Let me start by saying that this has been the most exciting presidential race of my lifetime. The horserace/delegate counting aspects are exciting enough (especially on the Democratic side), but I sincerely believe that we are at a crossroads as a nation. It was supposed to get easier after we declared our victory over the bankrupt Soviet Union, but it has been anything but.
I generally lean slightly right of center, so my choice for president shouldn't surprise you. I was happy to see Thompson go (too conservative, boring as hell) and Romney (too conservative, at least in his current incarnation). Ron Paul is our Kucinich (a joke and unintentionally adds levity during debates). Huck is personable, I'll give him that, but his economic ideas would be a disaster, and honestly he is generally out of his depth. Plus, that wife of his. I couldn't look at her for 4-8 years.
I have always been a John McCain supporter. (Why do I say Juan McNasty? Right Wing talk radio has taken to calling him Juan McCain due to his perceived soft stance on immigration, and Laura Ingraham has dubbed him "McNasty" due to a nickname he apparently earned in college because of his legendary short temper). I supported McCain in 2000 against 'Lil Bush, but Bush and Rove torpedoed McCain in South Carolina by spreading the infamous black baby rumour.
First, I fall in line with McCain on most of the issues. He has earned his maverick reputation, which I respect. He is not afraid to push his own ideas, regardless of party line. I'll just run down some issues on which Juan and I agree...
* Abortion: pro-life.
* McCain has led the charge against out of control pork barrel spending, and I actually believe him when he says he will veto every piece of legislation that is packed with pork.
* While McCain follows the Republican tenant of cutting taxes, he also stresses the harder other side of the supply-sider equation of cutting spending.
* McCain supports vouchers in schools, as well as merit pay for good teachers (fighting against out of control teacher unions), and also supports some local control over curriculum (including allowing Judeo-Christian ethics to be taught, which is the foundation of this country)
* For a Republican, McCain is pretty strong on environmental issues. He has fought against drilling in ANWR, and acknowledges the climate crisis and I feel confident that he will take it seriously. He now supports (although did not earlier) measures to encourage alternative energy, including nuclear power. Environmental issues are where I part ways with other Republicans, and I think McNasty is the same way.
* McCain has warned against the growing Chinese threat
* He's a free-trader
* McCain's been a leader in trying to clean up dirty money in politics and elections. I do have some reservations about McCain-Feingold, but at least he tried to do something instead of just talking about it.
* McCain is a strong supporter of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security measures
* McCain has a pragmatic approach to immigration issues. He understands the economic necessity of immigrant labor, and he also wants to deal with immigrants in a humane way. McCain was willing to admit that his original immigration package was misguided, and he now stresses border security as well.
* McCain takes a tough stance against Iran
* McCain understands that regardless of the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq, now that we are there, we need to get the job done and not cut and run. If we leave Iraq as the Democrats suggest, it would be a disaster. The Surge is working, and McCain was one of the first critics to stand up and say that the way Bush and Rumsfeld were fighting the war was a losing proposition. The fact that the Surge was attempted at all is due in large part to pressure from McCain.
Now, I do not agree with everything McCain stands for. I disagree with him on the death penalty, the war on drugs, the Cuban embargo, and torture (and he is not really clear on his health care solution)...but overall McCain and I line up pretty well.
Beyond the issues, John McCain has character that is exceedingly rare. We all know about his days as a POW in Vietnam, but that really gives him gravitas to push his policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other trouble spots. Unlike Bush, McCain can send troops into battle with authority and knowing what it really means. The fact that McCain had the opportunity to be released from the POW camp because of who his father was, and he chose to remain there with his comrades; that is uncommon valor. McCain also seems to be willing to admit mistakes, which is something our current administration cannot bring itself to do. On the immigration fight that nearly derailed his campaign, he admitted that the country was not ready to go as far as he wanted to go, and he shifted his focus to border security first. That took character.
McCain is the only Republican who has a chance to beat the Democrats this year. He appeals to Republicans, Moderate Independents, and Centrist Democrats alike. It is telling that his harshest critics have not been the Democrats, but the Right Wing talk radio demogogues.
I would like for anyone to beat Billary. McCain is our best shot. While I admire and am intrigued with Barack Obama (and a part of me is really pulling for him), I do not agree with his policy positions. Any premature pullout of Iraq would be disaster. But Congress would probably reign in Obama's more Leftist ideas, and I think this country could really use the dynamic and positive leadership that Barack exhibits. My ideal is McCain vs. Obama, and even though I would support McCain, I can't say I would be disappointed if Barack won the election. Except for the consequences in Iraq.
35 comments:
While I too respect McCaine (I call him this because it is only a matter of time before the Dems spread some nasty rumour about cocaine use in his youth!)
He has used foul and obscene language on the Senate Floor and has thumbed his thumb in the eye of the Conservative base. (see Dobson comments last week)
Crossing the aisle and standing with numerous leftists over years. Hard for him to move convincingly to the RIGHT now that he needs them.
Romney was the actual Conservative Candidate, but Talk Radio came to him too late. McCain acted like a pig in the last debate
I will support Juan, because the alternative is worse. I think Juan will be forced to move to the Right, and he will have to stay there.
The only thing that scares me about the republicans, is that Bill Frist tried to kill online poker, I am moving to antigua. great blog
Tiltpirate2006 (Kansas City Style)
Two people have told me in the past few days that they are afraid of Juan having his hand on the "button." They think he is crazy. I do not think he is crazy, but he does take things personally....and Putin (Pootie Poot as Bush calls him) better watch out!
