Debate #1 has finished...and real coverage of it is essentially over, so I will now weigh in.
I think it was a McCain victory 54% to 45% with 1% undecided for the misspeaking that occurred.
The first thing that must be said is that the very first question was demonstrative of what irritates me about this campaign. Neither candidate answered the question... they were called on it, and McCain came slightly closer to answering but still didn't (while Obama didn't even try to actually answer).
It also demonstrated another annoyance that I have about this particular campaign... people cannot deviate from their talking points. I watch all of the news networks to some extent, and when anyone is asked a follow-up question (especially one that challenges their opinion or demonstrates that they just lied), they simply repeat the talking point which was busted. This was a rehashing of old talking points, many of which are busted or overly general. I heard no specifics on plans, especially for the economy. "95% of people will get a tax cut" is not specifics, especially when he's raising the caps on taxes like the capital gains tax (which should by all rights be eliminated altogether).
I think McCain should have talked more about the bailout plan...because he knows what's going on, unlike Obama who has been preparing for a foreign policy debate for 3 days. And, to digress a little from the point at hand, presidential politics was inserted when Bush introduced a bailout plan. John McCain and Barack Obama are both Senators currently, and, although we have been without their services for about two years, we still pay them to be there and represent us, so McCain's decision was the responsible one. Anywho, McCain should have emphasized why the White House meeting fell apart, called for video or audio from it to be released, talked about how the democrats created a fake "agreement" without allowing an entire group to discuss it, pointed out that although Obama paints him as Bush 3.0, he hasn't signed onto Bush's economic plan and all of the democrats have (possibly with the snippy comment about how Obama votes with his part almost 99% of the time) -- so who's with Bush now? I thought that was a hugely missed opportunity.
There really weren't a lot of soundbytes of note on either side. The first one-liner that made an impression was a clever Obama line about the hacksaw vs. the scalpel, but it was easily forgettable. I thought a more effective one was the hit about Obama's presidential seal... very powerful. However, the best one-liner (also from McCain) was the "And when I'm chairman of a subcommittee, we take up the issues..." line. That was brilliant, since it is well-documented that Obama has been a chairman and never actually convened a meeting.
I also gave McCain a point for knowing the name of the soldier whose bracelet he is wearing. Obama is a "man of the people" with "compassion" and blah blah blah, but he didn't bother to know the name of a person who is centered in one of his talking points (someone who is supposed to be central to his anti-war compassion). How is that compassionate, or even keeping the memory alive?
I deleted points on Obama for advocating war with Pakistan. He openly did this and no one is going to call him on it. How can he criticize Iran and then say we should unilaterally attack Pakistan, even against their will? It is pure hypocrisy, but no one is going to say a word, and analysts on both CNN and MSNBC praised him for it (calling it "bold"). So, when Bush extends a war into another country, which has been beligerant toward the precious (sarcasm) UN Resolutions against it, everyone is up-in-arms, but when Obama says "I will attack Pakistan (even) is they are unwilling to help us catch Bin Laden" everything is fine and dandy. Some pacifist democrats... This is like having Al Gore say "Bush (Sr.) should have made extra effort to install a new regime in Iraq because we have documented Saddam's use of Weapons of Mass Destruction and oppressive rule on numerous occasions, and then saying that Bush Jr. "played on our fears" to perform an illegal regime change in Iraq. They talk out of both sides of their mouths and nobody ever seems to notice.
I noticed that all analysts seemed to give points in the beginning to each candidate for respective issues - Obama gets economy points and McCain get foreign policy points. They give an edge before it starts. I thought McCain was even with him on economy, because neither talked about much of anything (especially about the bailout). And I thought McCain won the foreign policy round, driving home the "Obama doesn't understand" point and caling him on a number of things that are just bad about his policy. Obama then rebutted with a mischaracterization of Kissinger's statement about Iran, which of course was corrected thoroughly both during and after the debate.
I think that Obama lost some points for getting frustrated and doing the age old "Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson Talk-Over-Your-Opponent" technique. He kept saying "that's not true" and at one point just started making a point which was garbled with McCain's point into nonsense. And as much as people play up his "eloquence" and "speaking ability" and "thoughtfulness," I didn't see it tonight. You know why? Because there was no teleprompter. He had one good phrase, and it was listed above -- the rest was residual from his semi-memorized speeches (where he had someone else come up with the thoughts and read them off the teleprompter). He needs to remember that regardless of the African American population in these areas, he needs to not be like those two. Sharpton and Jackson were unelectable, and, while drawing comparisons may make you seem slightly more distinguished or intelligent to some, it will also bring up the negatives associated with these very racist hypocrits. Obama needs the white male vote, and being them in Mississippi of all places would not help your cause.
Overall, Obama was not pummeled, like he could/should have been, but like the pundits said afterwards, Mondale beat Reagan by a huge margin in the first debate...but he never became president. So I guess there is no need to pummel him yet. However, one must recognize that Obama has been preparing for 3 days (minus a short trip to DC to screw up a White House meeting); McCain has been preparing for 3 hours, because he was actually working as a Senator during the week.
As for the 1% undecided, there were some names that were mispronounced by McCain, most notably the Iranian president (which I won't endeavor to spell). Obama lost huge points for mispronouncing "nuke"... not nuclear, like Bush, but the shortened form "nuke." That's just unacceptable when you are trying to separate yourself from the man and you make one of the most notably irritations that come from the man (only worse).
There are a lot of other things that I could discuss, but now it is getting late and I may continue tomorrow after re-watching it, but probably not. Overall, I was unimpressed by either candidate's performance, wish they would throw away their talking points, and eagerly await Palin v. Biden (which will either be a wipeout or a slam dunk for Palin... and I'm starting to lean toward wipe-out, depending on the pundit, though I still like her).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Suspending Campaign
Okay, and the economic shock has reached a new pinnacle point: McCain suspends his campaign to work on the solution (the "shock treatment" if you will). This move is surprising, and everyone calls it "bold," but there are a few things that it does politically that should be fully examined.
First, suspending the campaign shows the country (and it needs to be mentioned explicitly...because a lot of people don't care about this very important point) that John McCain still considers himself a SENATOR. Both candidates share a job, being members of the Senate of the United States of America, and NEITHER has actually done the job they were elected to do and are paid to do for almost 2 years. This is John McCain's attempt to call to the attention of everyone in the country that he is still committed to the task for which he actually is responsible currently, rather than just the task he aspires to take on.
Secondly, this will play well with his slogan, "Country First." He'll now be able to say, "I supported the surge when it might cost the election, and now I suspended my campaign to fix the country's economic problems. So I would rather lose an election than lose economic prosperity." (Too bad that the socialist bail-out will eventually destroy the country's economy anyways). However, it gives more credence (as if we needed it) of his commitment to the US. It also makes Obama look insensitive to the problems when he refuses (especially now that Bush has personally asked him to return to Washington).
Third, a postponement for the debate, or even a cancellation, will remove the possibility for Obama to "gain credibility" in the realm of foreign affairs. Obama has nothing to lose, because the media is setting his standard so low that it will be impossible not to meet and exceed. However, the media is also placing undue pressure on him to perform -- even though it is demonstrable that he is stronger in all senses on this front, especially on his stances against terrorism and negotiating with leaders of countries like Iran (that tiny country that isn't a threat at all -- sarcasm on my part, but Obama's actual words...).
Fourth, now, no matter what happens, McCain will take credit for bringing the Republicans together into a bipartisan agreement. His personal presence, regardless of what role he plays, gives him the ability to claim a large role in whatever happens (most likely a hugely socialist bail-out of companies and loans that have yet to fail... begging the question as to who will gain free houses at taxpayer expense).
Fifth, and finally, it will completely ruin Obama's travel schedule. Obama has noticeably been following McCain's travel route behind by about two weeks. The Obama campaign will not know where to go anymore if the McCain campaign is suspended. I do find it funny though that Obama gets smaller crowds than McCain and Palin now...
However, there are some negatives to consider with this course of action. For one thing, Obama has already said that "A President should be able to do many things at once." This "lack of multi-tasking" by McCain is already under attack (and will be more heavily attacked in the very near future... probably when Biden says "FDR could use television and defeat Otto von Bismark at the same time"). However, to counter this should be statements that Obama is not the President, and should actually do the job he currently holds.
Another negative is the fact that Obama is being given the offensive. He now has a few days of free reign on the campaign trail, not having to respond to attacks but able to freely make them. Although I doubt the campaign will cease responding to the ongoing distortions, nor will they stop appearing on news programs, there will be nothing but positive about Obama for the next few days (because there were only 54 "negative" stories about Obama on CNN in the past 19 months - compared to 22 anti-Palin stories in 3 weeks). This shift will likely give Obama a slight lead in the polls (mind you, I don't trust ABC's skewed poll that intentionally sought black voters (90% of which are for Obama) and gave Obama an huge lead... Rasmussen and Gallup still have them essentially even with a slight Obama lead (47% to 44%... still with-in margin of error)), unless of course they attack Sarah Palin some more. The media will essentially give Obama a free pass until McCain puts out an ad that they can attack ineffectively. I mean really, even news parody is in the tank for him...and totally against Palin. The Onion put out essentially a real attack story today, with a joke response (available here). The Onion writes essentially a New York Times editorial and then creates a "joke" as a response to what they really think. I can't believe no one brings up the fact that Bill Clinton essentially the same amount of experience (and a sex scandal) when he was running for the first time. Governors of States DON'T MEET WITH FOREIGN LEADERS....EVER. I mean, even if they come to the state it's unlikely... but I digress.
