I'll be the first to admit that I really despise the tactics of Washington lobbyists in general. Money has corrupted the federal government right down to the core. Most lobbying groups wave money in the face of politicians, hoping they'll bite like a fish to a hook. And the vast majority of them do.
To say that our elected leaders are bought and paid for would be an understatement. They are wined, dined, and lavished upon by the lobbyists whose only purpose is to secure support for their cause and/or guarantee a vote on a bill. It is about scratching backs and kissing backsides. Lobbyists do the latter as well as politicians do kissing babies.
But, seriously, what should be done about all this schmoozing? Indeed, what can be done, if anything? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But the answer is not regulation, no matter what the McCains and Feingolds have to say about it. What legislation of lobbying really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them.
The surest way to get a politician to act on your behalf is to promise your vote, in much the same way he or she makes promises to get your vote. And the way to do that in Washington, D.C., is through lobbyists and interest groups. This is especially true between elections, when politicians are less likely to take the time to listen to individual grievances.
Lobbyists promise to secure voters for the politician by the next election in exchange for legislative action on behalf of their constituents. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress in bill form.
Love them or hate them, lobbyists and lobbying groups serve a purpose to our republican democracy. They act as a voice for people on issues that might not otherwise be heard by our elected representatives. They represent us in person when we are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., ourselves. And, honestly, how many of us can realistically do that every time an issue comes up on which we want our voices heard? This happens every day, and the lobbyists are there every day, advocating for their issues and their constituents.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The more things change…
…the more they stay the same.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Just give the man a chance
How often have you heard this from people in the weeks after Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been hearing it ad nauseam.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Rules of Engagement are for war, not politics
After nearly two years of politics and prognostication, the presidential election is over. I, for one, am relieved, in spite of the fact that the guy I voted for did not win.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Why I will vote for John McCain
Let me set the record straight. I’ve been as critical of Sen. John McCain throughout the presidential primary as the democrats are of him now. He has suppressed freedom of speech with campaign finance reform, which has ended up hurting his own party and helping his opponents across the aisle. He has opposed efforts to crack down on illegal immigration and enforce existing laws against unlawful border crossings. He has supported what amounts to amnesty for those residing in the United States illegally and taking advantage of America’s good graces. He has embraced the man-made global climate change propaganda, as well as opposed efforts to drill and produce the vast reserves of petroleum product in ANWAR.
He is a compromiser. He is a self-described federalist, who believes in a strong central government. He’s a moderate and centrist on government spending: You never know what side of the fence he will come down on.
And yet, in spite of the fact that he’s a rhino and not a true pachyderm republican, I find myself daring to support the senior senator from Arizona for president of the United States.
Why? Let me count the ways.
But first, I’ll preface my argument by itemizing the issues most important to me, then comparing them to the two major party candidates.
1. National defense. I believe the first duty of the president of the United States is the same as any other service man or woman: To uphold the United States Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the sum of the oath that every member of the armed forces, the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government take upon entering into public service. In fact, the Constitution stipulates the first duty of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of the military, so having a person in the office either who has military experience or who whole-heartedly supports the military is crucial.
That isn’t to say that every war hero or politician with military experience would make an effective president. Certainly, history is ripe with examples of presidents who were more effective in uniform than in the Oval Office. And some of the most effective presidents have come from as diverse backgrounds as small-town lawyers, orators, authors, inventors and even actors.
But in a time of war, as we have found ourselves in for the past seven years, a president who has the highest regard for the military and endorses a philosophy of a strong national defense is critical to the survival of our country.
2. Life. If freedom can be summed up by “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights, then abortion is the antithesis of freedom and essential liberty. While proponents of the practice maintain that it promotes choice and, therefore, liberty for women, at the same time, it denies choice to unborn children, who have no voice and no advocate on their behalf defending their right to live. Abortion supporters argue that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is constitutional because it upholds the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the peoples’ right to be secure in their persons. However, the pro-abortion lobby overlooks the obvious: That this right ought to reasonably be extended to all living persons, born and unborn. In fact, the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life” without due process of law. Human infants killed before they have a chance to breath outside of the womb are not given a fair trial and, thus, are denied due process of law before their execution. This is a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.