So while I will be supporting McCain due to default (Romney was too liberal, despite what Willis believes)< I don't understand how you can be with McCain on the war on Terror AND support prohibiting drilling in ANWR. Those two thoughts do not reconcile well.
Is this the incarnation of Dezmonddominion?
Please see my earlier post: DeZ, you have the wrong clip loaded. Here, look at this one instead: - Pocky
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/Soccerplaya47/madness.gif
-Pocky
Sorry, wrong link. Try this one. How do I post a picture?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/Soccerplaya47/madness.gif
why does this blog hate me?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v724/Soccerplaya47/madness.gif
Oh eff it! click on the link that you see and then look for the 15th imagefrom Jaws
Romney moved so far to the right that it was almost unbelievable how right-wing the former Mass Governor was! However, I believed him at the end, as did many many others. I think he shifted convincingly to the right on Social issues, and he was always on the Right on Economic and Defense Issues.
He got TIMETABLED!!!!! By the Straight Talk Express!!!
For the first time last night, watching him give his speech, I felt like McCain would be truly vulnerable against even Clinton (though I hope it doesn't come to that, of course). I like McCain a lot, and I wanted him to be president in 2000 (before our current prez acted so nobly in derailing his campaign). The point is this: McCain is now older than he was in 2000, which was already fairly old, and he looks it. He seems a bit too much like the guy in the neighborhood who screams at kids to get off his lawn. But just practically speaking: I think his positions on the war have been exaggerated by his opponents, but he's still essentially supporting a now massively unpopular war, and has reversed his own (wise) stance about Bush's tax cuts at the same pace at which a majority of the country has reversed opinion in the opposite direction. Hillary's old, too, and a hypocrite if she tries to come off as anti-war, so I still think he could win a squeaker against her. But I'm thinking that Obama could very cordially (and genuinely) express respect for McCain and his service while also destroying him, Clinton-Dole style. Or worse.
merit pay for teachers sucks ass
Wow, great responses on this. Isn't this the best election season in memory? To respond...
Anon 1, why will he have to stay Right? I guess the Right Wing could stay home on election day as they are threatening to, but I just refuse to believe that the Right Wing would stay at home and hand an election to Billary. But they might let Obama have it.
Tilt, thanks for the compliment. I share your belief in uninhibited gambling for all.
Anon 2, I think the fear of McNasty having his finger on the button is akin to the Goldwater commercials run by LBJ ("he just might!" over an atom bomb image) or how our enemies feared Reagan in the 80's. At this time, I don't think it's a bad thing to have a leader that scares our enemies. Barack or Billary sure wouldn't scare them. And while McCain's temper is somewhat legendary, I think he has shown enough nuanced thinking and even forgiveness. Think about his experiences in Vietnam, yet he was one of the first U.S. representatives to visit Vietnam and support opening trade and diplomatic relations with them again.
Pocky, alternate energy, my friend! We can all run our cars with corn on the cob!
Anon 3, being Time-tabled, or calling him out on what he actually said? Listen to Romney's statement! That is what he said! But it is academic now, the Great Mormon Hope is out of the race.
JMW, I agree, 2000 was his time. Think of how history would be different if McCain had been at the helm during 9/11, if his ideas for conducting war were employed from the start...we can only imagine. I am concerned with McCain's age too. Perhaps Chuck Norris was right. Look at all of the recent presidents. That job ages them like a mofo. And McCain is already way down that road. It is a concern. That is why his VP pick is crucial.
I look forward to hearing more on this tomorrow. Thanks for coming by, and keep reading!
Dezmond - What happened to your man Guiliani? I think he showed why he was not qualified to be President. He wasn't even qualified to be a legitimate candidate. Was that the worst campaign in the history of American politics? Can you imagine him as Commander in Chief? He probably wouldn't bother with small states like Iraq and Iran. He would just focus on the big states like China.
On a more serious note, though, I agree that 2000 was McCain's year. Now we need a bigger shakeup than John McCain. McCain would be a huge improvement over Bush, but we need real change and McCain is too busy trying to prove he's a conservative.
I don't think a Republican can win this year, and that's a good thing. The Republican party is a disaster these days. Who will McCain pick as a running mate? I can't think of anybody who I like. The Terminator would be the best choice but our laws block that possibility.
I like Clinton and Obama. Either one is a better choice than McCain. The good news, however, is that McCain will be the best candidate to win the Republican nomination since father Bush, so regardless of who wins, things have to get better.
George W has crippled our economy, destroyed this country's reputation in the world, and sacrificed countless lives for a war that was unnecessary and ill advised. The Republicans need to step aside until they clean house. The right wing evangelicals have destroyed this party.
I'm backing McCain, and I'll be happy to tell you why:
I want the GOP to get stuck with George W(TF)'s unholy mess.
McCain might have been able to make heads or tails of it 7 years ago, but now he's old; his memory is clearly failing; and what sanity he once had is eroding.
Frankly, I think the only candidate with a whelk's chance in a supernova of getting the US out of its current midden is Billary, and it looks as though she's fairly well torpedoed.
As you may know, Dez, I am somewhat right of center on all issues except the social ones, and then I am so far to the left I don't even register on the scale: I have been called a libertarian and worse by other "liberals," who like the GOP base seem not to give more than a few minutes' thought to anything at all.