A large negative is that McCain is essentially tied to a plan now. He has gone to Washington to straighten it up, and he has to come out in support of a plan. Which means... there will be a socializing from McCain. The question is how socialist will we become. I said that the Palin decision would give him my vote on the condition that there was no mistake made in the coming weeks. There is ample opportunity for mistake in this... especially if tax money goes to buying houses for people. That itself would lose my vote pending something really good happening in the coming weeks (and McCain isn't really known for doing things that I like...). Obama is not an option for me, so I might leave the President field blank on election day if it comes to it. I cannot support someone who, as Palin put it, "rewards bad decisions" on the part of both lenders and buyers.
Well, I've praddled on enough for today. I think the good may outweigh the bad in the long run, giving McCain a new set of attacks and a chance for speech-writers to come up with new material. However, that really depends on the quality of the action that he's promoting. We'll see how it develops, and I sincerely hope that many if not all foreclosures are allowed to go through.
First, suspending the campaign shows the country (and it needs to be mentioned explicitly...because a lot of people don't care about this very important point) that John McCain still considers himself a SENATOR. Both candidates share a job, being members of the Senate of the United States of America, and NEITHER has actually done the job they were elected to do and are paid to do for almost 2 years. This is John McCain's attempt to call to the attention of everyone in the country that he is still committed to the task for which he actually is responsible currently, rather than just the task he aspires to take on.
Secondly, this will play well with his slogan, "Country First." He'll now be able to say, "I supported the surge when it might cost the election, and now I suspended my campaign to fix the country's economic problems. So I would rather lose an election than lose economic prosperity." (Too bad that the socialist bail-out will eventually destroy the country's economy anyways). However, it gives more credence (as if we needed it) of his commitment to the US. It also makes Obama look insensitive to the problems when he refuses (especially now that Bush has personally asked him to return to Washington).
Third, a postponement for the debate, or even a cancellation, will remove the possibility for Obama to "gain credibility" in the realm of foreign affairs. Obama has nothing to lose, because the media is setting his standard so low that it will be impossible not to meet and exceed. However, the media is also placing undue pressure on him to perform -- even though it is demonstrable that he is stronger in all senses on this front, especially on his stances against terrorism and negotiating with leaders of countries like Iran (that tiny country that isn't a threat at all -- sarcasm on my part, but Obama's actual words...).
Fourth, now, no matter what happens, McCain will take credit for bringing the Republicans together into a bipartisan agreement. His personal presence, regardless of what role he plays, gives him the ability to claim a large role in whatever happens (most likely a hugely socialist bail-out of companies and loans that have yet to fail... begging the question as to who will gain free houses at taxpayer expense).
Fifth, and finally, it will completely ruin Obama's travel schedule. Obama has noticeably been following McCain's travel route behind by about two weeks. The Obama campaign will not know where to go anymore if the McCain campaign is suspended. I do find it funny though that Obama gets smaller crowds than McCain and Palin now...
However, there are some negatives to consider with this course of action. For one thing, Obama has already said that "A President should be able to do many things at once." This "lack of multi-tasking" by McCain is already under attack (and will be more heavily attacked in the very near future... probably when Biden says "FDR could use television and defeat Otto von Bismark at the same time"). However, to counter this should be statements that Obama is not the President, and should actually do the job he currently holds.
Another negative is the fact that Obama is being given the offensive. He now has a few days of free reign on the campaign trail, not having to respond to attacks but able to freely make them. Although I doubt the campaign will cease responding to the ongoing distortions, nor will they stop appearing on news programs, there will be nothing but positive about Obama for the next few days (because there were only 54 "negative" stories about Obama on CNN in the past 19 months - compared to 22 anti-Palin stories in 3 weeks). This shift will likely give Obama a slight lead in the polls (mind you, I don't trust ABC's skewed poll that intentionally sought black voters (90% of which are for Obama) and gave Obama an huge lead... Rasmussen and Gallup still have them essentially even with a slight Obama lead (47% to 44%... still with-in margin of error)), unless of course they attack Sarah Palin some more. The media will essentially give Obama a free pass until McCain puts out an ad that they can attack ineffectively. I mean really, even news parody is in the tank for him...and totally against Palin. The Onion put out essentially a real attack story today, with a joke response (available here). The Onion writes essentially a New York Times editorial and then creates a "joke" as a response to what they really think. I can't believe no one brings up the fact that Bill Clinton essentially the same amount of experience (and a sex scandal) when he was running for the first time. Governors of States DON'T MEET WITH FOREIGN LEADERS....EVER. I mean, even if they come to the state it's unlikely... but I digress.
A large negative is that McCain is essentially tied to a plan now. He has gone to Washington to straighten it up, and he has to come out in support of a plan. Which means... there will be a socializing from McCain. The question is how socialist will we become. I said that the Palin decision would give him my vote on the condition that there was no mistake made in the coming weeks. There is ample opportunity for mistake in this... especially if tax money goes to buying houses for people. That itself would lose my vote pending something really good happening in the coming weeks (and McCain isn't really known for doing things that I like...). Obama is not an option for me, so I might leave the President field blank on election day if it comes to it. I cannot support someone who, as Palin put it, "rewards bad decisions" on the part of both lenders and buyers.
Well, I've praddled on enough for today. I think the good may outweigh the bad in the long run, giving McCain a new set of attacks and a chance for speech-writers to come up with new material. However, that really depends on the quality of the action that he's promoting. We'll see how it develops, and I sincerely hope that many if not all foreclosures are allowed to go through.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Financial Crisis and Responses
Okay, here we go...two of the largest bailouts in history, and now 1,000,000,000,000 in tax-payer funds going to "shore up" the economy. With this, we finally discover the truth about the American government's view of the economy -- we are not capitalists. The key difference between a capitalist economy and a government economy is the ability to fail. If you make a bad decision or fall behind, or misappropriate funding, or embezzle your company, your business, no matter what it is, should fail -- but that is only if the market is fair, and capitalist.
However, we now see that the government wants failing mismanaged companies to be saved so that they can continue bad practices. Even worse, is that this has become yet another opportunity to grow the already corrupt and failing government oversight bodies. Guess what, there are committees in Congress and elsewhere in the bureaucracy that specifically oversee business practices. But these committees are too busy looking into baseball steroid controversies to actually do the task assigned to them.
And why is it the duty of the government to bail out these companies? It seems that the age old creed that the government was instituted to protect the pursuit of happiness has finally degraded into a system of producing artificial happiness and prosperity. The privatization of the economy is what grew it to its current size. Look at Japan, the government spent incredible amounts of money internally and created a bubble from which they are still trying to recover. In the U.S., there was such a crisis earlier in the year -- the housing crisis. The problem with this is not entirely the banks allowing loans to people who could not afford them, but also to the people seeking loans that could not be afforded. Why bail these people out, like Obama seems to claim in saying "keep people in their houses"? People who lose their houses in the wake of this "crisis" are people who could not afford the houses they sought, and knew it before they bought them.
And lack of regulations is not the problem, because there are many regulations on the book, which allow these things to happen when oversight is lax. And why is oversight lax? Because the democrats who control Congress and the oversight sections of the bureaucracy (from being in control when current career bureaucrats were originally hired) were receiving large-scale financial contributions from these companies while they were failing. And guess why the Congress chose not to touch this issue when it comes up... because elections are right around the corner. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate went so far as to say that Congress would have no idea what to do about it in the first place. Well, why does Congress have oversight abilities then, if they don't know anything?
And what has been the reaction to government bailouts? Glee. The market is rising on the anticipation of the government "saving" us from turmoil. Why is this? Because when the government commits to saving these companies that deserve to fail, they will be able to continue the practices that caused them to fall t this level. That is not capitalism. That is socialism -- nationalizing the public market, both de facto and de jure. If you aren't allowed to fail... the risk that is inherent in capitalism disappears, and so capitalism itself disintegrates.
As for candidate responses, Obama made his speech this morning, stating that we should not bail out CEOs and people that made bad decisions, but we should work to keep people in their homes and secure their futures. Well, what about those who are foreclosed on? They made bad decisions themselves. What of the Congress and, indeed, the Bush administration, which stated that it was a fundamental right to own a home? What of these banks, which he now calls to be saved? All of these parties have made bad decisions, but Obama is now saying that we should bail out some and not others. We should bail out people who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford (by giving them a free house), and ignore the plight of the people who lost money because of the housing bubble that created artificially high house values for which they gave loans, especially after the government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanded that they give the loans. This is pure hypocrisy and political pandering.
Now on the McCain side we see a slightly less popular answer -- that we should stop bailing out companies, but that there were certain things that had to happen (AIG bailout specificaly). We find the same pandering to crowds that should be expected from a person who helped pass a useless "economic stimulus" package earlier in the year, but you can see that he was hurt by the necessity to go against his principles (namely, capitalism) to do it. He has now come out more forcefully against any further bailouts, as has Sarah Palin. This demonstrates what he claims... country first, but also demonstrates why I and so many republicans were dismayed early in the election cycle by his candidacy. He will do things even against his own principles, the principles presumably of conservatism, in order to win an election or seem universally acceptable to people. Where are the Ron Pauls saying "I told you so, and now you need to watch these businesses fail because of your blind foresight..."? They don't seem to have newsworth, despite the fact that I absolutely know that they have something to say about this.
Updated: I have come across the actual root of the problem in this matter... a REGULATION passed by CONGRESS during the Carter administration, which Janet Reno stepped up enforcement on. It is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Title 12, Chapter 30, § 2901 of the U.S. Code), which requires banks to give out the same proportion of loans to low-income areas as to higher income areas. While this is a noble goal, the problem is that the people living in the low-income areas are generally unable to pay the loans back. The point was that these people would have failed the risk screening by the bank, but the law forced the banks to give them a loan anyway (because it assumed that these people were being "red lined," or not considered simply because of their appearance or geographical location). The banks were against the law, and since the Carter administration was only nominally in control of the country, it was ignored (especially since Reagan and Bush would probably have tried to repeal it if they cared enough). However, Janet Reno ordered that there be strict oversight and enforcement of the law, which resulted in loans that should not have been given out going out, which prompted Fannie and Freddie to buy up these loans, causing it to go under when the housing bubble (brought on by the cheapened money and high demand for houses) burst. Fannie and Freddie brought everyone else with them, and consumer confidence led to the "apocalypse." The same thing happened during the Internet bubble burst, but it was the European banks that went under during that "crisis" (something Greenspan thought was funny). This whole situation just annoys me, and I hate the fact that tax money is going to bail out companies and, if the Democrats have control, pay for people to stay in houses that should be foreclosed... idiots.
