Vote McCain!
One of the most isolating positions for a musician or an academic is to openly admit to being a conservative. I have had wonderful working relationships turn ice cold and even caused a cocktail to be dropped in astonishment once upon announcing that I was a conservative.
The loneliness of my political bent is exacerbated by two things. First, I am a political junkie, devouring every news cycle as if it were my last. Second, my field tends to attract not just liberals, but far-left liberals. The combination of impassioned fellows like Darcy Argue (whom I admire) and my own addiction to political news makes for an unstable mix. If I had no interest in politics, it wouldn't be difficult to ignore the politics of my peers, or tempting to engage them in a discourse. But I inevitably take the bait, and feel the worse for it afters. I just can’t help myself; so, here goes:
Vote McCain!
I have grown weary of this Presidential race which began nearly 2 years ago. One of the great pleasures of being on tour since August was not having the opportunity to follow the news as closely as I would at home. When McCain suspended his campaign, it struck me as the big October Surprise of 2008, and it seemed like he'd mishandled the moment. As we enter the last week of this interminable campaign, it seems like everyone is shifting into neutral, and Obama's election is a foregone conclusion.
I've written before about how little regard I have for Obama. I find him supercilious, and the one reason I would vote for him is the one reason we're not supposed to: his race. As much as I think it would be a mistake to elect him to the Presidency, I will be happy as a clam to see a black man of African Muslim heritage presiding over the White House. Truth be told, I think Hillary's election would have been the more transgressive move, and out of all of the candidates, on both sides, she was my first choice.
Fire-breathing, emasculating, far-left Hillary?!
Yep.
She's my Senator, and when she ran for office in 2000, I couldn't have been more opposed to her candidacy. However, over 8 years in the Senate, she's demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to work across party lines and on behalf of her constituents. She's a serious political thinker and an exceptionally hard worker. The country would be lucky to have her as President.
But right from the get-go, Hillary was a favorite target of both the left and the right. The Daily Kos and Huffington Post were behind Obama from the beginning, and Hillary was the whipping boy for millions of disgruntled liberals. It was no fun to watch her lose to Obama, which brings me back to McCain.
While most of the vitriol on the left seems reserved for Palin (which strikes me as odd, since she's as much of a cream puff as Obama is), McCain has come in for his fair share. Like Hillary before him, he has been outfoxed by Obama's campaign, and in the face of a tough, smart opponent, he has withered. Since he’s no longer his own best advocate, I do feel it's worth pointing out what an extraordinary figure John McCain is. It’s become fashionable to dump on the guy, and that just violates my sense of fairness.
For conservatives, Bush II has been a nightmare. We believe in smaller government. On every front, Bush II has violated our core principles. He's spent money like a drunken sailor, and right before he left office, he whipped out the credit card one last time to rack up another $700 billion (and counting) in federal debt. He's run headlong into an ill-conceived nation building project, and he's cynically proposed amending the Constitution to prohibit hyper-specific social behaviors.
In the eight years of this God-awful administration, its most vocal opponent has been John McCain. When Donald Rumsfeld was still stubbornly trying to 'transform' the military amidst a two-front war, McCain was calling for his head. While Bush was busy redacting government reports to eliminate evidence of global warming, McCain was pushing for caps on carbon emissions. And perhaps most heroically, when his party was knee-deep in corrupt excess, it was McCain who exposed the extent of their misdeeds with his investigation into Jack Abramoff through his Committee on Indian Affairs.
During the primaries, McCain's candidacy was deader than dead. At one point, political blogs were mocking him by posting pictures of him carrying his own luggage, but he soldiered on and that's always been part of what I admire about him. (It's also what I found endearing about Hillary: her ability to keep her game face on in spite of the most withering criticism.) When McCain made egregious ethical errors early in his Senate career, he learned from his mistakes and became a tireless proponent of campaign finance reform. When all of the political will in this country was focused on getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible, he never swayed from his stance that more (not less) troops were needed to keep casualties down (he was right, btw). When his party was foaming at the mouth to kick all of the illegal immigrants out of the country, he went all in on a politically reasonable solution which nearly killed his candidacy. When Senate Democrats were threatening to go nuclear over Bush's judicial appointments, McCain was in the thick of the bipartisan negotiations to avoid a political meltdown.