I really don't want Obama to win the election, not because I don't like him, but because I do. My nightmare is a nation (and a red state) full of gun-toting yokels grumbling about how much better "thangs was a'fore'n that goddamned [insert racial slur] was pres'dent." Those idiots are about to become a dangerous and highly indignant minority in their own right, but that's a problem for the future...
The only thing that can possibly prevent me from pulling the lever for McCain is a bad choice of running mate, because the old fart runs a serious risk of dying in office and leaving us with a far less competent version of Gerald Ford - if he picks Huckabee, I will campaign vigorously against McCain, who is very vulnerable to Obama anyway.
You have ANCIANT to thank for leading this particular bomb-thrower to your blog, by the way.
pro life? i feel like i don't even know you, ray. -richie
Dre - "George W has crippled our economy, destroyed this country's reputation in the world, and sacrificed countless lives for a war that was unnecessary and ill advised. The Republicans need to step aside until they clean house. The right wing evangelicals have destroyed this party."
Interesting analysis. Do you just repeat everything you hear from CNN or do you actually think for yourself?
That was harsh, I realize. I get very tired of people who just regurgitate the same schlock without much thought.
Please explain to me how Bush has "crippled our economy." Boo hoo we have a slight recession or maybe only a decline in growth with a 5% unemployment rate. Boo hoo! In the grand scheme of capitalist history, people would have killed for these numbers? you want to see serious recession, wait until you have Obama or Shrillary come in and raise capital gains rates, the estate tax and the marginal rates. That will be a nice recession. I'll give you that we should be concerned about the budget deficit, but we were worried about the same thing under Reagan too, and it has actually been shown to help grow the economy, not hinder it. Also, don't buy into the Shrillary rhetoric about needing another Clinton to clean up a "Bush mess." Clinton benefited from the Bush 1 tax policies and activist Fed, and Clinton was actually very Reagan-esque - HE LOWERED taxes at the upper end not raised them, lest we not forget.
I can come to some agreement over the motivations for the war, but the fact of the matter is that Clinton never backed up the resolutions against Iraq and turned the governance of the situation over to the UN. Additionally he basically destroyed all the progress of the Palestinian conflict made in the previous 10 years by forcing a peace timetable that was too aggressive just so he could get it done within his presidency. Bush inherited that powder keg. Plus, I love the fact that we are only a few miles from the Iranian border. Anyone who thinks we should "pull out" of Iraq, regardless of the motivations of why we are there in the first place, is out of their mind. If you think we should pull out of Iraq so quickly, when should we pull out of Germany? Japan? Korea? Cuba? McCain is right on that one.
Dez - CORN? Are you serious? Please say you don't back ethanol? That is only pure farm subsidy, and arguable worse for the environment than fossil fuels - produces acid aldehyde and takes more energy to refine than it actually produces.
I am all about alternative energy too, but let's be realistic.
I think the demise of the Republican party is greatly overstated. Dukakis had a 16 pt lead on Bush after the convention. I like Obama too, but the guy completely lacks experience. He does not even have enough connections to put together a cohesive cabinet. Whoever he does choose will ride roughshod over him. I can just see the cabinet meetings now.
-Pocky
Romney just endoresed Juan. Juan will fly to Boston to accept. This gives McCaine almost the entire number of delegates now if those delegates switch to McCaine. I think Mitte did this to take the wind out of Huckabee's sails. I would rather have McCaine than Hucke
Dez - you should post a rule that people at least need to post a call sign and can't post completely anon
Suggesting that CNN is a liberal outlet seems a bit shocking to me after watching it more over these past few primary-heavy weeks. It is, like all major media outlets these days, not "pro-liberal" or "pro-conservative," but "pro-stupidity," plain and simple. Of course, John Stuart Mill said, "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." But that's a subject for another time. And anyway, Winston Churchill said, "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." So perhaps that's a wash?
But as dre so plainly put it above, "The Republican party is a disaster these days." For this reason alone, the party does deserve to lose in '08. When 60% of the party is violently opposed to McCain, with many of them even having the balls to call him a coward, and express their opposition by voting for Jim Nabors lookalikes and animatronic, undecorated governors, well... When I read people like Andrew Sullivan (and many others) who write sensibly about a very traditional conservatism (to which I'm drawn myself), the first thought that springs to mind is: Yes, but that's just not the dominant mode of conservatism in this country right now. And political groups shouldn't be continually rewarded when their house is such an utter mess.
Also, I see that your readers are quite wise about which is the best Coen brothers movie. That bodes well for the blog...
Yo, Pocky -
Please explain to me how Bush has "crippled our economy."
For somebody who comes down like a sledgehammer on "demonrat" talking points, you seem to be pretty comfortable spewing talking points yourself; though I imagine you are more intelligent than you sound, you come off as someone who watches only FOX news.
Can you put a price-tag on the war? Can you show us who has profited from it, how, and why? Can you explain the numerous bungles and expenses that make 'Nam look like Grenada compared to Iraq? The money spent, lost, wasted...and, yes, earned from this war paints a fairly ugly trail. Don't take it from me: check out the facts.
Shrillary? "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter?" You don't seem to be a beacon of independent thought, my friend.
As it happens, I agree with McCain - and Hillary, I believe - that we have gotten into Iraq too deeply to back out now. But Dre raised a very significant point, and one which you have not addressed at all (emphasis mine):
George W has...destroyed this country's reputation in the world...
