make foolish decisions because of one of those women. I have to stay away from women like that, as I have higher goals in mind than just fulfilling my flesh. I don't think that many guys will honestly say that they can hang around with attractive women and not be attracted to them, so this was a foolish move on Mr. McCain's part. So let's be clear about that: The appearance of impropriety is a big thing when one is trying to be the clean candidate, and it casts a bad light on his judgment. As President, judgment is the key quality that is required.
With good judgment, I would trust almost anyone as President. I say "almost anyone" because "good judgment" implies that the person will defend and protect the country above fulfilling their person desires and maintaining their personal image. Such a person with good judgment would protect our borders first, and protect our people from foreign invaders, whether they are invading through cracks in the fence, or just overstaying their welcome (9/11 anybody?). A person with good judgment would help people to achieve their best, and encourage them to provide for themselves and help their fellow man. A person with good judgment would also protect the most innocent among us, such as unborn babies, while letting those who have been found dangerous to society face the consequences of their proven actions.
So just because the New York Times is attacking John McCain does not change my position on his judgment. It also does not change the positions that drove me to not want to vote for Mr. McCain. While I do believe that the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, Mr. McCain has not proven that he is a friend to me. He is simply facing the heat that would come on any enemy of the liberal establishment, as voiced by the NYT. A moderate Republican is too conservative for the NYT, but not conservative enough for a true conservative like me. They endorsed John McCain in the primaries, but had no intention of supporting him in the general election. Why should anyone follow the suggestions of a hostile group of people when picking their candidate? Yet the media pointed to his endorsement by the NYT, his victories in "blue states", and people started talking about electing the candidate who can win "broad support". When poles of the Big Tent are liberal, the tent tends to collapse to the left.
I know not one person who is excited about John McCain for President. Not one. And I know a lot of people, from various parts of the country. Groups like the NYT believe that we will like or dislike a group for personal reasons. To a small extent, that is true, but the main reason conservatives like a candidate is that they like his positions on the issues, and trust that he will give every effort to getting those positions enacted into our laws or at least into our culture. Sometimes a position can be influential by just repeating it from the bully pulpit, while there are clearly those that need to be enacted into law. This explains why the Border enforcement and the Fair Tax were not enough to propel Mike Huckabee into the top position in the campaign. Not enough people believed he would really do those things, and not enough people really believed he was conservative enough that they could really trust him to get the job done in a conservative way. He had a record of running as a conservative, but then backing down to a Democrat legislature. He also has a class warfare streak that comes out in speeches and in debates, and that rubs a lot of conservatives the wrong way. But that's a whole nother subject.
These primaries were without the two main candidates we would have liked to see, and so we had to choose between five people who were not our first choices for President. Probably the best would have been George Allen or Jeb Bush, if they would have run. However, Macaca and Bush derangement syndrome along with Bush fatigue shot those guys out of the water. We are now down to the lesser of five lessers, and Mr. McCain is less than we want. No matter what the NYT says or does, John McCain is not the kind of guy I can get behind with any enthusiasm, even if I feel compelled to defend him on some issues they raise. I almost cannot vote for him, which some might see as a softening of my position.
This leaves me wanting to tell you about how the Gang of 14 ruined my chances of voting for McCain, and how the Mexican border positions Mr. McCain takes are hardening me in my opposition to Mr. McCain, but that will have to wait. I have to go to bed, to stop complaining about McCain, because I have a job to attend in the morning. I work my butt off all day to support my family and pay my taxes, so I need my sleep. By the way: when do Candidates sleep? They seem to always be up, or on their way somewhere, leading a press junket on aq plane. Oh well... Good night!
Now as a guy, I know how easy it is to be influenced by pretty women. They are all over, and if one is not careful, he could be attracted to, and therefore make foolish decisions because of one of those women. I have to stay away from women like that, as I have higher goals in mind than just fulfilling my flesh. I don't think that many guys will honestly say that they can hang around with attractive women and not be attracted to them, so this was a foolish move on Mr. McCain's part. So let's be clear about that: The appearance of impropriety is a big thing when one is trying to be the clean candidate, and it casts a bad light on his judgment. As President, judgment is the key quality that is required.
With good judgment, I would trust almost anyone as President. I say "almost anyone" because "good judgment" implies that the person will defend and protect the country above fulfilling their person desires and maintaining their personal image. Such a person with good judgment would protect our borders first, and protect our people from foreign invaders, whether they are invading through cracks in the fence, or just overstaying their welcome (9/11 anybody?). A person with good judgment would help people to achieve their best, and encourage them to provide for themselves and help their fellow man. A person with good judgment would also protect the most innocent among us, such as unborn babies, while letting those who have been found dangerous to society face the consequences of their proven actions.
So just because the New York Times is attacking John McCain does not change my position on his judgment. It also does not change the positions that drove me to not want to vote for Mr. McCain. While I do believe that the enemy of my enemy may be my friend, Mr. McCain has not proven that he is a friend to me. He is simply facing the heat that would come on any enemy of the liberal establishment, as voiced by the NYT. A moderate Republican is too conservative for the NYT, but not conservative enough for a true conservative like me. They endorsed John McCain in the primaries, but had no intention of supporting him in the general election. Why should anyone follow the suggestions of a hostile group of people when picking their candidate? Yet the media pointed to his endorsement by the NYT, his victories in "blue states", and people started talking about electing the candidate who can win "broad support". When poles of the Big Tent are liberal, the tent tends to collapse to the left.
I know not one person who is excited about John McCain for President. Not one. And I know a lot of people, from various parts of the country. Groups like the NYT believe that we will like or dislike a group for personal reasons. To a small extent, that is true, but the main reason conservatives like a candidate is that they like his positions on the issues, and trust that he will give every effort to getting those positions enacted into our laws or at least into our culture. Sometimes a position can be influential by just repeating it from the bully pulpit, while there are clearly those that need to be enacted into law. This explains why the Border enforcement and the Fair Tax were not enough to propel Mike Huckabee into the top position in the campaign. Not enough people believed he would really do those things, and not enough people really believed he was conservative enough that they could really trust him to get the job done in a conservative way. He had a record of running as a conservative, but then backing down to a Democrat legislature. He also has a class warfare streak that comes out in speeches and in debates, and that rubs a lot of conservatives the wrong way. But that's a whole nother subject.
These primaries were without the two main candidates we would have liked to see, and so we had to choose between five people who were not our first choices for President. Probably the best would have been George Allen or Jeb Bush, if they would have run. However, Macaca and Bush derangement syndrome along with Bush fatigue shot those guys out of the water. We are now down to the lesser of five lessers, and Mr. McCain is less than we want. No matter what the NYT says or does, John McCain is not the kind of guy I can get behind with any enthusiasm, even if I feel compelled to defend him on some issues they raise. I almost cannot vote for him, which some might see as a softening of my position.
This leaves me wanting to tell you about how the Gang of 14 ruined my chances of voting for McCain, and how the Mexican border positions Mr. McCain takes are hardening me in my opposition to Mr. McCain, but that will have to wait. I have to go to bed, to stop complaining about McCain, because I have a job to attend in the morning. I work my butt off all day to support my family and pay my taxes, so I need my sleep. By the way: when do Candidates sleep? They seem to always be up, or on their way somewhere, leading a press junket on aq plane. Oh well... Good night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)