Barack Obama has not been similarly tested and has avoided taking any politically risky stances. While there's no reason to suspect that he will wilt in the face of adversity, there's also no evidence to suggest that he won't. Therein lies the issue. He has no credentials to speak of, and that seems to me be an awfully big risk, especially when his opponent has all the bona fides one could ever desire in a President.
The next President will face an ungodly federal debt, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most likely, will preside over the transition of the US out of its role as the sole superpower. John McCain will be an able hand at the wheel in such tough times. He has proven his mettle time and again, and I think the country would do well to elect him.
Truthfully though, I wish we could fast forward to next Tuesday and be done with this whole thing and let whoever the next President is get down to the business of cleaning up after Bush II.
The loneliness of my political bent is exacerbated by two things. First, I am a political junkie, devouring every news cycle as if it were my last. Second, my field tends to attract not just liberals, but far-left liberals. The combination of impassioned fellows like Darcy Argue (whom I admire) and my own addiction to political news makes for an unstable mix. If I had no interest in politics, it wouldn't be difficult to ignore the politics of my peers, or tempting to engage them in a discourse. But I inevitably take the bait, and feel the worse for it afters. I just can’t help myself; so, here goes:
I have grown weary of this Presidential race which began nearly 2 years ago. One of the great pleasures of being on tour since August was not having the opportunity to follow the news as closely as I would at home. When McCain suspended his campaign, it struck me as the big October Surprise of 2008, and it seemed like he'd mishandled the moment. As we enter the last week of this interminable campaign, it seems like everyone is shifting into neutral, and Obama's election is a foregone conclusion.
I've written before about how little regard I have for Obama. I find him supercilious, and the one reason I would vote for him is the one reason we're not supposed to: his race. As much as I think it would be a mistake to elect him to the Presidency, I will be happy as a clam to see a black man of African Muslim heritage presiding over the White House. Truth be told, I think Hillary's election would have been the more transgressive move, and out of all of the candidates, on both sides, she was my first choice.
Fire-breathing, emasculating, far-left Hillary?!
Yep.
She's my Senator, and when she ran for office in 2000, I couldn't have been more opposed to her candidacy. However, over 8 years in the Senate, she's demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to work across party lines and on behalf of her constituents. She's a serious political thinker and an exceptionally hard worker. The country would be lucky to have her as President.
But right from the get-go, Hillary was a favorite target of both the left and the right. The Daily Kos and Huffington Post were behind Obama from the beginning, and Hillary was the whipping boy for millions of disgruntled liberals. It was no fun to watch her lose to Obama, which brings me back to McCain.
While most of the vitriol on the left seems reserved for Palin (which strikes me as odd, since she's as much of a cream puff as Obama is), McCain has come in for his fair share. Like Hillary before him, he has been outfoxed by Obama's campaign, and in the face of a tough, smart opponent, he has withered. Since he’s no longer his own best advocate, I do feel it's worth pointing out what an extraordinary figure John McCain is. It’s become fashionable to dump on the guy, and that just violates my sense of fairness.
For conservatives, Bush II has been a nightmare. We believe in smaller government. On every front, Bush II has violated our core principles. He's spent money like a drunken sailor, and right before he left office, he whipped out the credit card one last time to rack up another $700 billion (and counting) in federal debt. He's run headlong into an ill-conceived nation building project, and he's cynically proposed amending the Constitution to prohibit hyper-specific social behaviors.
In the eight years of this God-awful administration, its most vocal opponent has been John McCain. When Donald Rumsfeld was still stubbornly trying to 'transform' the military amidst a two-front war, McCain was calling for his head. While Bush was busy redacting government reports to eliminate evidence of global warming, McCain was pushing for caps on carbon emissions. And perhaps most heroically, when his party was knee-deep in corrupt excess, it was McCain who exposed the extent of their misdeeds with his investigation into Jack Abramoff through his Committee on Indian Affairs.