That isn't an opinion; numerous studies seem to indicate that our allies have never been warier of us, and that our international image has taken a very, very bad beating. No amount of chest-pounding, flag-waving, or, for that matter...competent strategizing... is going to reverse that damage overnight. Chew on that one for a while, and tell me what we should do. We've invested very heavily in Iraq (I mean, have you SEEN the numbers?), can't back out, and it is brutalizing our image. We aren't the "good guys" anymore. Doesn't that piss you off or even make you the tiniest bit sad?
The unpleasant truth of the matter is that republic-oriented democracy is hardly a panacea; in poorer parts of the world, it has been demonstrated repeatedly to be something of a disaster. I'll refer you to Mencken for an explanation: "The dominant citizen of a democratic society, despite a superficial appearance of intelligence, is really quite incapable of anything resembling reasoning." If we want to stabilize, oh, say, the Middle East or other hot zones, secularization is a much better answer than democratization.
That's not at all a popular thing to say. The evangelical right doesn't want to hear it, but neither do the moderate Christians and respectable, intellectual people of religious persuasion. You're tired of people regurgitating the same schlock without much thought? Well, hell; so am I. But I find the lack of colloquy between secularists and religious people more fatiguing by far, and these people (on both sides) tend to have a fair amount of intellectual horsepower. The predominance of dogma in public policy areas such as education, medicine, and many others is troubling in the extreme. Why is it that most of the people to say so also tend to take such absurd positions as "anyone with any religious beliefs is a moron"?
I don't know. There you have it, and here we are. In the meantime, hysteria about terrorism has encouraged Congress (no matter which party controls it) authorize sweeping expansions in executive power. Surely you aren't so short-sighted as to think that is a good thing? To carry the point, do you really want to see someone like Hillary wielding the kind of power this administration has arrogated to itself?
Like you, I don't think the GOP is to be underestimated, but like Dre, I think it is easy to demonstrate how the religious right has damaged the party. On the subject of Obama, I agree with you entirely - despite my esteem for the guy, I can't bring myself to say he's the best choice for chief executive.
I'd love to see someone clean it up. Anyone. Preferably someone who believes in limited government and Staying the Hell Out of People's Private Lives, but as that seems entirely too much to ask, I'm content to vote for McCain just to see what happens.
Politics anyone?
Dre, you are right, Rudy was my man early on. But that was one of the worst campaigns I have ever witnessed. What can I say? He rolled the dice on the Florida firewall strategy (Billary's Texas firewall strategy?), and he lost. It was frustrating, because when he got up and talked and was able to debate face to face with his competition, I thought he came out great.
As you know, the Dems always move Left in the primaries and the Repubs always move Right. Then in the general election they race back to the center. I think Juan McCain will have to go back to the center in the general election. That is the only way he has a chance.
Seb, glad to see you here, my friend. I hate to admit it (well, not really), but I am one of those people so blinded by hatred for all things Clinton that I can't even consider her. She is more moderate than Obama, yet I like Obama more than her just...well, just because. You make a good point on the redneck danger. Obama better have a good secret service detail.
With Iraq we've got two issues: Should we have gone in? What do we do now? Many opponents of the war do not separate the two, but you wisely do. As for the the alleged restrictions on our liberties in the name of security, come on. How is your every day life really effected by tighter security? Longer lines at airports, maybe?
Richie, yes I'm pro-life and anti-death penalty. Just not sure the State needs to be in the bizness of killin', unless they are killin' them foreigners.
Pocky, good stuff as always. But I'm sorry to tell you that the decline of the Repubs is real. As usual, the only thing that will defeat the Dems are the Dems themselves. Such as if their nomination is not decided at the convention, and Obama has a slight lead in delegates but not enough to push him over the top, and the Superdelegates go with Clinton. That is a very real scenario, and will make for a very contentious convention and must-see TV. If the Dems are so split between the two and it gets nasty and at least half of them feel disenfranchised if this thing is decided by Superdelegates, then Juan McNasty could walk right in.
JMW, that Churchill quote has always been a favorite of mine.
I'm very happy all of you are so vocal. I look forward to mas y mas!
Pocky - I'll admit that I'm not an expert on what drives the US economy, but I am convinced that the war in Iraq and the record deficits that it has contributed to are hurting our economy. And I am worried about where the economy is heading, not just where it stands today. Do you really think Bush's plan to hand out cash is going to help?
When you criticized Bill Clinton for not backing up the resolutions against Iraq and turning over the governance of the situation to the UN, were you talking about the UN resolutions? Isn't the UN supposed to govern the situation with the UN resolutions? That is one of my biggest issues with Bush. I agree there could be situations where the US may have to defy the UN and do what's right for the US, but that shouldn't be our first option. I respected Bush for at least giving Colin Powell a shot at working with the UN (against the recommendations of Cheney and Rumsfeld), but he made it clear from the beginning that he really didn't care what the UN did. That's not a very strong bargaining position. And, if we have to defy the UN, we should at least have our allies with us. Bush's handling of this situation unnecessarily created more enemies for us and has made us more vulnerable, not safer. I'm a big fan of father Bush. He knew how to be a world leader, although his botched re-election campaign was almost as bad as Giuliani's. There is no way he should have lost that election.
And I'm glad you asked the question of when should we pull out of Germany, Japan, etc. I've been asking that question a lot lately. Why do we have military bases all over the world? Do we ever close down a military base once it's built? How many other countries maintain military bases on foreign soil? I agree that we should have foreign bases in strategic locations, but how many do we need? Is that the best allocation of our limited budget? The only purpose some of the bases serve is to help the local economies. I'm a little more worried about our economy right now. I believe in a strong defense, but I think some of this money would be better spent on supplying our troops with better equipment.