However, we now see that the government wants failing mismanaged companies to be saved so that they can continue bad practices. Even worse, is that this has become yet another opportunity to grow the already corrupt and failing government oversight bodies. Guess what, there are committees in Congress and elsewhere in the bureaucracy that specifically oversee business practices. But these committees are too busy looking into baseball steroid controversies to actually do the task assigned to them.
And why is it the duty of the government to bail out these companies? It seems that the age old creed that the government was instituted to protect the pursuit of happiness has finally degraded into a system of producing artificial happiness and prosperity. The privatization of the economy is what grew it to its current size. Look at Japan, the government spent incredible amounts of money internally and created a bubble from which they are still trying to recover. In the U.S., there was such a crisis earlier in the year -- the housing crisis. The problem with this is not entirely the banks allowing loans to people who could not afford them, but also to the people seeking loans that could not be afforded. Why bail these people out, like Obama seems to claim in saying "keep people in their houses"? People who lose their houses in the wake of this "crisis" are people who could not afford the houses they sought, and knew it before they bought them.
And lack of regulations is not the problem, because there are many regulations on the book, which allow these things to happen when oversight is lax. And why is oversight lax? Because the democrats who control Congress and the oversight sections of the bureaucracy (from being in control when current career bureaucrats were originally hired) were receiving large-scale financial contributions from these companies while they were failing. And guess why the Congress chose not to touch this issue when it comes up... because elections are right around the corner. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader in the Senate went so far as to say that Congress would have no idea what to do about it in the first place. Well, why does Congress have oversight abilities then, if they don't know anything?
And what has been the reaction to government bailouts? Glee. The market is rising on the anticipation of the government "saving" us from turmoil. Why is this? Because when the government commits to saving these companies that deserve to fail, they will be able to continue the practices that caused them to fall t this level. That is not capitalism. That is socialism -- nationalizing the public market, both de facto and de jure. If you aren't allowed to fail... the risk that is inherent in capitalism disappears, and so capitalism itself disintegrates.
As for candidate responses, Obama made his speech this morning, stating that we should not bail out CEOs and people that made bad decisions, but we should work to keep people in their homes and secure their futures. Well, what about those who are foreclosed on? They made bad decisions themselves. What of the Congress and, indeed, the Bush administration, which stated that it was a fundamental right to own a home? What of these banks, which he now calls to be saved? All of these parties have made bad decisions, but Obama is now saying that we should bail out some and not others. We should bail out people who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford (by giving them a free house), and ignore the plight of the people who lost money because of the housing bubble that created artificially high house values for which they gave loans, especially after the government, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanded that they give the loans. This is pure hypocrisy and political pandering.
Now on the McCain side we see a slightly less popular answer -- that we should stop bailing out companies, but that there were certain things that had to happen (AIG bailout specificaly). We find the same pandering to crowds that should be expected from a person who helped pass a useless "economic stimulus" package earlier in the year, but you can see that he was hurt by the necessity to go against his principles (namely, capitalism) to do it. He has now come out more forcefully against any further bailouts, as has Sarah Palin. This demonstrates what he claims... country first, but also demonstrates why I and so many republicans were dismayed early in the election cycle by his candidacy. He will do things even against his own principles, the principles presumably of conservatism, in order to win an election or seem universally acceptable to people. Where are the Ron Pauls saying "I told you so, and now you need to watch these businesses fail because of your blind foresight..."? They don't seem to have newsworth, despite the fact that I absolutely know that they have something to say about this.
Updated: I have come across the actual root of the problem in this matter... a REGULATION passed by CONGRESS during the Carter administration, which Janet Reno stepped up enforcement on. It is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (Title 12, Chapter 30, § 2901 of the U.S. Code), which requires banks to give out the same proportion of loans to low-income areas as to higher income areas. While this is a noble goal, the problem is that the people living in the low-income areas are generally unable to pay the loans back. The point was that these people would have failed the risk screening by the bank, but the law forced the banks to give them a loan anyway (because it assumed that these people were being "red lined," or not considered simply because of their appearance or geographical location). The banks were against the law, and since the Carter administration was only nominally in control of the country, it was ignored (especially since Reagan and Bush would probably have tried to repeal it if they cared enough). However, Janet Reno ordered that there be strict oversight and enforcement of the law, which resulted in loans that should not have been given out going out, which prompted Fannie and Freddie to buy up these loans, causing it to go under when the housing bubble (brought on by the cheapened money and high demand for houses) burst. Fannie and Freddie brought everyone else with them, and consumer confidence led to the "apocalypse." The same thing happened during the Internet bubble burst, but it was the European banks that went under during that "crisis" (something Greenspan thought was funny). This whole situation just annoys me, and I hate the fact that tax money is going to bail out companies and, if the Democrats have control, pay for people to stay in houses that should be foreclosed... idiots.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Distractions
With only a week before the first debate, both parties are now trying to skirt the fact that neither of them have an actual plan... at all. McCain is closest on a plan for Iraq, but it's basically to stay until the job is complete and leave it to people on the ground. So now, to distract people and keep their names in the papers and on TV (even though that's pretty much all we hear), we get the following stories from each party:
Republicans:
1.) Lipstick controversy
2.) Sarah Palin attacks (although very real... they are still a distraction)
3.) calling for regulations on Wall Street.... (I really HOPE it's a distraction... the market will actually crash with more regulations)
4.) attacks on the media
5.) talking about distractions
Democrats:
1.) Trooper-gate (which is not a real issue... see below)
2.) Blackberry Comment
3.) "Fundamentals of the Economy are strong" (which is TRUE!! ...but widely unqualified...)
4.) playing the race card... once again and over and over (Sebelius is an idiot.)
5.) bashing Bush for things for which the Congress was responsible
6.) attacks on the media
7.) Talking about distractions
Okay...let's do this chronologically.
Bush's presidency was not as bad as everyone seems to think. The perception is low because there are many factors (generally single issues) in today's society that people think something should be done about (gas prices, war in Iraq, abortion, stem cell research, health care, housing bubble burst). In 20 years, no one who knows anything will end up saying Bush was the worst president in history, because he really isn't (there have been far worse presidents (e.g. Jimmy Carter), and far less popular presidents (I'm looking at you Adams, Lincoln, and Johnson, among others)). Bush has made several correct decisions as well as several bad decisions, as all presidents do (and for the record, the wars are not bad decisions...though there were some bad decisions made during them). People criticize when they don't actually understand anything about it. However, I don't like Bush, because he spends money like water. That's why there is a huge deficit... because Bush made no attempt to curb spending. Deficit spending is not bad unless it gets out of hand... which it now has (and will continue to under either of the next potential presidents). But in truth, there is really no reason for people to distance themselves from Bush, because agree or not with his policies, he's still a decent person. And of course, Congress is actually to blame for much of this economic mess, since they were siphoning campaign money out of the pockets of the workers for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman (mostly Democrats as well - can anyone say Enron?). Anywho, I'll now move on.
Next comes the media. Okay, this spans a long time. The media has always been biased...there is no way around it because people have opinions. From Chris Matthew's "tinglings" to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell's gloomy face during coverage of the RNC to the fox news coverage of Biden's crazy gaffes, even when they don't try there is bias. Fox News, for all the criticism of its right wing leanings...is the ONLY right wing leaning news station. Those that actually try to be neutral, i.e. C-SPAN (and only C-SPAN), even end up skewing slightly left on the spectrum. However, Fox News covers things that no one else dares... like Obama personal connections, which have always been under scrutiny in the past (even Clinton was under scrutiny for, what's that, a SEX SCANDAL, while he was running for president the first time). Obama has some really radical associations though, which no one else actually even tries to cover. And if we look at the front page of MSNBC's website today, we see "The Palin bounce fades for McCain,""McCain turns to an embrace of regulation" (which actually should be a concern for people), and "Alaska AG rejects Palin subpoenas" - three negative stories about the McCain campaign. Below this is a link to the video of McCain criticizing Obama's huge fundraiser, which inevitably becomes an attack on the McCain campaign for the "Blackberry" comment and Fiorina's comment about Palin's "inability to run a company." Andrea Mitchell is incredibly transparent in her campaign trail for Obama. However, because of Fox News's existence, both sides of the campaign can decry the media. Obama has been railing against the media that doesn't kiss up to him for the entire campaign, calling out Sean Hannity by name...despite the fact that Hannoty and Colmes is an opinion show, not a news show. However, the media itself was thrown up in arms when Palin and McCain started calling them out. The media response is to continue and intensify though, despite the fact that MSNBC removed two of the most blatant offenders from campaign coverage. Objectivity is hard to achieve, but the media should not delude itself into thinking that it has it, and then campaign for Obama. The media should be railed against, but it truly is a distraction for both campaigns from having to talk about the issues at hand.
Now to the lipstick controversy and the Sarah Palin attacks, which go hand in hand. It is true that words are chosen very carefully in campaigns, and everyone knows that the lipstick comment was one of the most covered parts of Palin's convention speech. Obama's next line was about McCain being an old dirty fish wrapped in "change" paper... so I conclude that it was meant to be a reference to both of them... however, it defeats the purpose to call it out and "cry about it" if you are really a pitbull with lipstick on... As I have said before, Palin cannot be effective if she becomes a victim... I mean, look at where Hillary is... Palin is a strong person in my measure, and although she did receive many undue questions about her ability to juggle a family and a job simultaneously, it should not become the focus of the McCain campaign. As for the Trooper-gate "scandal," the person who was fired (not actually the trooper) was insubordinate in a number of ways that extended far beyond the refusal to fire a state trooper who tasered one of his relatives. The man tried to put through a budget that Palin had vetoed, just to name one thing.