During the primaries, McCain's candidacy was deader than dead. At one point, political blogs were mocking him by posting pictures of him carrying his own luggage, but he soldiered on and that's always been part of what I admire about him. (It's also what I found endearing about Hillary: her ability to keep her game face on in spite of the most withering criticism.) When McCain made egregious ethical errors early in his Senate career, he learned from his mistakes and became a tireless proponent of campaign finance reform. When all of the political will in this country was focused on getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible, he never swayed from his stance that more (not less) troops were needed to keep casualties down (he was right, btw). When his party was foaming at the mouth to kick all of the illegal immigrants out of the country, he went all in on a politically reasonable solution which nearly killed his candidacy. When Senate Democrats were threatening to go nuclear over Bush's judicial appointments, McCain was in the thick of the bipartisan negotiations to avoid a political meltdown.
Barack Obama has not been similarly tested and has avoided taking any politically risky stances. While there's no reason to suspect that he will wilt in the face of adversity, there's also no evidence to suggest that he won't. Therein lies the issue. He has no credentials to speak of, and that seems to me be an awfully big risk, especially when his opponent has all the bona fides one could ever desire in a President.
The next President will face an ungodly federal debt, a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and most likely, will preside over the transition of the US out of its role as the sole superpower. John McCain will be an able hand at the wheel in such tough times. He has proven his mettle time and again, and I think the country would do well to elect him.
Truthfully though, I wish we could fast forward to next Tuesday and be done with this whole thing and let whoever the next President is get down to the business of cleaning up after Bush II.
Labels: Barack Obama, jodru, John McCain, nonsense
posted by jodru at 18:26
12 Comments:
Seriously... still on about this?? I think you think this is still the year 2000.
I'll say it right here: I know you very well. I even share some of your "conservative" tendencies.
I know that you, and several people like you, hope and pray that McCain is the promise that W never delivered on. You want a fiscal conservative. You want a more moderate, Libertarian version of Reagan. You want a small government in a safe world. You want a leader... You want Bush senior back.
W broke your heart. We had every reason to believe that he was a moderate, fiscal conervative. He had our foreign policy concerns solved and double solved (before he started) with his "dream-team" appointees Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld... but when things didn't go his way, Bush got rid of the adults. He fired Powell, didn't listen to Kemp, and Cheney and Rumsfeld showed their true heritage of the Nixon years.
So when we look back at the desaster of W (who will become known as "the Great Bankrupter"), we look for someone who didn't outspend Clinton, Johnson and all the rest... someone who might truly be for a small government. One might hope that John McCain is that man.
But alas, he just isn't.
Sure, one can hope that his entire campaign is just a political ruse, just to get elected... that he is only coddling up to the far right to try to hold together some semblance of the mania that Bush II inspired. One might use his choice of Palin as a clear example of how McCain might be pretending to be a Reagan when he's really a Bush Sr.
But, at some point, you have to take the man at his word. McCain is trying to portray Obama as a "tax-and-spend" democrat when his own plans resemble the bankrupting "spend-and-don't-tax" policies of the current president. Even worse, his health care plan puts new taxes on the health care benefit itself. Money magazine and other independant sources show that there will be more of an overall tax cut from Obama. When asked about his idea for an energy-independant future, McCain prefers a government-funded industry that first legislates technologies before turning it over to the private sector.
You bring up the primaries, and you mention that McCain's campaign was deader than dead. Very true. But what happened? He started out being the favorite candidate. He started out with plenty of money. The American Experience Documentary on PBS points out that there was a major problem of leadership in that campaign. The organization was spending more than it was taking in... McCain was embarassed by the lack of leadership he exhibited to keep track of the hemorraging expenditures... The only solution was to fire everybody and start over.
Does that sound familiar? Iraq was falling apart until Bush decided to fire everybody and start over.
Contrast that with Obama's campaign. He was clearly the underdog in every way. Everybody rags on Obama for lack of experience, but with all of McCain's experience his leadership abilities barely pulled him through against an otherwise pathetic GOP lineup.
It's not good leadership to fire everybody and start over... and with his experience, McCain should have been better prepared.