I wanted to follow up on a comment you made earlier, as well. "I don't understand how you can be with McCain on the war on Terror AND support prohibiting drilling in ANWR. Those two thoughts do not reconcile well." Can you explain this? I guess I'm a little slow. CNN hasn't supplied me with a canned response to that one.
Let's see if I can figure it out. For me, the war on terror is about responding to 9/11 and going after the terrorists that attacked or are plotting to attack us. I don't think this is about oil or the environment. Of course, Bush claims the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror even though I can't see the connection. The war in Iraq is, of course, partly about oil. Am I getting warm? Are you saying the war on terror is really about getting more oil and so is drilling in ANWR, so how could you support one and be against the other?
I was against the war, although I agree with McCain and Clinton that we have to be very careful about when and how we withdraw. I agree with Obama and Clinton, however, that the process should get started soon. I think Bush even sent 3 or 4 guys home, didn't he? The withdrawal has already begun.
I'm actually torn on the drilling issue in the ANWR. We have to invest in alternative energy sources, but it's going to take time to make a dent in our energy demand from other sources. I thnk we have the technology to drill without harming the environment. I'd rather not drill in the ANWR, but the possible benefits to our economy and security might be worth it.
Dez --
Thanks for the welcome. I find this all very entertaining.
As for the the alleged restrictions on our liberties in the name of security, come on. How is your every day life really effected by tighter security?
To be totally honest with you, I have no idea how my daily life is affected - that's part of what scares me. Warrantless wiretapping is scary in a vacuum. We can't know how extensively we're being monitored, for security reasons, and I understand that...to a point, but I'm hardly the only person who's a little gunshy about the whole idea. Suspension of habeas corpus, well, that bothers me a little more, though Lincoln did it, too.
What really worries me is the expansion of executive power. I could point to a number of historical precedents, but "analogies limp," as the Romans liked to say, and none is going to be dead on the money. I will simply say that any republic is | | far from being a dictatorship at the best of times, and is always a fragile thing. A few more balances, and I'd feel assured; I just get the feeling that Cincinnatus is not going to go back to his plow, if you follow me.
So we should al introduce ourselves. I am Pockyjack - AKA Pocky
I am a Republican
I am a Christian - Presbyterian
I am married with two kids (no button factory, though)
I am educated beyond my intelligence with a heavy emphasis on Economics (Grad School and Undergrad) and politics (undergrad)
I work for a Real Estate Development company (industrial mostly)
I am fairly open book about what I believe so feel free to ask away. I also have a tendancy to piss people off on a regular basis. It is not something I am proud of and I have gotten myself in trouble. I generally don't care much what people thiunk of me, but I do care how they are treated and those two aspects of my life often come into violent conflict.
So with said, I will respond to some of the things posted on this blog.
As I generally don't care mush about what people say about me, I also generally don't care about what people think of the US. I don't say that out of blind arrogance, but rather the US is in a significant position to influence world affairs and should compromise that authority based on insecurities and criticism. I have had the luxury of traveling many places and this is what I have generally concluded:
1) America is one of the LEAST racist countries in the world
2) American free markets (and the imposition of that system on other countries) has generally been a very good thing. For instance, I have had to shut down three different offices in France because the taxes and employment laws were so onerous that the offices could never be profitable due to short sighted economic policies based on political populist pandering.
3) American food is now as good if not better than any place in the world (would not have said that 10 years ago)
4) There will always be groups of people who hate us. We need to get used to it.
5) I believe that America has a moral obligation to influence (and yes, even force if necessary) cultural change in countries where people are oppressed, women are treated as second class citizens or governments breed hate groups to do their bidding
6) American job protectionism is not only stupid economically, but racist, xenophobic and oppressive.
So with that out of the way . . .
Fox news (lower case intentional) - I am a republican and probably believe 90% of their agenda. However, I never watch Fox news because it is "fear-tainment." I don't mind a conservative news source, but what Fox news does is not news. They like to find the stupidest liberal they can find, bring them on the show, and then beat them up. I also agree what SEB (what does that mean anyway) says about CNN. It is not so much liberal anymore as it is watered down . . .I don't know what. I really would like to punch Lou Dobbs in the face. Not really, but, my god! What a whiney old man. The middle class is fine jackass. They don't need you to be their defender.
ANWR - By some estimates we have enough oil in ANWR to support the US economy, by itself, for something like 50 years (I don't have the exact number in front of me). The problem is that environmental groups won't let us drill there as well as they limit the number of leases that can be issued in the Gulf. Therefore, we have to get it from the middle east who are economically incentivized to oppress their people, who create false enemies in Israel and the West in the name of populism, which then foment extremism, which cause conflicts in which we have to get involved.
To follow up on the Churchill comment (which is also one of my favorites), another one of my favorite sayings comes from some of my friends who are wine connoisseurs ( which I am not) . They say, when you first start drinking wine you drink white wine, because it is sweet, easy to palate and doesn't challenge you. As you get more exposed, you start to drink red wine because it is more complex, less sweet, less insipid, more "sophisticated." However, the true experts end up going back to white wine because they become educated enough to appreciate many of the subtleties that they missed before and find it to be quite balanced and intricate. I think the same thing can be said about politics. May of us start out as conservatives because, frankly, at a base level, it plays on our emotions. As we become more educated we become more liberal. But as we become more sophisticated we become Republicans again as we believe in the brilliance and simplicity and effectiveness of its agenda.
