McCain, Obama, and 'the Change We Need'
- 11-02-2008, 07:43 PM
McCain, Obama, and 'the Change We Need'
Sunday, Nov 02, 2008 By ROSS MACKENZIE
John McCain will get my vote - no question. He easily surpasses Barack Obama in wisdom, values, character, experience, judgment, truth-telling, and his positions on most of the issues. The decision is not even close.
The case for McCain is matched by the case against Obama. Go ahead and pull the lever for Obama if you want a president - let's see . . .
*Who has kept the company of radicals and the corrupt, is a product of the ruthless Chicago political machine, and in the mid-1990s was a member of the New Party - an offshoot of the quasi-Communist Democratic Socialists of America.
*Who regarding many of those early associations, and on most issues, is insistently vague, sketchy, and opaque. (For instance, as a regularly attending parishioner over 20 years, could he truly not have heard - or sensed - the unconscionable extremism of the spiritual adviser who married him and baptized his daughters?)
*Who lengthily cites the need for bipartisanship yet can offer no substantive record of it, has on no major issue bucked his party, and speaks of his ideological adversaries with a smug, debonair, patronizing condescension.
*Who on foreign policy is an isolationist, protectionist naif with essentially no experience, driven by the leftist conviction that he can schmooze even the meanest Islamofascist or Iranian thug around to right reason. How successful is a dreamy-eyed untested high-schooler likely to be at mixing it up in the National Football League?
*Who was willing to lose in Iraq, and even now remains unwilling to acknowledge that the U.S. surge of forces there achieved what might be construed as a win.
*WHO ACCORDING to Army Times, Navy Times, and Air Force Times surveys, trails John McCain among active duty military personnel by better than 2-1.
*Who campaigns on "change" and "hope" and "yes we can" - vapid inky nebulosities reminiscent of nothing quite so much as Richard Nixon's "Now More Than Ever" and "Nixon's the One."
*Who hardly is a conservative reformer like McCain, but a tax-and-spend leftist more radical in (a) his approach to government and (b) his views on America in the world than any nominee for the presidency ever.
*Who speaks nonsense on taxes generally, and in the midst of a financial maelstrom and slow-motion crash not only would end the Bush tax cuts (terming some of them "corporate welfare"), but also would impose a new redistributionist, spread-the-wealth system levying higher taxes on the most productive and allowing nearly half the voters to ride practically for free.
*Who speaks equal nonsense on Social Security reform and health care.
*Who in 2005 refused to join the effort - in which McCain was a principal - to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so enabled by sitting members of Congress (especially Democrats Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd) to do their subprime lending damage to the nation's financial system. (Two heavily compensated and bonused former executives of those agencies have been advisers to the Obama campaign, one of them, with Caroline Kennedy, responsible for fingering the undistinguished Joe Biden - the Senate's No. 3 liberal, to No. 1 liberal Obama - as the most distinguished prospect to become Obama's running mate.)
*Who nourishes a regulationist mentality that would intrude the federal government ever more into the private sector and private lives.
*WHO IN MID-October - according to polls - was deemed unqualified for the presidency by 45 percent of the electorate (about the same percentage as in mid-March).
*Who falls woefully short on energy independence, especially in his odd resistance to the nuclear power without which the U.S. cannot free itself from the tightening noose of hateful petro-dictatorships such as those in Moscow, Caracas, and Tehran.
*Who dismisses as somehow flawed the achieving feminism of a Sarah Palin possessing more executive experience than Messrs. Obama and Biden combined (yet still mocked by the left as unqualified to be vice president), in favor of the "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" feminism of Gloria Steinem.
*Who, in league with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid manipulating a Democratic supermajority in Congress, would preside over an aggressive leftist orthodoxy re-established in Washington utterly unstoppable - as at no time since the New Deal and the Great Society. Says McCain: "Were my opponent elected with a Democratic Congress in power, not only would there be no check on my opponent's reckless economic policies, there would be considerable pressure on him to tax and spend even more."
. . .
So if you believe this is the hour for Barack Obama in concert with a fevered leftist Congress to radicalize and revolutionize, go ahead and make his day - and liberalism's.
My vote will go to John McCain - an experienced conservative reformer who understands two things Obama evidently does not: (1) the folly of raising taxes in a financial storm, and (2) the implacable Islamofascist threat.
Notes McCain: "In Obama, perhaps never before in our history have the American people been asked to risk so much based on so little." And: "The hour is late. Our troubles are getting worse. Our enemies watch. We have to act immediately. We have to change direction" - but to a new direction based not on whacked-out leftist theory but on prudence and right reason.
To borrow a familiar campaign theme, the McCain-Palin ticket represents precisely the "change we need."
Ross Mackenzie is the retired editor of the Editorial Pages. Contact him at email@example.com.Animis Rep
- 11-02-2008, 08:00 PM
dood....i'm sorry but mccain=bush in every aspect. look how clinton, despite his personal woes, had the economy going..it was great..we need a DEMOCRAT...nuff said
- 11-02-2008, 08:21 PM
11-02-2008, 08:54 PM
easy your projection skills are quite phenomenal
Official Get Diesel Representative
PM me with any questions
11-02-2008, 08:56 PM
11-03-2008, 12:33 AM
"John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."
Barack Obama on Thursday, August 28th, 2008 in a speech at Democratic National Convention.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/669/f you've been following the Democratic National Convention, you've doubtless heard any number of speakers cite the statistic that Sen. John McCain has voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time. There's no mystery to the Democratic strategy here: A vote for McCain amounts to four more years of Bush, whose approval rating is hovering near an abysmal 30 percent.