Equally dumb is this new Al Gore internet contraversy about the blackberry and Commerce Committee. Obama pounced on this even though there were tons of people that defended essentially the same statements by Gore... and Gore ACTUALLY said it himself... McCain did not claim this, someone in his campaign did. And as for the "fundamentals" of the economy...they are strong. The DOW Jones average was 875 when Reagan entered office. It was 3000 when Clinton got to it, and 11,000 when Bush inherited it. We were an international superpower at 875 and lower DOW Jones numbers. We are now higher than 11,000. A 500 point drop, while it hurts, means absolutely nothing in the big picture, which Obama doesn't seems to see. While there are case studies of people suffering, losing their houses because they were irresponsible and the banks actually allowed it (under a law that Clinton passed), the vast majority of RESPONSIBLE people are not suffering in those ways. And today, we learn that the housing market should be stable in 8 months, because consumer confidence is returning and people are no longer abandoning their house deposits. As for McCain's call for regulations... I just really hope he's joking.
We now get to one of the biggest problems with Obama's campaign... the race card. His surrogates are now playing it once again (perhaps as September surprise). They now say that the only reason McCain is slightly leading in the polls is because of racism. These people need to realize that THIS sort of distraction will actually cause people to vote against him. People do not like to have an ultimatum like "vote for me or you are racist," especially when the candidate markets himself primarily on a racial basis. The only people that have actually brought up race in this campaign are the democrats (with the exception of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"). Why is the "progressive" party so focused on race, while no one seems to notice that the most minority appointees in the history of the US have been appointed under the evil George Bush who, in the words of Kanye West (aka "Idiot"), "hates black people."
Now, I have just wasted some time talking about campaign distractions, but I'm not on the campaign (because I don't fully support either candidate - if it had been Thompson or Romney I would be on that campaign in a NY minute). Obama has recently put out a 2 minute distraction ad (in that it does not say ANYTHING), which says that distractions are the problem in this election. It then gives generalities of his platform (which is all we ever get), and the offensive (to me) statement that "We should be rebuilding our own country." This is along the same lines as "For the first time, I am really proud of my country." And have you noticed, Michelle is nowhere to be seen in the media now...because the "she hates America" comments are all true, though they should also be applied to Barack himself. I just find it ironic that distracting people from the issues is also done through talking about distractions...
Okay, well, there is my tirade on Political distractions. But there is one more thing that I want to point out. I have recently come across a court case... Berg v. Obama, which makes a pretty god argument for Obama's ineligibility to be President, based on citizenship qualifications. The restraining order that would have prevented the DNC was denied, but expedited discovery has now been ordered, due September 30th. I will be watching this case as it develops, since no one has actually picked up on it yet.
Republicans:
1.) Lipstick controversy
2.) Sarah Palin attacks (although very real... they are still a distraction)
3.) calling for regulations on Wall Street.... (I really HOPE it's a distraction... the market will actually crash with more regulations)
4.) attacks on the media
5.) talking about distractions
Democrats:
1.) Trooper-gate (which is not a real issue... see below)
2.) Blackberry Comment
3.) "Fundamentals of the Economy are strong" (which is TRUE!! ...but widely unqualified...)
4.) playing the race card... once again and over and over (Sebelius is an idiot.)
5.) bashing Bush for things for which the Congress was responsible
6.) attacks on the media
7.) Talking about distractions
Okay...let's do this chronologically.
Bush's presidency was not as bad as everyone seems to think. The perception is low because there are many factors (generally single issues) in today's society that people think something should be done about (gas prices, war in Iraq, abortion, stem cell research, health care, housing bubble burst). In 20 years, no one who knows anything will end up saying Bush was the worst president in history, because he really isn't (there have been far worse presidents (e.g. Jimmy Carter), and far less popular presidents (I'm looking at you Adams, Lincoln, and Johnson, among others)). Bush has made several correct decisions as well as several bad decisions, as all presidents do (and for the record, the wars are not bad decisions...though there were some bad decisions made during them). People criticize when they don't actually understand anything about it. However, I don't like Bush, because he spends money like water. That's why there is a huge deficit... because Bush made no attempt to curb spending. Deficit spending is not bad unless it gets out of hand... which it now has (and will continue to under either of the next potential presidents). But in truth, there is really no reason for people to distance themselves from Bush, because agree or not with his policies, he's still a decent person. And of course, Congress is actually to blame for much of this economic mess, since they were siphoning campaign money out of the pockets of the workers for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman (mostly Democrats as well - can anyone say Enron?). Anywho, I'll now move on.
Next comes the media. Okay, this spans a long time. The media has always been biased...there is no way around it because people have opinions. From Chris Matthew's "tinglings" to MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell's gloomy face during coverage of the RNC to the fox news coverage of Biden's crazy gaffes, even when they don't try there is bias. Fox News, for all the criticism of its right wing leanings...is the ONLY right wing leaning news station. Those that actually try to be neutral, i.e. C-SPAN (and only C-SPAN), even end up skewing slightly left on the spectrum. However, Fox News covers things that no one else dares... like Obama personal connections, which have always been under scrutiny in the past (even Clinton was under scrutiny for, what's that, a SEX SCANDAL, while he was running for president the first time). Obama has some really radical associations though, which no one else actually even tries to cover. And if we look at the front page of MSNBC's website today, we see "The Palin bounce fades for McCain,""McCain turns to an embrace of regulation" (which actually should be a concern for people), and "Alaska AG rejects Palin subpoenas" - three negative stories about the McCain campaign. Below this is a link to the video of McCain criticizing Obama's huge fundraiser, which inevitably becomes an attack on the McCain campaign for the "Blackberry" comment and Fiorina's comment about Palin's "inability to run a company." Andrea Mitchell is incredibly transparent in her campaign trail for Obama. However, because of Fox News's existence, both sides of the campaign can decry the media. Obama has been railing against the media that doesn't kiss up to him for the entire campaign, calling out Sean Hannity by name...despite the fact that Hannoty and Colmes is an opinion show, not a news show. However, the media itself was thrown up in arms when Palin and McCain started calling them out. The media response is to continue and intensify though, despite the fact that MSNBC removed two of the most blatant offenders from campaign coverage. Objectivity is hard to achieve, but the media should not delude itself into thinking that it has it, and then campaign for Obama. The media should be railed against, but it truly is a distraction for both campaigns from having to talk about the issues at hand.
Now to the lipstick controversy and the Sarah Palin attacks, which go hand in hand. It is true that words are chosen very carefully in campaigns, and everyone knows that the lipstick comment was one of the most covered parts of Palin's convention speech. Obama's next line was about McCain being an old dirty fish wrapped in "change" paper... so I conclude that it was meant to be a reference to both of them... however, it defeats the purpose to call it out and "cry about it" if you are really a pitbull with lipstick on... As I have said before, Palin cannot be effective if she becomes a victim... I mean, look at where Hillary is... Palin is a strong person in my measure, and although she did receive many undue questions about her ability to juggle a family and a job simultaneously, it should not become the focus of the McCain campaign. As for the Trooper-gate "scandal," the person who was fired (not actually the trooper) was insubordinate in a number of ways that extended far beyond the refusal to fire a state trooper who tasered one of his relatives. The man tried to put through a budget that Palin had vetoed, just to name one thing.
Equally dumb is this new Al Gore internet contraversy about the blackberry and Commerce Committee. Obama pounced on this even though there were tons of people that defended essentially the same statements by Gore... and Gore ACTUALLY said it himself... McCain did not claim this, someone in his campaign did. And as for the "fundamentals" of the economy...they are strong. The DOW Jones average was 875 when Reagan entered office. It was 3000 when Clinton got to it, and 11,000 when Bush inherited it. We were an international superpower at 875 and lower DOW Jones numbers. We are now higher than 11,000. A 500 point drop, while it hurts, means absolutely nothing in the big picture, which Obama doesn't seems to see. While there are case studies of people suffering, losing their houses because they were irresponsible and the banks actually allowed it (under a law that Clinton passed), the vast majority of RESPONSIBLE people are not suffering in those ways. And today, we learn that the housing market should be stable in 8 months, because consumer confidence is returning and people are no longer abandoning their house deposits. As for McCain's call for regulations... I just really hope he's joking.
We now get to one of the biggest problems with Obama's campaign... the race card. His surrogates are now playing it once again (perhaps as September surprise). They now say that the only reason McCain is slightly leading in the polls is because of racism. These people need to realize that THIS sort of distraction will actually cause people to vote against him. People do not like to have an ultimatum like "vote for me or you are racist," especially when the candidate markets himself primarily on a racial basis. The only people that have actually brought up race in this campaign are the democrats (with the exception of Joe Scarborough on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"). Why is the "progressive" party so focused on race, while no one seems to notice that the most minority appointees in the history of the US have been appointed under the evil George Bush who, in the words of Kanye West (aka "Idiot"), "hates black people."
Now, I have just wasted some time talking about campaign distractions, but I'm not on the campaign (because I don't fully support either candidate - if it had been Thompson or Romney I would be on that campaign in a NY minute). Obama has recently put out a 2 minute distraction ad (in that it does not say ANYTHING), which says that distractions are the problem in this election. It then gives generalities of his platform (which is all we ever get), and the offensive (to me) statement that "We should be rebuilding our own country." This is along the same lines as "For the first time, I am really proud of my country." And have you noticed, Michelle is nowhere to be seen in the media now...because the "she hates America" comments are all true, though they should also be applied to Barack himself. I just find it ironic that distracting people from the issues is also done through talking about distractions...