3. Taxation. I believe that Americans are unnecessarily burdened with rising taxes in order to pay for unbridled government expansion that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never endorsed. The federal government has grown in spite of the people and despite their representation, which, unfortunately, has made such decisions independent of the people supposed to be represented. And while we may not have taxation without representation, I don’t believe our representatives have been making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, but rather themselves. Our representatives make tax and spend decisions for the benefit of their own re-election, to feather their own political nests, and not for any benefit to the people. I believe our representatives should be making responsible legislative decisions that are considerate of the people whose money pays for them. Spending should be cut back and taxes reduced to relieve the burden on everyone, not just a few or select groups.
4. Energy. Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries to supply our energy needs, when we have the supply right underneath our feet? Why have we allowed our money to benefit foreign nations who hate us, instead of boosting our own economy? Restrictive environmental regulations that put the skids on domestic energy production need to be relaxed or altogether lifted in order for us to function independently from the rest of the world. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be led around by a dangling carrot, when we’ve got our own carrots to eat. While I don’t believe our economy can or should exist on fossil fuels alone, I also don’t believe we can just dump petroleum products altogether. The transition from carbon-based to alternative energy sources needs to be gradual. That is why we must drill our own oil and explore alternative energy options at the same time.
Okay, these are the four most important issues to me. When I compare John McCain to Barack Obama, here is what I see:
1. McCain has a history of putting his country before himself, as evidenced by his service in the military and, specifically, the sacrifices he made in service to America during the Vietnam War. McCain will unequivocally support the United States Armed Forces and its current mission in the “War on Terror.” Obama, on the other hand, is willing to negotiate “without preconditions” with terrorist-sponsoring nations. I am convinced that McCain will not allow America to fail during wartime. He will keep her on the offensive, rather than assume defensive posture and wait for the next attack on our soil. By virtue of his service and whole-hearted commitment to the military, McCain is a better fit than Obama to assume the role and take on the responsibility of commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
2. John McCain is anti-abortion; Obama is pro-abortion. Enough said.
3. McCain supports across-the-board tax cuts for everyone, regardless of their income levels or tax brackets, because he knows that relieving the burden of those who employ is just as important as relieving the burden of those who are otherwise employed. Obama, conversely, endorses selective tax breaks for what is termed the “middle” and “working” classes, while raising taxes on the so-called “rich.” What he fails to understand is that by supporting tax increases on those who do the employing, he is harming their ability to employ more people, provide the benefits that working people rely on, and offer products and services at reasonable cost to the average, middle-class consumer. McCain gets this connection, where Obama and his Democratic Party just do not or refuse to.
4. John McCain has come out in support of domestic oil drilling and production, in spite of waffling on ANWAR. But he also understands that there must be a balance struck between the environment and our economy. To be one-sided either way has destructive consequences. McCain at least recognizes the economic and political threats that continued reliance on foreign nations pose, and he is willing to do something about it. Sen. Obama, by contrast, cannot decide whether to support or continue to oppose domestic oil production and the drilling for petroleum on our own soil. He is at odds with his party’s strict environmental voting block and with the blue-collar working class that relies on a strong economy to provide jobs. Without a domestic fuel product, we cannot expect to have a strong economy that grows jobs and creates economic stability for the working class.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with John McCain more than I disagree with him; vice-versa with Barack Obama, who is decidedly more left-wing and socialist for my comfort. I take issue exclusively with Obama’s political philosophies and associated judgment therein; not his skin color, experience, or any other detail of the man.
When I look at the resume of John McCain, I see a man who has all of the faculties necessary to lead the military, make tough and sometimes risky foreign policy decisions, and who is willing to answer the call to duty when the red telephone rings at 3 a.m.
When I regard Barack Obama and his resume, I see a man full of social idealism, charm and fancy rhetoric that beguiles crowds by the thousands. Experience aside, I don’t believe that Obama has the judgment needed to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in a time of war. The record shows that John McCain does.
And that, to me, is the bottom line.
He is a compromiser. He is a self-described federalist, who believes in a strong central government. He’s a moderate and centrist on government spending: You never know what side of the fence he will come down on.
And yet, in spite of the fact that he’s a rhino and not a true pachyderm republican, I find myself daring to support the senior senator from Arizona for president of the United States.
Why? Let me count the ways.
But first, I’ll preface my argument by itemizing the issues most important to me, then comparing them to the two major party candidates.