Finally, there is the choice of VP. I couldn't have said it better than when Bob Schieffer said "...our best insight yet is who you have picked as your running mates...." At best, McCain's choice is purely political when your hope is for a moderate conservative. Cynics say that she's got the same experience as Obama but she didn't get to that spot via a supurbly run series of campaigns. She got to a presidential ticket to round up right-wing voters. She's a tool in the literal definition of the word.
Meanwhile, what names has Obama dropped? Biden! Buffett! Names that McCain himself only echoes with respect. These are people that are proven in their capacities and people whom this country desperately need right now. It's Barack Obama that can bring them to the table.
Hmmmm....I'm not hoping and praying for anything.
The biggest clue of how far off you are with regards to what I want should be that my first choice was Hillary.
A President does not have a great deal of power in our system. Imagine how bad things would be if Bush II had any real power to enact his agenda.
What we need is a responsible steward. Hillary and McCain would both be that. Obama might be, but what evidence do we have of that? Name dropping? (Not sure what you mean by that)
A new right-wing-talk-show-host tool:
Rush: "McCain is a great leader with great ideas."
Obama supporter: "Oh yeah? What about what he has to say about the economy and health care?"
Rush: "Oh well, the president doesn't have any real power anyway... and it's all Clinton's fault!"
(There is some heavy paraphrasing going on there... don't try to look that quote up.) You get my meaning though. At some point you have to take these men at their words and ideas and experience, otherwise you have nothing to go on but feelings and heresay.
Responsible steward? You can make an argument either way... McCain chose Palin purely for political means instead of what is best for the country. Obama chose Biden even though he was entirely unsuccessful in the primaries because Biden is so well respected and has such a wealth of experience and skill.
I mean (in name dropping) that Obama brings the best minds to the table, where McCain is only interested in stirring up his right-wing base. You might agree that (an almost powerless?) president is only as good as his advisors. Obama brings Warren Buffett and Joe Biden to the table... Who's McCain got?
And again, it's not as if Obama has zero experience. Not enough credit is given to his almost miraculous campaign. That requires a tremendous amount and quality of leadership that neither McCain nor Palin was able to match to quite the same degree.
Then again, an Obama presidency wouldn't be the end of the world. As someone told me recently,
"Sometimes a far-left President needs to be voted in, just to remind Americans why they shouldn't vote in a far-left politician."
And besides, maybe me and the rest of the people in Illinois might be able to get a senator that actually does something
Obama's choice of Biden was purely political. (Running mate choices always are.) Biden addresses Obama's clear lack of experience. By choosing him, Obama was assuaging doubts about his ability to lead.
This is the same thing Bush II had to do in 2000. He surrounded himself with trusted hands like James Baker and Colin Powell to allay fears that he would be too inexperienced to lead.
Did I miss something? Did Warren Buffett agree to serve in an Obama administration? All I've heard is that he endorsed Obama.
McCain has the opposite problem. He's a trusted leader and no one doubts his experience. In choosing his running mate, he needed to bring youth and vitality to the ticket, while solidifying the support of his political base.
Plenty of credit has been given to Obama's campaign. He was being lauded for its toughness and intelligence as far back as Iowa. The funny thing to me is that we're in this sort of meta-reality where Obama's biggest qualification for the Presidency is running for it.
Recall that he announced his candidacy less than two years into his Senate term. Which means that he was seriously thinking about running as soon as he got elected to national office. That's a huge set of brass balls.
Obama said that he would probably select Buffett as the Treasury Secretary in one of the debates. Buffett strongly hinted that he would accept on Charlie Rose.
If making the right choice for the country is also the right political choice, then yes, Obama's choice was also political. Certainly he would have gotten more votes though if he would have selected Hillary.
I don't think Bush II selected Jim Baker and Colin Powell until after he was elected. He held onto Powell all four years until he couldn't stand him anymore.
Colin Powell campaigned for McCain in 2000 until Bush won the nomination. Then he campaigned for Bush. He was a foreign policy adviser to Bush's campaign.
James Baker was in on the Bush campaign from the get-go. He was at the start of the whole thing, and in many ways, was the mastermind behind him getting elected. And lest ye forget (apparently, you already have), James Baker was Bush's chief legal counsel on the campaign and oversaw the Florida recount.