Okay, well, there is my tirade on Political distractions. But there is one more thing that I want to point out. I have recently come across a court case... Berg v. Obama, which makes a pretty god argument for Obama's ineligibility to be President, based on citizenship qualifications. The restraining order that would have prevented the DNC was denied, but expedited discovery has now been ordered, due September 30th. I will be watching this case as it develops, since no one has actually picked up on it yet.
Friday, September 12, 2008
And the Gaffes keep flying
Between the media and the Obama campaign, there have been an incredible number of gaffes that will likely hurt the Obama-Biden Campaign. Biden is living up to his reputation, asking his long-time friend and collegue (who is handicapped) to stand up and be recognized... or rather embarassed in front of a large group of people, and claiming that Hillary, whom he lost the primaries against, was a more-qualified candidate than he. Biden's comments don't actually need analysis, because they are exactly what we all expected from him...
The Gibson interview with Palin included a misquotation of her (in an attempt to catch her as a religious fanatic), a mischaracterization of the Bush Doctrine, by using a portion of the previous policy which is no longer in the forefront, and numerous attempts to catch her in a flip-flop position on various issues...especially when they were speaking at the pipeline. She came off a little mechanical, because she stuck to the answers she gave him (whether or not they were what he wanted to hear). However, there was at least one question that she just seemed to refuse to answer directly. On the other hand, Gibson came off as pressuring her and pressing the issue of foreign affairs experience (an issue that governors never have a strong background -- unless they have previous experience elsewhere). Gibson came off as a biased member of the media, pushing harder than he would if Obama or Clinton were in Palin's seat, which of course will only help the McCain-Palin ticket. Even the liberal correspondents note that she did well.
Obama is not above the fray either, producing two notable gaffes himself. Well, the first one is really a throw-away line. He threw away his argument that Sarah Palin has no experience, by expressing the "importance" of small-town mayors. The gaffe side of this line was the fact that he once again belittled and showed his ignorance of the duties of a mayor, comparing them to garbage men.Even in "respecting" people he belittles them... he's not going to win votes in middle America and he surely won't "play in Peoria" (I hate that phrase...).
Finally, Obama put out an attack ad on TV today challenging McCain's tech-savvy. However, he forgets that there were stories during the 2000 race that pinned McCain as the most tech-savvy, being the first candidate to hold an internet fundraiser. He is also internet proficient (with a mouse at least), because of the demands of his job. And the reason he can't send an email is because of his war injuries, which cause him to be unable to type on a keyboard or even comb his hair. This was probably the worst gaffe if it gets picked up, because it offers yet another chance for McCain to reemphasize his war-hero status.
Also, someone should tell Obama that pointing out how a 70-year-old man doesn't know how to do much on the computer is not news to most people....because most people that age have problems with technology. The only problem here is that it's a lie. Keep'em coming Obama...you (and your socialism) will lose at this rate.
The Gibson interview with Palin included a misquotation of her (in an attempt to catch her as a religious fanatic), a mischaracterization of the Bush Doctrine, by using a portion of the previous policy which is no longer in the forefront, and numerous attempts to catch her in a flip-flop position on various issues...especially when they were speaking at the pipeline. She came off a little mechanical, because she stuck to the answers she gave him (whether or not they were what he wanted to hear). However, there was at least one question that she just seemed to refuse to answer directly. On the other hand, Gibson came off as pressuring her and pressing the issue of foreign affairs experience (an issue that governors never have a strong background -- unless they have previous experience elsewhere). Gibson came off as a biased member of the media, pushing harder than he would if Obama or Clinton were in Palin's seat, which of course will only help the McCain-Palin ticket. Even the liberal correspondents note that she did well.
Obama is not above the fray either, producing two notable gaffes himself. Well, the first one is really a throw-away line. He threw away his argument that Sarah Palin has no experience, by expressing the "importance" of small-town mayors. The gaffe side of this line was the fact that he once again belittled and showed his ignorance of the duties of a mayor, comparing them to garbage men.Even in "respecting" people he belittles them... he's not going to win votes in middle America and he surely won't "play in Peoria" (I hate that phrase...).
Finally, Obama put out an attack ad on TV today challenging McCain's tech-savvy. However, he forgets that there were stories during the 2000 race that pinned McCain as the most tech-savvy, being the first candidate to hold an internet fundraiser. He is also internet proficient (with a mouse at least), because of the demands of his job. And the reason he can't send an email is because of his war injuries, which cause him to be unable to type on a keyboard or even comb his hair. This was probably the worst gaffe if it gets picked up, because it offers yet another chance for McCain to reemphasize his war-hero status.
Also, someone should tell Obama that pointing out how a 70-year-old man doesn't know how to do much on the computer is not news to most people....because most people that age have problems with technology. The only problem here is that it's a lie. Keep'em coming Obama...you (and your socialism) will lose at this rate.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Carol Fowler
In response to Carol Fowler's remarks that Sarah Palin's only experienceis "not having had an abortion," I don't have much to say. It just shows exactly how far the Democratic Party has fallen since they were given a free pass by the media (beginning essentially with the impeachment of Clinton). They now believe that they will not be held accountable for any of their actions or words.
As for the reason why she would make such a statement, I'd say she was threatened. She was threatened by a woman that actually achieved a successful political career ALONE... without the help of her husband. Fowler's husband is also a Democrat Chairman (the one who said God loves the Democrats for sending a hurricane to New Orleans), and Ms. Carol Fowler did not pull herself up to the glass ceiling, but rather she was raised... much like Hillary used the notoreity that she had gained from HER husband. The problem is that no one can say "she's not a feminist, because she relies on her husband," so they must attack the fact that she does not share the liberal feminist views... which actually makes her more appealing to the populous at large.
Now, what should Sarah Palin and John McCain do in response to this, and the "lipstick pig" comments, and the "Jesus-Pilate" statements? I believe that they should shuff them off... add a line to their speech (sadly the only one they have right now) saying "They are free to say whatever is in their heart." This would be a powerful soundbyte attacking Obama and his surrogate supporters' character... and anyone who knows about elections knows that about 80% of voters vote based on character and appearance. This would also continue the trend of not having a list of things that "can't be touched," to put it as Ms. Hasslebeck did regarding Cindy McCain. McCain has, so far, run an open campaign, with nothing sacred and out of the spotlight. If he starts to close his campaign off to insults, he will never win. Palin cannot win as a victim.
As for the reason why she would make such a statement, I'd say she was threatened. She was threatened by a woman that actually achieved a successful political career ALONE... without the help of her husband. Fowler's husband is also a Democrat Chairman (the one who said God loves the Democrats for sending a hurricane to New Orleans), and Ms. Carol Fowler did not pull herself up to the glass ceiling, but rather she was raised... much like Hillary used the notoreity that she had gained from HER husband. The problem is that no one can say "she's not a feminist, because she relies on her husband," so they must attack the fact that she does not share the liberal feminist views... which actually makes her more appealing to the populous at large.
Now, what should Sarah Palin and John McCain do in response to this, and the "lipstick pig" comments, and the "Jesus-Pilate" statements? I believe that they should shuff them off... add a line to their speech (sadly the only one they have right now) saying "They are free to say whatever is in their heart." This would be a powerful soundbyte attacking Obama and his surrogate supporters' character... and anyone who knows about elections knows that about 80% of voters vote based on character and appearance. This would also continue the trend of not having a list of things that "can't be touched," to put it as Ms. Hasslebeck did regarding Cindy McCain. McCain has, so far, run an open campaign, with nothing sacred and out of the spotlight. If he starts to close his campaign off to insults, he will never win. Palin cannot win as a victim.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Abortion and Personal Responsibility
The abortion issue has been a top priority for the media, especially because they are still doting on the pregnant Bristol Palin. It is making me sick, but not because Bristol is in the limelight now. It sickens me because neither side seems to understand the nuances of the argument itself. The problem is that the political rhetoric has trapped people, but I will now elaborate on the arguments as I see them... which I think is more correct than many, if not all, of the pundits out there.
The argument is over choice, and both sides favor choice (so being "pro-choice" is a bunch of BS). The problem is WHAT choice must be made. The pro-abortion people want to be able to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy that they don't want. The anti-abortion people want people to choose whether or not to conceive in the first place, i.e. whether or not to have the sex which does, almost inevitably, lead to pregnancy. That is the point of abstinence education -- to inculcate personal responsibility into the realm of sexuality, which seems to have been far removed by the pro-abortion crowd.
The media has jumped on the fact that Bristol Palin "made her choice" and decided to have the child, and then transform this "choice" into the choice not to have an abortion. However, that is not the choice that Bristol made, nor is it the choice that her supporters claim she made. She made the choice to have sex in the first place, thus creating the baby for which she must take responsibility.
And that's what the abortion issue is to me. It is a matter of personal responsibility. There are consequences for one's actions, and having a child is one of them. It is not a matter of reproductive freedom, because that freedom is not challenged -- they are neither forced, nor kept from having sex. It was their choice to have sex, and they should have to live with the consequences. And of course by "the consequences," I do not intend to diminish the importance of the life argument (which is closely intertwined). The primary purpose for the argument is this life argument, for which I will now make the case of both sides.
Pro-abortion first: A fetus is not viable outside the womb, and so it is a part of the mother's body until it is actually born, where it becomes "alive." Therefore, the government should not have the right to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. There is, more recently, an invalid addition to this argument, which states that abortion was acceptable as far back in time as the Romans and Greeks (who are often touted, when purposes serve, as wiser than our current generation -- which I personally believe is true for the most part all the time). However, the acceptance of abortion was based on a necessary value system which stemmed both from a high infant mortality rate and a high rate of deaths in childbirth. They believed, for these specific reasons (along with the "demons wanting to kill new life" religious factor), that life began a week after birth (if the father chose to accept the child). The acceptability of abortion was a factor of mortality, which, in our time, is no longer a major factor.