1. National defense. I believe the first duty of the president of the United States is the same as any other service man or woman: To uphold the United States Constitution and preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the sum of the oath that every member of the armed forces, the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government take upon entering into public service. In fact, the Constitution stipulates the first duty of the president is to serve as commander-in-chief of the military, so having a person in the office either who has military experience or who whole-heartedly supports the military is crucial.
That isn’t to say that every war hero or politician with military experience would make an effective president. Certainly, history is ripe with examples of presidents who were more effective in uniform than in the Oval Office. And some of the most effective presidents have come from as diverse backgrounds as small-town lawyers, orators, authors, inventors and even actors.
But in a time of war, as we have found ourselves in for the past seven years, a president who has the highest regard for the military and endorses a philosophy of a strong national defense is critical to the survival of our country.
2. Life. If freedom can be summed up by “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights, then abortion is the antithesis of freedom and essential liberty. While proponents of the practice maintain that it promotes choice and, therefore, liberty for women, at the same time, it denies choice to unborn children, who have no voice and no advocate on their behalf defending their right to live. Abortion supporters argue that the 1973 Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is constitutional because it upholds the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing the peoples’ right to be secure in their persons. However, the pro-abortion lobby overlooks the obvious: That this right ought to reasonably be extended to all living persons, born and unborn. In fact, the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person shall be “deprived of life” without due process of law. Human infants killed before they have a chance to breath outside of the womb are not given a fair trial and, thus, are denied due process of law before their execution. This is a direct and blatant violation of the Constitution.
3. Taxation. I believe that Americans are unnecessarily burdened with rising taxes in order to pay for unbridled government expansion that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never endorsed. The federal government has grown in spite of the people and despite their representation, which, unfortunately, has made such decisions independent of the people supposed to be represented. And while we may not have taxation without representation, I don’t believe our representatives have been making decisions in the best interests of the people they serve, but rather themselves. Our representatives make tax and spend decisions for the benefit of their own re-election, to feather their own political nests, and not for any benefit to the people. I believe our representatives should be making responsible legislative decisions that are considerate of the people whose money pays for them. Spending should be cut back and taxes reduced to relieve the burden on everyone, not just a few or select groups.
4. Energy. Why have we allowed ourselves to become dependent on other countries to supply our energy needs, when we have the supply right underneath our feet? Why have we allowed our money to benefit foreign nations who hate us, instead of boosting our own economy? Restrictive environmental regulations that put the skids on domestic energy production need to be relaxed or altogether lifted in order for us to function independently from the rest of the world. There is no reason why we should allow ourselves to be led around by a dangling carrot, when we’ve got our own carrots to eat. While I don’t believe our economy can or should exist on fossil fuels alone, I also don’t believe we can just dump petroleum products altogether. The transition from carbon-based to alternative energy sources needs to be gradual. That is why we must drill our own oil and explore alternative energy options at the same time.
Okay, these are the four most important issues to me. When I compare John McCain to Barack Obama, here is what I see:
1. McCain has a history of putting his country before himself, as evidenced by his service in the military and, specifically, the sacrifices he made in service to America during the Vietnam War. McCain will unequivocally support the United States Armed Forces and its current mission in the “War on Terror.” Obama, on the other hand, is willing to negotiate “without preconditions” with terrorist-sponsoring nations. I am convinced that McCain will not allow America to fail during wartime. He will keep her on the offensive, rather than assume defensive posture and wait for the next attack on our soil. By virtue of his service and whole-hearted commitment to the military, McCain is a better fit than Obama to assume the role and take on the responsibility of commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
2. John McCain is anti-abortion; Obama is pro-abortion. Enough said.
3. McCain supports across-the-board tax cuts for everyone, regardless of their income levels or tax brackets, because he knows that relieving the burden of those who employ is just as important as relieving the burden of those who are otherwise employed. Obama, conversely, endorses selective tax breaks for what is termed the “middle” and “working” classes, while raising taxes on the so-called “rich.” What he fails to understand is that by supporting tax increases on those who do the employing, he is harming their ability to employ more people, provide the benefits that working people rely on, and offer products and services at reasonable cost to the average, middle-class consumer. McCain gets this connection, where Obama and his Democratic Party just do not or refuse to.