Either way, all 3 suck monkey balls
11-03-2008, 06:42 AM
Voting with Bush 90% of the time doesn't mean its 4 more years of Bush policies, you are just drinking the obama koolaide.
And "we have to get past partisanship" Obama has voted the exact party line as pushed down on him by his superiors, and has based his campaign on "the economic troubles were all caused by republicans".... Somehow also lost is that the approval rating of the democrat controlled congress is less than half of Bush's. But you know, just go ahead and take what the LA Times says, or MSNBC
11-03-2008, 10:34 AM
I couldn't find the exact numbers through my searches, but McCain voted like this:
2005- 70% of the time with Bush
2006- 75% of the time with Bush
2007- 85% of the time with Bush
2008- 95% of the time with Bush
90% from 2001-2008
Obviously these aren't exact, but they show that a roll up of 8 years of voting does not tell the whole story. I am more than happy with anyone willing to go against his party 1 in 4 times when needed (that was when McCain was pushing the surge).
Now lets compare this with Obama.
98% of the time voting with his party.
He is going to have a Democratic House and Senate and votes with the Democrats 49 out of 50 times. That is a relevant number. You can almost guarantee with that record, vetoes will be a thing of the past.
That is 100% more relevant that McCain's record of voting with Bush.
11-03-2008, 11:44 AM
What exactly does the president "vote" on?
The Senate and Congress do all the "voting", this has been another small but effective tactic to link McCain with Bush.
There in the same political party for God's sake, why is it news that they have agreed 70-95% of the time. If they didn't, I would say one of them is in the wrong party.
BTW, I am not flaming you RobinKuwait, This post is to those who are suprised when 2 people in the same party agree.
11-03-2008, 12:11 PM
11-03-2008, 01:20 PM
Actually, it was St. Pete times
I'm not a democrat and never will be, I used to be a Republican but I hate almost everyone in that party and independants never have a chance of winning, so in my first election that I can vote, I'm not, because voting is just retarded as the candidates themselves.
If 98% of the American population are retarded(almost fact) then what makes you think they're gonna make the right vote if they can't separate fact from fiction or critical thinking from a TV ad? but then again I don't have a TV in my house.
11-03-2008, 01:25 PM
11-03-2008, 01:39 PM
Whatever happens, I'm gonna adapt and make a living, if they keep f**king up this country however, they can have it, I'll move to the country with the most atheists and least laws in it.
11-03-2008, 01:49 PM
I 100% behind Laissez-faire Capitalism I don't want a single dollar from the government, I want a small government and free economy, I don't want anything, other than to be left alone and remove all the BS that the gov is doing because idiots are voting it in.
When I say I'm not voting it's mainly because the issues I care about, are non-issues this election, I don't think a single politician has touched them the way they should, let alone mention them
11-03-2008, 01:56 PM
If democrats control, both the house, the senate, and the presidency, they can make alot of laws. If the dems control the house and senate the the republicans control the presidency, its harder for the dems to make laws.
Obviously there's things you don't like about McCain, and I'm with you on that, but the best thing we can ever have in this country is a legislative stalemate, and that's what McCain can hypothetically bring.
11-03-2008, 01:57 PM
If rather than handing checks out to people to spread the wealth, Obama had the same tax increases planned with no new tax breaks below yet used the money to provide more for eduction including free community college for all to spread some opportunity, he at least would have looked slightly attractive. But i've never seen a candidate who everyone who understands the presidency other than journalists felt was so completely unready to hold the office (including himself in 2004)
11-03-2008, 02:00 PM
11-03-2008, 02:02 PM
in terms of illegals, you do realize that these 2 dopes of candidates are awfully close on their stance on illegal immigration right? BTW, it is a friggin disgrace as well
Official Get Diesel Representative
PM me with any questions
11-03-2008, 02:35 PM
if you look really closely, they are pretty close on a lot of issues as far as spoken word goes. some differences of opinion as to how some of the things should be fixed, but they are a lot closer than many previous elections.
11-03-2008, 03:30 PM
Honestly, I've been reading every thread you've started but really have no interest in commenting that much on political issues; however, what they hell, what do you see happening if either or gets into office?
---The internet is the father of the electronic lynch-mob---
11-03-2008, 03:56 PM
well, my gut belief is that they both will attempt to do a lot of the things they've campaigned on. With Obama, he'll have the support of the democrat majority congress which to me is a bad thing, particularly if they reach 60 seats in senate. Primarily its a bad thing because agendas will be able to be "railroaded" through, without even so much as allowing a debate on the floor if Pelosi agrees with it. McCain will have a harder battle to get some of his things done however he also has a lot more experience in doing that, and working with the opposing party. If Obama's taxation plan is passed, it will be further detrimental to our economy in the short to medium terms and eventually neutral with no further changes, if McCains is it will be beneficial to neutral in the short term, beneficial in the long term. If Obama wins (as his running mate has said) there will be some amount of testing by the dictators and other unpleasant groups outside the US, if McCain wins its far less likely as they have a pretty good idea how he will respond already, and it wont be either inviting them to a tea party to discuss it, or no longer inviting them to existing tea parties.....
11-03-2008, 04:46 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By LakeMountD in forum General ChatReplies: 237Last Post: 11-12-2008, 07:14 PM
- By RobInKuwait in forum PoliticsReplies: 45Last Post: 11-04-2008, 03:21 PM
- By EasyEJL in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 11-04-2008, 12:16 PM
- By bpmartyr in forum PoliticsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-11-2008, 11:02 AM
- By bpmartyr in forum PoliticsReplies: 11Last Post: 06-14-2008, 08:06 AM