Now for the Anti-abortion side: Life begins at the moment of conception, and so the abortion of a child is the same as killing any other person. This position comes from the fact that the fetus has a heartbeat separate from the mother from a very early stage in the pregnancy. Therefore, the same responsibility that the government has to preserve the life of its citizens applies to the fetus as well. And, contrary to the belief of "devout" Catholic Nancy Pelosi, the end to ancient acceptability of abortion was entirely orchestrated by the Christian Church (both the Catholic and the Orthodox sects). Catholicism (and its smaller predecessor, Judaism) was the driving force in applying a moral value to unborn life. And it has been consistent throughout its tenure, even when corruption caused schisms. This was despite the fact that infant mortality did not noticeably decline, and deaths in childbirth were still numerous. It should also be noted that, historically, when the choice was to be made, the child's life was preferred to the mother's.
We live in times when neither the mother's nor the child's life is seriously threatened by the process of childbirth. There are, however, a greater number of birth defects, which are the result of later pregnancies. This is the trend of industrialized countries -- women do not have children until later in life, thus decreasing the chance to actually conceive (hence lower birth rates). It also places a greater risk of defects in the children that are conceived, though this does not change, in any way, the argument at hand. Being "special needs" does not make a person any less human, and so there is no difference in terms with the argument.
As for the argument of "rape/incest": There is no difference in the value of the child's life to anti-abortion people, because of the source of it. Incest doesn't even change the "abstinence" argument. It was still a choice to have sex, and so there is no exception to be made. In the case of rape, the choice was not made by the woman, but neither was it made by the child. Therefore, the child is not to blame for it, and does not deserve to die because of a situation that was beyond control. If the child is to serve as a reminder of the violent act that created him/her, adoption is always a viable option.
The crux of the matter is that one of the purposes of government, according to the Preamble of the Constitution, is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." How are we securing liberty to our posterity by denying life to those individuals?
Well, there you have it. My stance on abortion, pro-life in all circumstances. I understand the arguments on both sides, and thoroughly deny the premises of the pro-abortion crowd. I also see through the spin, and will never again use the term "pro-choice," because all sides want choice in some form. I may actually start calling the pro-abortion group "anti-responsibility," because abortion is a means of escaping responsibility for one's sexual activity.
The argument is over choice, and both sides favor choice (so being "pro-choice" is a bunch of BS). The problem is WHAT choice must be made. The pro-abortion people want to be able to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy that they don't want. The anti-abortion people want people to choose whether or not to conceive in the first place, i.e. whether or not to have the sex which does, almost inevitably, lead to pregnancy. That is the point of abstinence education -- to inculcate personal responsibility into the realm of sexuality, which seems to have been far removed by the pro-abortion crowd.
The media has jumped on the fact that Bristol Palin "made her choice" and decided to have the child, and then transform this "choice" into the choice not to have an abortion. However, that is not the choice that Bristol made, nor is it the choice that her supporters claim she made. She made the choice to have sex in the first place, thus creating the baby for which she must take responsibility.
And that's what the abortion issue is to me. It is a matter of personal responsibility. There are consequences for one's actions, and having a child is one of them. It is not a matter of reproductive freedom, because that freedom is not challenged -- they are neither forced, nor kept from having sex. It was their choice to have sex, and they should have to live with the consequences. And of course by "the consequences," I do not intend to diminish the importance of the life argument (which is closely intertwined). The primary purpose for the argument is this life argument, for which I will now make the case of both sides.
Pro-abortion first: A fetus is not viable outside the womb, and so it is a part of the mother's body until it is actually born, where it becomes "alive." Therefore, the government should not have the right to tell women what they can do with their own bodies. There is, more recently, an invalid addition to this argument, which states that abortion was acceptable as far back in time as the Romans and Greeks (who are often touted, when purposes serve, as wiser than our current generation -- which I personally believe is true for the most part all the time). However, the acceptance of abortion was based on a necessary value system which stemmed both from a high infant mortality rate and a high rate of deaths in childbirth. They believed, for these specific reasons (along with the "demons wanting to kill new life" religious factor), that life began a week after birth (if the father chose to accept the child). The acceptability of abortion was a factor of mortality, which, in our time, is no longer a major factor.
Now for the Anti-abortion side: Life begins at the moment of conception, and so the abortion of a child is the same as killing any other person. This position comes from the fact that the fetus has a heartbeat separate from the mother from a very early stage in the pregnancy. Therefore, the same responsibility that the government has to preserve the life of its citizens applies to the fetus as well. And, contrary to the belief of "devout" Catholic Nancy Pelosi, the end to ancient acceptability of abortion was entirely orchestrated by the Christian Church (both the Catholic and the Orthodox sects). Catholicism (and its smaller predecessor, Judaism) was the driving force in applying a moral value to unborn life. And it has been consistent throughout its tenure, even when corruption caused schisms. This was despite the fact that infant mortality did not noticeably decline, and deaths in childbirth were still numerous. It should also be noted that, historically, when the choice was to be made, the child's life was preferred to the mother's.
We live in times when neither the mother's nor the child's life is seriously threatened by the process of childbirth. There are, however, a greater number of birth defects, which are the result of later pregnancies. This is the trend of industrialized countries -- women do not have children until later in life, thus decreasing the chance to actually conceive (hence lower birth rates). It also places a greater risk of defects in the children that are conceived, though this does not change, in any way, the argument at hand. Being "special needs" does not make a person any less human, and so there is no difference in terms with the argument.
As for the argument of "rape/incest": There is no difference in the value of the child's life to anti-abortion people, because of the source of it. Incest doesn't even change the "abstinence" argument. It was still a choice to have sex, and so there is no exception to be made. In the case of rape, the choice was not made by the woman, but neither was it made by the child. Therefore, the child is not to blame for it, and does not deserve to die because of a situation that was beyond control. If the child is to serve as a reminder of the violent act that created him/her, adoption is always a viable option.
The crux of the matter is that one of the purposes of government, according to the Preamble of the Constitution, is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." How are we securing liberty to our posterity by denying life to those individuals?
Well, there you have it. My stance on abortion, pro-life in all circumstances. I understand the arguments on both sides, and thoroughly deny the premises of the pro-abortion crowd. I also see through the spin, and will never again use the term "pro-choice," because all sides want choice in some form. I may actually start calling the pro-abortion group "anti-responsibility," because abortion is a means of escaping responsibility for one's sexual activity.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
On Gloria Steinem's Article
After seeing what was a very powerful acceptance speech by Sarah Palin, I have become more energized about the election on the whole. I have actually gone to the two candidate's webpages... something I rarely promote, because the information there is so biased on all fronts (I guess as it should be).
I watched and saved all of the available ads (and am dismayed that I can't find the Obama ads, because I want to write a nice academic article about them and can't now). However, I may be able to find them through other sources... since I haven't looked very hard.
Sarah Palin's speech and presence seems to have scared many people who have their own political agendas into attacking in any way shape or form. In an effort not to sound like a member of the McCain Campaign, I will limit my discussion of this to the recent article by Gloria Steinem of all people. I could discuss the US Weekly cover/article, or the coverage of MSNBC regarding her daughter's pregnancy, or the article alleging an affair (where does this come from?), but these have all been answered in their own right, and I see no need to respond to everything that occurs.
The Steinem article, on the other hand is just a shock, given that she was a key feminist during the Women's Movement. She states in the article, available to read here, that Palin cannot possibly be part of the winning ticket because she fundamentally disagrees with Steinem herself on several issues. Here we have a woman who can claim what even Hillary Clinton can't, namely, that she is a "self-made" woman. Hillary gained notoreity and the illusion of actual experience from her former President husband. However, Steinem overlooks this point because of the fact that Hillary agrees with her.
While she finds it hypocritical for women who had once supported Clinton to now turn to Palin, stating that it would be like "amputating a leg" in response to losing a shoe, Steinem fails to realize that many women would rather gnaw off their foot than vote for Obama, especially with the way he campaigned against Hillary. She finds Palin lacking in foreign policy experience, but I have two responses to such a point. First, what foreign affairs experience does Hillary actually have? She would have no problem voting for a woman whose experience was watching her husband botch Somalia, but not a woman who commanded the Alaska National Guard (and actually knows how to fire a gun...). Secondly, and this is not my point, I read it on another blog -- by a former Clinton suporter, Sarah Palin was the commander of the Alaska National Guard, in the only state to border one of our former enemies, which is becoming more and more aggressive. She also has an 80% approval rating, indicating that both democrats and republicans believe that she is an effective leader, and thus is trusted. She is trusted to protect the borders that are only 55 miles from the country with the second largest store of nuclear weapons. Who would have thought that a woman who supported Hillary Clinton would come up with such a powerful reasoning for supporting Palin? To add to this point myself, she would also be the primary responder using the ABM system that has been deployed in Alaska, were we to be attacked by North Korea, Russia, or China. She has foreign affairs experience, true defense experience, and no one should deny that. Her "zero background," as Steinem wrongly claims (and I too defend her right to be wrong), is most likely a greater ability to debate than Obama, who avoids town hall meetings and sticks primarily to scripted speeches (not being able to "wing it" when teleprompters fail), or Nancy Pelosi, who has never performed in a campaign debate in her entire political career (because she never has an opponent).
What Steinem doesn't seem to understand is that the conservative (not necessarily Evangelical conservative) base, which is the actual majority of the Republican party, as opposed to the centrists, are more excited about Palin than they are about McCain. It is the centrists of the party and the media coverage, as well as a strange "entitlement" system within the Party (the reason Dole was nominated) that gave McCain the nomination, and the great majority of the party was disenfranchised because of the seeming lack of option in the election. Palin is essentially the headliner for most republicans... the reason that we will vote for McCain. And the decision not to choose a pro-choice democrat as a republican candidate (as the media and the Obama campaigners were pushing incredibly hard) was probably the best campaign decision McCain ever made. The laundry list of positions she cites, and then of "more qualified candidates," whom she would likely be attacking in the same way were they actually picked, do not really make her case, except that Palin does not fit the model that she sees to be "Feminist," i.e. ultra-liberal. Palin has explained many of these positions in the past, especially that of ANWR drilling, which was the primary reason why Alaska was purchased from Russia in the first place. The other candidates that she mentions as more qualified would also have lent themselves to further left-wing scrutiny (for example Hutchinson would be raked over the coals for being from Bush's home state). The key seems to be that Palin is too dangerous to the liberal movement, which is the one that Steinem actually advocates. Palin's election would be a giant leap for the women's movement, just as I'm sure Pelosi's detrimental tenure as Speaker of the House was a huge as well.