4. John McCain has come out in support of domestic oil drilling and production, in spite of waffling on ANWAR. But he also understands that there must be a balance struck between the environment and our economy. To be one-sided either way has destructive consequences. McCain at least recognizes the economic and political threats that continued reliance on foreign nations pose, and he is willing to do something about it. Sen. Obama, by contrast, cannot decide whether to support or continue to oppose domestic oil production and the drilling for petroleum on our own soil. He is at odds with his party’s strict environmental voting block and with the blue-collar working class that relies on a strong economy to provide jobs. Without a domestic fuel product, we cannot expect to have a strong economy that grows jobs and creates economic stability for the working class.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with John McCain more than I disagree with him; vice-versa with Barack Obama, who is decidedly more left-wing and socialist for my comfort. I take issue exclusively with Obama’s political philosophies and associated judgment therein; not his skin color, experience, or any other detail of the man.
When I look at the resume of John McCain, I see a man who has all of the faculties necessary to lead the military, make tough and sometimes risky foreign policy decisions, and who is willing to answer the call to duty when the red telephone rings at 3 a.m.
When I regard Barack Obama and his resume, I see a man full of social idealism, charm and fancy rhetoric that beguiles crowds by the thousands. Experience aside, I don’t believe that Obama has the judgment needed to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in a time of war. The record shows that John McCain does.
And that, to me, is the bottom line.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Whatever happened to the warrior spirit?
In 1864, Union Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman summarized his infamous “March to the Sea” through Tennessee and Georgia with the following remark: “War is hell. The more brutal war is, the sooner it will end.”
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
He applied the same principle to the Indian Wars in the West following the Civil War. Sherman, along with Gens. Phil Sheridan, George Crook and Nelson Miles, among others, endorsed a policy of attrition against the Indian tribes by allowing them to starve into submission. The will to fight among many tribes was too great and strong for the United States Army to simply break in a single battle, or even a long series of them, for that matter. The Civil War and the Confederate resolve had proven this.
So, the Army allowed the wholesale slaughter of the buffalo, a primary food source for many Indian tribes in the West, thus effectively cutting off their food supply and forcing them onto reservations where they could eat.
Whether or not one agrees with this tactic is a topic of debate for another time and place. But it is clear that such brutality was, in fact, effective in hastening an end to the Indian Wars.
About eighty years later, a lieutenant general named Douglas MacArthur proposed to invade China as part of a plan to sweep the communists out of Southeast Asia for good. But his commander-in-chief, Harry S. Truman, would have none of it. President Truman held a deep fear of communism—especially the Soviet Union to the north. He feared an invasion of China would provoke communist Russia into nuclear war with the United States. Perhaps President Truman had become gun-shy after having authorized the drop of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the devastating aftermath of which prompted the swift surrender of Imperial Japan and officially ended World War II. Whatever the reason, his reluctance to support MacArthur led to the latter’s dismissal, right in the middle of an American-led offensive that had the communist North Koreans on the run, fleeing across the border into China. MacArthur had argued that relentless pursuit of the enemy and its allies was the surest and shortest means to an end—that being an end to the Korean War.
But as history went, President Truman fired MacArthur, ordered Allied forces to pull back, and allowed the communist army to retake Northern Korea. This move not only made the war drag on longer, but it also bolstered the confidence of the communists and ultimately resulted in a cease-fire that drew the political lines that still exist today. Consequently, Korean families have been separated from each other for more than a half-century.
Truman’s cowardice toward communist nations sent a message to the rest of the world that the United States could be bullied and bluffed into submission, because it was willing to pull its punches. Consequently, we locked horns with communism in a 45-year Cold War.
America did not pull any punches in either World War I or II, both of which resulted in Allied victories. She didn’t do that in Cuba, either, when her Roughriders helped to kick the Spanish in the teeth at San Juan Hill. And the Union was particularly brutal and deliberate in its victory over the Confederacy, especially the final two years under the direction of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and his subordinates, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer et al.
As a result of Grant’s deliberate pursuit, Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s raids throughout the Shenandoah Valley, the tenacious and stubborn Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered little more than a year after Grant assumed command of the Army of the Potomac. Prior to Grant’s appointment, President Lincoln had gone through a half-dozen or more commanders in three years, including four between September 1862 and July 1863. Consequently, the war continued on and Gen. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia had built up a head of steam that seemed near impossible to stop. Only the simultaneous victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg kept the Union from summarily losing the war by July 1863. But Gen. Meade’s reluctance to pursue a retreating Lee across the Potomac River dragged the war on and left Lincoln asking what every other American was wondering: How much longer?