Yes I realize that was a load of sanctimonious crap. But there is truth there.
Seb, you were making some valid arguments until you started to talk about people who have profited from the war. If you can tell me one oild company in Iraq right now, I will say you have a valid point.
You say that the Iraq war is a disaster. We have had less than four thousand deaths in the Iraq war. In no way do I want to diminish those deaths, but to compare that to the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam is insulting to those who fought in that conflict. Look, we have to quit treating our military like Cameron's dad treated his Ferrari in Ferris Bueller's day off. Every once in a while you need to take it out and give it a spin to show the neighbors you still have it.
Again, I am not saying that the motivations for going to war were clean, but we are where we are and to pull out now would be to the detriment of thousands of Iraqi lives. Is an American life worth more than an Iraqi? How racist is that?
Dear Willis,
Thank you for your strong support and dedication to Governor Romney and the campaign. We had such great success in so many states because of all your hard work and the efforts of your team of volunteers. As you may have heard, yesterday Governor Romney endorsed Senator John McCain for President of the United States. The Governor and his family thought long and hard about this decision and feel that it is best for the Republican Party to bring the country together and unit behind one candidate. We need to provide our party with the best opportunity to defeat the Democrats in November.
Below are Governor Romney’s remarks from his press conference with Senator John McCain:
Thank you all very much. And thank you all for joining us on such short notice.
This isn’t my first joint appearance with Senator John McCain, but it promises to be one of our more pleasant exchanges.
I am honored today to give my full support to Senator McCain’s candidacy for President of the United States. Today I am asking my delegates to vote for Senator McCain.
As you all saw over the past year, things can get rough in a political campaign. And in the thick of the fight it’s easy to lose sight of your opponent’s finer qualities. But in the case of Senator John McCain, I could never quite do that. Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent.
This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour. Senator McCain understands the war we are in – the necessity of victory and the consequences of surrender. For him, national security isn’t just another item on the agenda. It is the abiding concern and responsibility of our nation.
This is a man who tied his political fortunes to the fortunes of his country in a time of war. Such courage is not always rewarded in politics, but it was this time – and that is a credit to both the man and to the party he will lead in the election of 2008.
This is a man who has served and suffered for his country. John McCain’s greatest test was long ago. But the loyalty, and love of country, and strength of heart that saw him through are still the qualities that define him. With their rhetoric, our Democratic opponents are very skilled at striking heroic poses. But with our Republican nominee, we’re going to offer America the real thing.
I am pleased to introduce a real America hero, the next president of the United States, Senator John McCain.
It is time for our party to come together by standing behind Senator John McCain for President in order to keep our country prosperous and strong. Thank you once again for your support of our campaign.
Respectfully yours,
Beth Myers
Campaign Manager, Romney for President, Inc.
Thanks for the response, pockyjack. I post as "Seb" because that is what most of my friends these days call me: it is less of a mouthful than "Sebastian," which is my name. As to what it means...well, briefly, it comes from the Greek word sebaes (best transliteration I can manage), which roughly translates "reverence to the gods." Sebastos is the superlative degree of the adjectival form, hence "most reverent," or, in a slightly less ancient usage, "most revered."
I am an independent. I tend to vote Republican as often as not, but when social issues are at stake I am easily swayed (I admit it freely) to the most liberal-sounding person on the ballot. I believe in limited government, and I have a far stronger respect for old-fashioned conservatism than what I think John rightly calls out as the dominant mode of conservatism in the US right now. I deplore tax-and-spend liberals, sure, but what seems to me to be the neo-cons' modus operandi of "tax-cut and spend" makes no sense at all. Oh, and hey, Rove says if we talk about Christianity and stuff we can keep the base deluded into thinking we care about them at all.
You're a Christian. I respect that, especially if you walk the walk, because so few do, and those who do generally have little to no interest in politics where they are not just plain dangerous in positions of power (Carter comes to mind). I am not a Christian; some call me an atheist, others a heretic, but I have no use at all for chrism. Right now I am convinced that what I believe matters little at all compared to what I do, and I tend to hold others to the same standard.
As a side-note, you may be amused to know that the Presbyterian version of the Lord's prayer is one of the more accurate translations in the English language.
Unlike you, I know little about economics, but I have yet to encounter anyone who really, truly does seem to know what s/he is talking about with regard to the subject. My training, as you might have guessed by now, is largely in ancient history, Latin, koine/Attic Greek, archaeology*, and comparative religion. I have a BA, no graduate degrees. I am married, have a wife and a four-year-old daughter, and expect another baby girl literally almost any minute now.
I have Multiple Sclerosis, and work part-time as a Technical Writer and Software Implementation...uh, guy. I sometimes tutor on nights and weekends, too.
Now, back to the circus:
I also generally don't care about what people think of the US. I don't say that out of blind arrogance, but rather the US is in a significant position to influence world affairs and should [not?] compromise that authority based on insecurities and criticism.
In general, I tend to agree...but we're not talking about trivial insecurities and criticism here. Our staunchest allies have begun to look askance at us, and it is no wonder: we have declared that the Geneva Convention is no longer binding to us, we stubbornly refuse to have anything to do with the Kyoto Protocol despite mounting scientific evidence that a global crisis is at hand, we behave more like the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union than like, say, Reagan's America, and we have a coterie, or if you prefer, junta of people in power who genuinely seem to think they (and, by extension, the US) can do anything they like with impunity.
That is not so.