She states that Republicans will learn things from losing the election. But I contend that Ms. Steinem is going to learn that there are a lot of women who have the same types of values that Palin represents. The problem is that the Feminist movement seems to have lost touch with many of the people for whom it once claimed to work. She may also learn that she has grown far out of the mainstream, to the point where people may actually finally realize that radicals like her are a scary domestic threat to every one.
I watched and saved all of the available ads (and am dismayed that I can't find the Obama ads, because I want to write a nice academic article about them and can't now). However, I may be able to find them through other sources... since I haven't looked very hard.
Sarah Palin's speech and presence seems to have scared many people who have their own political agendas into attacking in any way shape or form. In an effort not to sound like a member of the McCain Campaign, I will limit my discussion of this to the recent article by Gloria Steinem of all people. I could discuss the US Weekly cover/article, or the coverage of MSNBC regarding her daughter's pregnancy, or the article alleging an affair (where does this come from?), but these have all been answered in their own right, and I see no need to respond to everything that occurs.
The Steinem article, on the other hand is just a shock, given that she was a key feminist during the Women's Movement. She states in the article, available to read here, that Palin cannot possibly be part of the winning ticket because she fundamentally disagrees with Steinem herself on several issues. Here we have a woman who can claim what even Hillary Clinton can't, namely, that she is a "self-made" woman. Hillary gained notoreity and the illusion of actual experience from her former President husband. However, Steinem overlooks this point because of the fact that Hillary agrees with her.
While she finds it hypocritical for women who had once supported Clinton to now turn to Palin, stating that it would be like "amputating a leg" in response to losing a shoe, Steinem fails to realize that many women would rather gnaw off their foot than vote for Obama, especially with the way he campaigned against Hillary. She finds Palin lacking in foreign policy experience, but I have two responses to such a point. First, what foreign affairs experience does Hillary actually have? She would have no problem voting for a woman whose experience was watching her husband botch Somalia, but not a woman who commanded the Alaska National Guard (and actually knows how to fire a gun...). Secondly, and this is not my point, I read it on another blog -- by a former Clinton suporter, Sarah Palin was the commander of the Alaska National Guard, in the only state to border one of our former enemies, which is becoming more and more aggressive. She also has an 80% approval rating, indicating that both democrats and republicans believe that she is an effective leader, and thus is trusted. She is trusted to protect the borders that are only 55 miles from the country with the second largest store of nuclear weapons. Who would have thought that a woman who supported Hillary Clinton would come up with such a powerful reasoning for supporting Palin? To add to this point myself, she would also be the primary responder using the ABM system that has been deployed in Alaska, were we to be attacked by North Korea, Russia, or China. She has foreign affairs experience, true defense experience, and no one should deny that. Her "zero background," as Steinem wrongly claims (and I too defend her right to be wrong), is most likely a greater ability to debate than Obama, who avoids town hall meetings and sticks primarily to scripted speeches (not being able to "wing it" when teleprompters fail), or Nancy Pelosi, who has never performed in a campaign debate in her entire political career (because she never has an opponent).
What Steinem doesn't seem to understand is that the conservative (not necessarily Evangelical conservative) base, which is the actual majority of the Republican party, as opposed to the centrists, are more excited about Palin than they are about McCain. It is the centrists of the party and the media coverage, as well as a strange "entitlement" system within the Party (the reason Dole was nominated) that gave McCain the nomination, and the great majority of the party was disenfranchised because of the seeming lack of option in the election. Palin is essentially the headliner for most republicans... the reason that we will vote for McCain. And the decision not to choose a pro-choice democrat as a republican candidate (as the media and the Obama campaigners were pushing incredibly hard) was probably the best campaign decision McCain ever made. The laundry list of positions she cites, and then of "more qualified candidates," whom she would likely be attacking in the same way were they actually picked, do not really make her case, except that Palin does not fit the model that she sees to be "Feminist," i.e. ultra-liberal. Palin has explained many of these positions in the past, especially that of ANWR drilling, which was the primary reason why Alaska was purchased from Russia in the first place. The other candidates that she mentions as more qualified would also have lent themselves to further left-wing scrutiny (for example Hutchinson would be raked over the coals for being from Bush's home state). The key seems to be that Palin is too dangerous to the liberal movement, which is the one that Steinem actually advocates. Palin's election would be a giant leap for the women's movement, just as I'm sure Pelosi's detrimental tenure as Speaker of the House was a huge as well.
She states that Republicans will learn things from losing the election. But I contend that Ms. Steinem is going to learn that there are a lot of women who have the same types of values that Palin represents. The problem is that the Feminist movement seems to have lost touch with many of the people for whom it once claimed to work. She may also learn that she has grown far out of the mainstream, to the point where people may actually finally realize that radicals like her are a scary domestic threat to every one.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Sarah Palin
Well, I promised this about 5 minutes ago... and so now I will fully analyze the Vice Presidential pick of John McCain.
It must first be said that Sarah Palin is a woman, and so she will appeal to the women that supported Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman... and there are MANY of them, just like there are many people who will vote for Obama simply because he's black. Those Clinton supporters who actually thought about what Hillary stood for will not give a second thought to Palin though. However, it must be said that the pick is at least a mild play at gaining Hillary supporters.
However, this is not the primary reason she was chosen. The choice is a reinforcement of the values that McCain expressed at Saddleback, as well as a means to remove many of the issues that Barrack Obama believes are solely his domain.
The primary issues that she reinforces are energy independence through drilling for oil, a female pro-life voice, and a lower taxes/reduced spending stance. As governor of ALASKA, she has voiced the opinion of the state at large, namely that they want to drill for oil in ALASKA. She has also begun the project for a natural gas pipeline through Canada, making her more than a single-issue candidate. She has worked for and accomplished measures to increase energy independence.
In her personal life, she had a down-syndrome baby only a few months ago, knowing that the child would be special needs. This is being treated as though she "chose" to have the child, and other women should have the choice not to have it. This is a spin that should not actually play. There was no choice made. She had the child because the child deserved to live. There was no alternative there. The fetus was a child and all children deserve life. This position is strengthened by the fact that she is a woman. When John McCain promotes pro-life positions, it is attacked as "oppressive to women." But when she will promote it, the argument is taken away.
She is a fiscal conservative as well, promoting lower taxes and lower spending, the problem that the Bush administration is facing now. Bush could not curb spending, primarily because of disasters that occurred throughout his term -- NOT primarily because of the war in Iraq. Katrina cost a lot of money to the federal government, despite the fact that most of the people who were affected by the hurricane were widely ignored (I'm talking Mississippi people, not the ingrates in New Orleans). Don't get me wrong, what happened in New Orleans was bad, but it was primarily the result of the local leadership and corruption. George Bush did not have any responsibility for what happened there, nor did FEMA (because it was a reactive agency). The Mayor of New Orleans was supposed to declare a state of emergency and ask for National Guard assistance before they are able to do anything. Through these issues, she should pull together support from the conservative base of the Republican Party.
However, more important than suring up the base, she removes a number of issues and sets traps for Obama to use. First and foremost, is the experience issue. She has more experience both as an elected official and as an executive than Obama can possibly claim. However, she has a small enough resume that he will (and has) tried to strike out on that front. Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he has equal experience to Palin. He appointed Joe Biden in order to have experience on his ticket. Therefore, he will have a "Cheney-esque" administration run by a shadow president, despite how upset people are about Dick Cheney being as powerful as he is. However, Palin will be the Vice President under a very experienced President, learning on-the-job, while she does not have the full responsibility of being the Chief Executive of the US. Barrack will be learning on-the-job as President. Therefore, even if they have an equally low amount of experience, she still has the safety net of time to gain experience without having the burden of making tough decisions early on.
However, she does not have an equal amount of experience. She has more. Obama has been a state senator, where he voted present more than half the time, and he has a single term as a national official, where he has been absent campaigning for 99% of his time there. He is the chair of a subcommittee of which he has never called a meeting. How is that "experience" at all?
The next issue that she removes from Obama is the "feel-good" issue of an historical campaign. With her inclusion, all those people that add points to a candidate solely because they want to be a part of making history will again have a large choice to make. And the "due" that comes from a culture of oppression is also removed from the forefront, because women have been societally oppressed the same amount if not more than black men historically. And the history of female oppression is quite a bit older, going back to the first civilization on the planet, not merely to the age of African slavery. I don't mean to degrade the suffering of a culture, but one can only apologize for the past so many times before the time comes when forgiveness and forgetting is necessary to move forward.
Another issue she removes is her apppeal to blue-collar people. Obama seems intent on ignoring the fact that McCain's wife owns most of the houses that are part of the "McCain Estate," as well as the fact that he and his wife make more money in a year than some people make in a decade, so that he can claim that he is a "man of the people" who knows what middle class is. Sarah Palin is a blue-collar woman, hunting, snow-mobiling, and serving as a "hockey-mom."
She is the epitomy of feminist values, "doing it all," with a family, career in politics (which she didn't receive from her husband, like Hillary), and responsibilities outside the career, like coaching basketball and participating in the PTA. She is unlimited in her accomplishments for the cause of feminism, and she did it with conservative values. However, Obama will probably try to diminish these accomplishments, and it will hurt his campaign.