Fortunately, Grant was not hesitant the way Meade and McClellan were. He was neither clumsy like Hooker, nor assuming and predictable as Burnside, nor uninspiring as Pope or McDowell. And he certainly wasn’t as arrogant as many of Lincoln’s general staff in Washington, D.C. were.
This same spirit inspired future military commanders like the eccentric Gen. George Patton, who gave German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel all he could handle in North Africa and Italy. Patton’s blood-and-guts style also helped to break the spirit of the German Army at the Battle of Bulge.
The reason why Germany and Japan failed to conquer the world, respectively, was because of brutal warriors such as Patton, MacArthur and other contemporaries of like mind. If not for them, the Second World War could have lasted longer and at much greater expense of lives lost.
Indeed, where would the world be today if the warrior spirit hadn’t existed in at least a few during history’s most pivotal conflicts? More importantly, imagine how much better our world might have been had the warrior spirit not been shackled by the fears of a few.
Perhaps we’d be looking at a unified Korea and democratic Vietnam.
But history is what it is. All we can do is learn from it. God willing.
McCain trumps Obama with an ace
For those of you keeping score, it’s John McCain one, Barack Obama zero.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
The Maverick pulled a five-card ace to claim the first hand of the world’s largest poker game. Obama “The Changer,” on the other hand, stumbled with a deuce.
One day after Sen. Obama delivered an historic acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colo., Sen. McCain rained on his opponent’s parade by making history for his party. The Maverick named Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2008 election, marking the first time that a woman has appeared on a Republican presidential ticket.
The night before, Barack Obama accepted his party’s nomination, becoming the first black American to head a major party ticket in a presidential election. The event had been carefully planned and choreographed to correspond with the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech, something the mainstream press called “ironic" and was anything but.
McCain’s selection, though, couldn’t have been timed better or more brilliantly. The morning after Obama’s night on stage, the media swarmed and swooned over his acceptance speech like bees to honey. That’s when The Maverick lowered the boom.
Suddenly, the press was torn between continued “in-depth” analysis of Obama and McCain’s historic pick for a running mate.
And while McCain gave Obama his moment in the spotlight, he didn’t let him enjoy it for very long. The Maverick’s choice for vice-president sent the “O-camp” a message that he is capable of running stride-for-stride with The Changer, in spite of the latter’s younger, fresher legs.
But McCain’s veep choice is far more than an historic first. It’s good, smart political strategy and also a wise move by the moderate Arizona Senator to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative base. McCain risks losing a significant chunk of conservative voters, who have grown discontented with the senior senator’s rather “progressive” voting record on such issues as illegal immigration, the environment, and big government. Putting traditionally conservative Palin on the ticket as the vice-presidential running mate, though, has effectively reinvigorated what was becoming a very disappointed conservative voting block.
Gov. Palin may also prove to be an Achilles Heel for the Democrats, who have always claimed to be the party of women, minorities and the working class. Palin’s husband is an active member of the Steelworkers Union and a working class guy. Prior to her election as governor, Palin and her family lived as ordinary blue-collar, middle-class people. Her presence on the Republican ticket has the potential to take away some blue-collar labor votes that the Democrats have traditionally counted on. Furthermore, Palin as a woman is one Tuesday away from doing what Sen. Hillary Clinton has only dreamed about her entire adult life: Getting elected to the executive branch of the United States government. Female voters who otherwise wanted to vote for Hillary because she is a woman may, in fact, be inclined to cast their ballots for McCain-Palin because of the Alaska governor. However shallow it may seem to vote for somebody based on their gender, the fact of the matter is that people do and votes that may have gone to Hillary could wind up in McCain’s bag.
But I don’t think Palin’s candidacy for vice-president will be lauded, praised or celebrated the same way Clinton’s presidential campaign was. This is because the former is an economic and social conservative with pro-life, anti-abortion views. So it is unlikely she will garner much of the feminist vote despite her gender.
Another favorable attribute in Palin’s court is her youth. She is a young, attractive 44 years old. Obama is two years her senior at 46. So, Obamanation can no longer use youth as an advantage for its candidate, since the Republican ticket proves to be even younger.
Moreover, the Democrats cannot claim to be the minority ticket, either, in this election, because Palin, by virtue of her gender, is a political minority.