I have traveled, too, and my experience matches yours. But dude...look at Tony Blair. You and I might not give a damn what people think of us, but politicians do not have that luxury. We Americans cannot presume upon our allies' unconditional support for our every action; as nearly as I can tell, support for US behavior is eroding, in some cases very dramatically, and I don't understand how you can argue persuasively that erosion of foreign/allied support for the US can have anything but a negative impact on its leverage in international affairs.
I also agree what SEB (what does that mean anyway) says about CNN. It is not so much liberal anymore as it is watered down . . .
I believe it was John who said that, but certainly I concur. Consensus! Hurrah...
Seb, you were making some valid arguments until you started to talk about people who have profited from the war. If you can tell me one oild company in Iraq right now, I will say you have a valid point.
Certainly I cannot point to a single oil company that has profited, though some may (I'll ask my colleagues and relatives in the business). But I wasn't talking about oil companies. I was talking about KBR and Blackwell; they're making out like...like... must I say it? Bandits. We're talking billions here. Billions. To the president's cronies.
Sure, all politics is corrupt to some degree or another. That doesn't make it any less ugly. I can't find a non-flaming-liberal source for the numbers right now, but the fact that some of the old urls pointed to forbes and vanity fair should be damning enough. This is not controversial information, I believe, but a matter of public record. If you know otherwise, by all means - set me straight. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's being misinformed, and my current sources of information are a despairing choice between CNN, NPR, Democracy Now (a biased program if ever I heard one), and...the BBC.
It's maddening. It was said in 2006 that the most trusted sources of news in the US right now are comedians. Truly, the best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
You say that the Iraq war is a disaster. We have had less than four thousand deaths in the Iraq war. In no way do I want to diminish those deaths, but to compare that to the 58,000 deaths in Vietnam is insulting to those who fought in that conflict.
Given that I have friends and relatives who fought in 'Nam, I owe them an apology for having chosen my words hastily. However, I do not recall saying the war in Iraq is a disaster so much as that it has been grotesquely mismanaged, and that is something I think is beyond serious dispute. What I meant was - by comparison, 'Nam was handled well. Once again, analogies limp, and I chose a bad one. Mea culpa. My point stands - our politicians are being unusually disingenuous about the costs of this war, both in terms of hard cash and in human lives. That is not surprising; we can only guess how many "military contractors" have been killed or wounded in Iraq, but by some estimates including those numbers substantially increases the toll on the American citizenry.
In 'Nam, there was a draft. My uncle, my father, and my friend Bryan E (no, Dez, not the Bryan you know) went because they had to. What the toll would be if we had something other than our Rumsfeld-ified, streamlined, volunteer army of the 21st Century over there, we can only imagine. But it is stretched to its absolute capacity and beyond, thanks to the neo-cons, the tours of duty are ridiculous, and to say that the war is causing the US serious headaches is not an opinion. It's a fact.
*Oh, now, for me, this is the real heartbreak of Iraq; the collateral damage to archaeological sites is something upon which I cannot even contemplate without wanting to cry.
You know, the responses here on the political post are indicative of how engaged everyone is this election season. I can't remember another election season that had so many people following so closely.
What is funny is that Pocky and Seb actually know each other (at least in passing), yet they may not realize it yet. Same high school.
My favorite CNN program is Anderson Cooper 360. It seems to focus a lot more on news and less on opinion. I agree with Pocky on Lou Dobbs. He is unbearable to listen to, and I disagree with 80% of what he says. The only thing I agree with him on is the desire to have a strong independent party. I would love to see our President come from outside the 2 parties, but that doesn’t seem possible in our current 2-party system.
For most of my life, I’ve been a Republican or sometimes Independent. I voted for the Republican candidate for President in every election until 2004. I hated voting for Kerry, but I just couldn’t vote for Bush again. Overall, I'm fairly close to center. I'm mostly conservative economically. I definitely believe in low taxes and small government. However, I'm fairly liberal on social issues. I am pro choice, against the death penalty, support gay marriage (or civil unions), support legalization of marijuana, etc. And I'm probably somewhere in the middle on defense. I believe in a strong defense but I don't believe in using our military in an offensive manner. Our military’s primary purpose is for the protection of our national security, and Iraq posed no imminent threat to that security when we invaded.
I agree that an Iraqi life is worth as much as an American life; however, that doesn't mean I believe it is the responsibility of the US military to defend Iraqi or other foreign nationals outside our country as a general rule. We cannot afford to be the world police. In the current situation, we certainly have responsibility for Iraqi lives since we invaded. We need to at least try to establish a level of security for the Iraqi people that existed prior to our invasion.
I agree that the US should be an agent for change in the world. We should be putting pressure on other countries to protect equal rights for all their citizens. However, I don’t believe that pressure should include military pressure. There are exceptions where I think we should step in militarily to stop large scale massacres, but even those actions should be done in conjunction with the UN or at least with a strong contingent from other concerned nations.
I support the UN and wish it would become a stronger force in the world, although I recognize that there are issues with the UN governance structure and, therefore, there are times when the UN is ineffective and we will have to take actions without UN approval.
I don't necessarily care if other countries hate us, either. It depends on why they hate us. Unlike some people, I think it’s important for us to understand why people hate us. I think it makes sense to listen to other countries and to work toward alliances and partnerships where it can help our economy and improve our security. I don't think the US can afford to stand alone. We need our friends. China is easily the biggest threat to the US right now and they hold most of our debt. That's not a good situation.