The Obama campaign has to tread carefully now because if they attack experience, they will be attacked harder. If they attack her as a blue-collar person, or as a woman, they lose huge ground with huge constituencies. There are more than double the number of blue-collar workers than there are white-collar in the country, so alienating a huge amount of people like that would be a terrible mistake. I think Palin is one of the most effective VP choices ever, and we've yet to see just how great this choice will be. However, when the commentators on MSNBC and CNN look as depressed as they do now, you know that the Republicans have made a good move.
It must first be said that Sarah Palin is a woman, and so she will appeal to the women that supported Hillary Clinton simply because she was a woman... and there are MANY of them, just like there are many people who will vote for Obama simply because he's black. Those Clinton supporters who actually thought about what Hillary stood for will not give a second thought to Palin though. However, it must be said that the pick is at least a mild play at gaining Hillary supporters.
However, this is not the primary reason she was chosen. The choice is a reinforcement of the values that McCain expressed at Saddleback, as well as a means to remove many of the issues that Barrack Obama believes are solely his domain.
The primary issues that she reinforces are energy independence through drilling for oil, a female pro-life voice, and a lower taxes/reduced spending stance. As governor of ALASKA, she has voiced the opinion of the state at large, namely that they want to drill for oil in ALASKA. She has also begun the project for a natural gas pipeline through Canada, making her more than a single-issue candidate. She has worked for and accomplished measures to increase energy independence.
In her personal life, she had a down-syndrome baby only a few months ago, knowing that the child would be special needs. This is being treated as though she "chose" to have the child, and other women should have the choice not to have it. This is a spin that should not actually play. There was no choice made. She had the child because the child deserved to live. There was no alternative there. The fetus was a child and all children deserve life. This position is strengthened by the fact that she is a woman. When John McCain promotes pro-life positions, it is attacked as "oppressive to women." But when she will promote it, the argument is taken away.
She is a fiscal conservative as well, promoting lower taxes and lower spending, the problem that the Bush administration is facing now. Bush could not curb spending, primarily because of disasters that occurred throughout his term -- NOT primarily because of the war in Iraq. Katrina cost a lot of money to the federal government, despite the fact that most of the people who were affected by the hurricane were widely ignored (I'm talking Mississippi people, not the ingrates in New Orleans). Don't get me wrong, what happened in New Orleans was bad, but it was primarily the result of the local leadership and corruption. George Bush did not have any responsibility for what happened there, nor did FEMA (because it was a reactive agency). The Mayor of New Orleans was supposed to declare a state of emergency and ask for National Guard assistance before they are able to do anything. Through these issues, she should pull together support from the conservative base of the Republican Party.
However, more important than suring up the base, she removes a number of issues and sets traps for Obama to use. First and foremost, is the experience issue. She has more experience both as an elected official and as an executive than Obama can possibly claim. However, she has a small enough resume that he will (and has) tried to strike out on that front. Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he has equal experience to Palin. He appointed Joe Biden in order to have experience on his ticket. Therefore, he will have a "Cheney-esque" administration run by a shadow president, despite how upset people are about Dick Cheney being as powerful as he is. However, Palin will be the Vice President under a very experienced President, learning on-the-job, while she does not have the full responsibility of being the Chief Executive of the US. Barrack will be learning on-the-job as President. Therefore, even if they have an equally low amount of experience, she still has the safety net of time to gain experience without having the burden of making tough decisions early on.
However, she does not have an equal amount of experience. She has more. Obama has been a state senator, where he voted present more than half the time, and he has a single term as a national official, where he has been absent campaigning for 99% of his time there. He is the chair of a subcommittee of which he has never called a meeting. How is that "experience" at all?
The next issue that she removes from Obama is the "feel-good" issue of an historical campaign. With her inclusion, all those people that add points to a candidate solely because they want to be a part of making history will again have a large choice to make. And the "due" that comes from a culture of oppression is also removed from the forefront, because women have been societally oppressed the same amount if not more than black men historically. And the history of female oppression is quite a bit older, going back to the first civilization on the planet, not merely to the age of African slavery. I don't mean to degrade the suffering of a culture, but one can only apologize for the past so many times before the time comes when forgiveness and forgetting is necessary to move forward.
Another issue she removes is her apppeal to blue-collar people. Obama seems intent on ignoring the fact that McCain's wife owns most of the houses that are part of the "McCain Estate," as well as the fact that he and his wife make more money in a year than some people make in a decade, so that he can claim that he is a "man of the people" who knows what middle class is. Sarah Palin is a blue-collar woman, hunting, snow-mobiling, and serving as a "hockey-mom."
She is the epitomy of feminist values, "doing it all," with a family, career in politics (which she didn't receive from her husband, like Hillary), and responsibilities outside the career, like coaching basketball and participating in the PTA. She is unlimited in her accomplishments for the cause of feminism, and she did it with conservative values. However, Obama will probably try to diminish these accomplishments, and it will hurt his campaign.
The Obama campaign has to tread carefully now because if they attack experience, they will be attacked harder. If they attack her as a blue-collar person, or as a woman, they lose huge ground with huge constituencies. There are more than double the number of blue-collar workers than there are white-collar in the country, so alienating a huge amount of people like that would be a terrible mistake. I think Palin is one of the most effective VP choices ever, and we've yet to see just how great this choice will be. However, when the commentators on MSNBC and CNN look as depressed as they do now, you know that the Republicans have made a good move.
Introductions
I have decided to use the occasion of Sarah Palin's VP Convention speech to start a political analysis of the political scene. However, as I do with all of my blogs, I want the first post to introduce myself and my point-of-view.
I am a very strong traditional conservative, as opposed to a "Compassionate" conservative, and I am a libertarian. I am not automatically a Republican, and actually have been at odds with the recent direction that the party has been taking, but I tend to vote that way. I never thought that John McCain should be the nominee -- I was supportive foremost of Fred Thompson, who, while he was a jerk in Roseanne, was probably the best candidate ideologically. My second choice, oddly enough, was Ron Paul. Very few people in the political world gave him the time of day, but other than his radical position on the war in Iraq, he had a close connection to what I myself believe. His position on foreign policy, essentially of non-intervention, is a very good policy for the United States to take, because while we are a superpower, we are not a massive police force. We also shouldn't be giving foreign aid to 99% of the world, which includes all of the industrialized and post-industrialized countries. If we were to stop giving undue and unappreciated foreign aid, we could actually pay off the national debt in about a decade (as long as we stop deficit spending). Non-intervention does not mean that we should halt defense spending though, because readiness is one of the most important aspects of national self-sufficience.
Anywho, I have come to the conclusion that I will probably vote for McCain in November. This decision is primarily the result of two things that occurred in the campaign. First was the Saddleback Forum, where John McCain made a very impressive showing. This is not to say that Obama was terrible though, because I think he did well on the whole for his point-of-view, which happens to be almost exactly opposite of my own. However, I immediately made a caveat to myself, stating that the Vice Presidential pick could make or break my support for the ticket. Lieberman would have undone the whole situation. The actual pick, Sarah Palin, was the icing on the cake that won my vote (assuming that no terrible mistakes are made within the next 60 or so days -- and I'm not swayed by stupid things like "Micaka"...which was blown totally out of proportion). I will discuss specifically why she was the best possible candidate pick in my next post, so I will just leave it at that.
I do think that it may have become a habit of mine to pick a candidate based on who he surrounds himself with. This is why I voted for Bush in 2004 -- because of Cheney and the administration that he had created. I don't actually like George W. Bush, because he is not a fiscal conservative - he spends money like water. However, I don't believe that he is the worst president in history. I have to question this assessment when it is made by Jimmy Carter of all people (who is in the demonstrated top 5 worst presidents). But now I'm just babbling on.
I am a very strong traditional conservative, as opposed to a "Compassionate" conservative, and I am a libertarian. I am not automatically a Republican, and actually have been at odds with the recent direction that the party has been taking, but I tend to vote that way. I never thought that John McCain should be the nominee -- I was supportive foremost of Fred Thompson, who, while he was a jerk in Roseanne, was probably the best candidate ideologically. My second choice, oddly enough, was Ron Paul. Very few people in the political world gave him the time of day, but other than his radical position on the war in Iraq, he had a close connection to what I myself believe. His position on foreign policy, essentially of non-intervention, is a very good policy for the United States to take, because while we are a superpower, we are not a massive police force. We also shouldn't be giving foreign aid to 99% of the world, which includes all of the industrialized and post-industrialized countries. If we were to stop giving undue and unappreciated foreign aid, we could actually pay off the national debt in about a decade (as long as we stop deficit spending). Non-intervention does not mean that we should halt defense spending though, because readiness is one of the most important aspects of national self-sufficience.
Anywho, I have come to the conclusion that I will probably vote for McCain in November. This decision is primarily the result of two things that occurred in the campaign. First was the Saddleback Forum, where John McCain made a very impressive showing. This is not to say that Obama was terrible though, because I think he did well on the whole for his point-of-view, which happens to be almost exactly opposite of my own. However, I immediately made a caveat to myself, stating that the Vice Presidential pick could make or break my support for the ticket. Lieberman would have undone the whole situation. The actual pick, Sarah Palin, was the icing on the cake that won my vote (assuming that no terrible mistakes are made within the next 60 or so days -- and I'm not swayed by stupid things like "Micaka"...which was blown totally out of proportion). I will discuss specifically why she was the best possible candidate pick in my next post, so I will just leave it at that.
I do think that it may have become a habit of mine to pick a candidate based on who he surrounds himself with. This is why I voted for Bush in 2004 -- because of Cheney and the administration that he had created. I don't actually like George W. Bush, because he is not a fiscal conservative - he spends money like water. However, I don't believe that he is the worst president in history. I have to question this assessment when it is made by Jimmy Carter of all people (who is in the demonstrated top 5 worst presidents). But now I'm just babbling on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