What Palin’s placement on the Republican ticket has done, ultimately, is steal the thunder from the Democratic Party by taking away its uniqueness and neutralizing its historical significance for voters who shallowly vote on such trivial matters as race and gender. If McCain wins in November, then Palin will be the first woman vice-president in U.S. history. Not at all unlike the prospect of Obama becoming the first black president in American history.
Perhaps more than any other advantage, though, Gov. Palin adds executive experience to the Republican ticket, something that the Democrats do not have either in Obama or his running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden.
A new political ad backed by the Obama campaign criticizes Palin for being inexperienced, a charge often leveled at Obama, the junior senator from Illinois. Frankly, I don’t begrudge Obama for his lack of political experience. Sometimes a lack thereof can be a good thing, and often is the difference between somebody who really wants to make a positive difference for his or her country and someone who is simply looking to move up the proverbial career ladder. I personally have little use for career-minded politicians, whose primary objective, it seems, is to win re-election so they can continue feeding out of the generous public trough.
The Obama campaign can decry Gov. Palin all it wants to about the experience factor. But the fact of the matter is Palin has done more for her state as a first-term governor than Obama has done for his state as a first-term senator. She has the executive experience that neither McCain nor Obama nor Biden have. These guys are just senators, after all, who spend much of their time voting on and proposing bills, entertaining and hob-knobbing with lobbyists, and sitting on sub-committees pouring over legal documents or delighting in the interrogation of some new presidential appointee. This is what lawyers do. Executives lead and manage, which is exactly what Gov. Palin has done in Alaska.
Compare Palin’s resume to that of Biden, an old Beltway bird who has feathered his nest on the backs of taxpayers for more than three decades. Biden has a great deal more political experience than Palin, but that experience has turned him into a career politician less concerned about leading and more concerned about his fat federal pension.
Palin represents change in Washington, D.C., more so than Obama, who has built an entire presidential campaign around that verbiage. While Obama talks eloquently about change, Palin is walking proof of it. Her fiscal conservatism is just the kind of change that America needs in Washington, rather than more of the same gratuitous spending habits that politicians from both parties have grown accustomed to.
If Sen. Barack Obama is really the agent of change that his campaign claims him to be, then why in the world would he have picked a long-time Beltway player like Biden, who, near as I can tell, has no intention of changing the way Washington does its business as usual? Biden has benefited greatly from his senatorial service simply by playing the game the way it has always been played. If Obama is change, then his pick of someone who represents the status quo in Washington is the antithesis of his message and an anomaly to the campaign. Obama himself once said that the ways of Washington must change. Well, they haven’t yet and won’t because of people like Biden, who have stayed in power because they kept things the way they were.
What’s more, this is the same Joe Biden, who just months before, went on record as criticizing Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. The Democrat nominee’s own running mate charged him with inexperience. Furthermore, Biden last year made a prejudicial comment about Obama’s race, saying that the Illinois junior senator was a breath of fresh air from the black community because he was bright, clean and articulate.
Unfortunately for Obama, his running mate has already damaged the campaign simply by opening his mouth. If the Democrats hope to win in November, they will have to find a way to keep Biden’s mouth shut—no easy task given the latter’s track record of reckless, half-witted remarks. Anyone familiar with Biden knows that the senior senator from Delaware has a history of putting his foot in his mouth. He talks too much, and that’s a liability for any political campaign.
Where Palin may be a stroke of brilliance for McCain, Biden is likely to be the biggest political gaffe of Obama’s career.
The old senator will probably commandeer and dominate the vice-presidential debates, simply because he’s used to talking over people on sub-committees and at hearings. But Palin should steal the show with her poise, visible inner strength, quiet confidence and a way of personally connecting to the common man that she comes by naturally—something Biden boasts of doing, but his actions and words have betrayed him over the years. It was Sen. Joseph Biden, after all, who smugly and arrogantly remarked to a reporter that his intelligence quotient was considerably higher than that of the journalist interviewing him; not exactly making a connection with the common man there.
Nevertheless, Gov. Palin is likely to upstage the crotchety old lawmaker who has spent way too long in the Beltway for his own or anyone else’s good. And she has to say very little to do so. Her quiet confidence alone puts her head and shoulders above Biden.
This can only prove to make McCain look good and Obama appear as though he made a grievous error in judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