One of the biggest issues the fundamentalist Muslims have with the United States is our military bases on the Arabian peninsula. They believe their religion forbids it and they believe their religion requires them to expel us. I realize there are other reasons, as well, such as our support for Israel. If a country hates us because they don’t agree with the principles we hold dear, that’s fine. We need to defend our principles and treat them as the threat they are. However, putting military bases on foreign soil is not a principle I hold dear, and I’m not interested in provoking hatred for the sake of these military bases. We can find other locations for our bases that do not put such a big target on our backs.
I think our relationship with the Saudi royal family is another very big problem. Saudi Arabia is a powder keg. It is similar to Iraq in the sense that it is governed by a group that does not represent the vast majority of the people. We claim as one of our justifications for the Iraq war that the majority of the people of Iraq were not represented by Saddam Hussein and, in fact, were brutally massacred whenever they spoke up against him. The royal family of Saudi Arabia is not much better and yet we treat them like soulmates. Most of the Muslim terrorists have come from Saudi Arabia, including Osama bin Laden. The royal family is playing a dangerous game. They try to appease the Islamic fundamentalists in their country by financially supporting the mosques and this money is being invested in fundamentalist mosques all over the world, including the United States. I believe in freedom of religion, but only to the extent that it does not violate people’s inalienable rights. I’m not sure what the right answer is with Saudi Arabia, but I’m not comfortable treating the royal family like our best friends when they are at the same time funding a global Islamic movement which breeds terrorists and a culture that treats women as second class citizens. Once again, our dependence on foreign oil forces us into actions and relationships that really go against my basic principles.
Not that I want to get into an abortion debate (because I don't), but being pro-choice/anti-death penalty makes the least sense of all out of the possible combinations. Kill the innocent, save the (mostly) guilty?
Dre, I share many of your principles...in principle. But check out a great movie called "No Man's Land" for a scathing but accurate portrait of the UN's effectiveness handling a crisis.
Dezmond - I completely understand why many people are pro life. If I viewed life and human rights starting at conception, I couldn't be pro choice, either. However, I don't see it that way. People should choose to have children or not. A lot of people make mistakes and have children when they didn't intend to. I greatly respect the people who have the children anyway and then give them up for adoption. That's what I wish everybody would do if they don't want to have children but find themselves pregnant due to their own ignorance or laziness. But I also think too many people have children and try to raise them when they are not ready and never really wanted children and that causes a lot of problems in our society. There are too many people in the world as it is. I would never want to restrict families on the number of children they can have (although sometimes I think you should require a license to be a parent), but I'd rather limit the children being born to those that were wanted by their parents.
I know you don't want to have a debate on abortion and neither do I. It basically goes back to when you believe life begins. I respect your opinion on this, and I know I can't convince most pro lifers, so I really don't try. All I can do is explain why I believe the way I do and hope you will respect that, too.
Fair enough. Like I said, I don't want to get into an abortion debate because that is one area where people will not change their minds. Where life begins for a person and where it does not is a gray line though, so it seems a bit arbitrary to me to legally set it out to where at 11:59 p.m. it is OK to "abort", but at 12:01 a.m. it is not. What really happened in those two minutes? I know I'm giving you the extreme, but the point is that unless you believe abortion is OK right through when the baby pops out (which most people, even pro-choicers, do not) you are drawing an arbitrary line SOMEWHERE for legal purposes. Not comfortable doing that.
As for the death penalty, there are two separate issues for me. As for whether it is right philosophically / morally (assuming we can be 100% sure of guilt), I am still unsure. But the other issue is that we have made mistakes in assessing the guilt or innocence of executed people. That is not a mistake worth making, so that is why I come on the side of doing away with the death penalty. And as far as costs, once you are done with all of the appeals, etc., it is cheaper to keep someone locked up for life than it is to go through the whole process and execute someone.
Dammit, I didn't want to get on either of those topics, but there I am. Anyway, that is where I am on both of those.
Dezmond - The implications of the abortion issue to society and to individual lives are significant. I don't really care where the "arbitrary line" is drawn, but I'm not going to ignore the impacts of this issue because I don't feel comfortable drawing an arbitrary line on when it becomes illegal. I can't believe that's the real reason you are pro life.
I've heard people argue that the "arbitrary line" on when you can decide not to have a baby is before you decide to have unprotected sex. That makes more sense, and I respect that opinion. I just don't share it. Mistakes happen, and some mistakes have big consequences. I support the current law which gives a woman the right to decide what she wants to do.
By the way, if you don't want to start an abortion debate, don't tell somebody their position doesn't make sense, because you'll likely start a debate. :)
I basically agree with you on the death penalty, except that I lean toward the belief that the death penalty is morally wrong, as well.
On your earlier point on the UN, I agree the UN is often ineffectual, but I'd like to see us work to improve its effectiveness first and then to defy the UN process only when necessary. Of course, the defiance of the UN, even on an exceptional basis, makes it difficult for the UN to be effective in the first place.
We have given the UN a chance to be effective several times, and they failed miserably. Bosnia. Rwanda. Iraq. Who is "us" when you say you'd like to see "us" work to make the UN more effective? "Us" being all of the members of the UN? Are we gonna convince China to stop funding the genocide in Darfur? The problem with the UN is that in order for it to come together and agree and be effective, you will need players like the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain...all to agree on a policy. Good luck.
It's possible that the UN is a lost cause. I really don't know. Frankly, I don't know that much about it. However, I like the idea of having some kind of global governance structure.
I'd love to hear ideas on how to make it work, though.
What about Juan's George Soros connection? Doesn't that bother you?
Post a Comment