Not selecting Hillary was a political choice, as well. (Everything is in a campaign). Obama knew there'd be no workable solution with Hillary as a VP, and he didn't want the drama.
Biden is no more the 'right choice for the country' than any other person would be. If President's don't have a great deal of direct power, VP's have even less!
Biden, btw, is someone who I'd gladly see in the Oval Office. He's got experience and a thorough command of foreign policy.
Obama just lacks any credentials whatsoever. The argument for him always turns to the fact that he would somehow magically bring change to the country. Perhaps simply electing a black man of Muslim heritage will do that, like killing the Wicked Witch in Oz. I doubt it.
Obama is just as power-hungry as every other politician. He's got a profound sense of entitlement which dates back to his first foray into politics, when he ran unopposed for office by getting all of his opponents legally disqualified on technicalities. He's shown that he's capable of profound ethical lapses, and most importantly, he's avoided making any tough political calls. As a US Senator, he has never strayed from the party line, never exerted any effort on behalf of bipartisanship.
A President needs more political courage than he has demonstrated thus far. You seem content to 'hope and pray' that this trait will somehow materialize in him.
I'm just being more realistic in looking at the facts on the ground. He's never failed to take the politically easy route, whereas McCain has never backed down from a politically suicidal position, if he feels it is the right one.
Well, it's your blog, and I've said my piece, so I'll let you have the last word.
You still seem content on basing your content on some kind of charachter... as if you know the man because he stood against W on the war and immigration, environment, torture. I prefer to look at the ideas and policies that are most important now. McCain's ideas for the economy are bad - they are the same general idea as BushII's. His heathcare program is worse than a bad joke, and his environmental ideas are insufficient. He has barely mentioned education...
The amount of power the president has is often dependant on the president. Clinton was a very weak president, but he did have enough to shut down the government until they balanced the budget. Johnson had a lot of power to get the voting rights stuff passed. BushII had an illegal amount of power to ignore the supreme court and hold midnight sessions of congress.
And, to go back a step, you lamented the attention given to Obama's qualification earned while running for president. A "meta-reality" you called it. Of course you know that this isn't the 1840's anymore. People don't just "run" for president. How much have all 22 candidates raised and spent over the last few years? Presidential campaigns should qualify as an industry. It takes tremendous organization and leadership to manage that amount of money and people. McCain really did fail early on in that endeavor. Now, he's really cooking, with added push from the 527s he even can match Obama's money.
So, in a nutshell, you are saying that you prefer to vote for Obama based on his proposals, rather than his experience?
Forgive me, but I think a track record, rather than proposals, are the more important factor in electing a President.
Obama's groundbreaking campaign is a tribute to many qualities of leadership, to be sure. However, the $600 million he has raised has been done on the back of a broken promise he made to use public funds. He has also perpetuated a myth that he has raised record amounts of money entirely from small donors, when, per capita, he has raised more money from big ticket donors than Bush II did in 2000. If his campaign for President is his big qualifying achievement, shouldn't it give you pause that it's financing is so problematic? Surely that's an indication of problems to come.
That "broken promise" argument is pretty tired when you consider the fact that McCain, who was such a staunch advocate for finance reform relies so heavily on 527s.
McCain is not relying on 527's. That's the whole point of those things. He's not allowed to. Neither is Obama.
For a candidate with no record to speak of, breaking one of the few promises he's made is an awfully big deal.
Since your vote is based on his campaign promises, it seems like that should give you pause.
I have to agree with you here :)
I'm an artist as well, photographer...
used to consider myself more Liberal than not, although I've voted across party lines many times. I just look for the most rational sane candidate and take it from there, but oBlahBlah ruined it for me. He's a radical A-hole to put it mildly. His bigoted racial comments sent us all back about 30 years regarding race relations. Coming from a multicultural background, his attitude pissed me off more than I can describe. The hypocrisy and malicious behavior of Liberals has turned me off completely to any Leftist-leaning argument. The Democratic Primaries were a disgrace to all: Sexism, Slander and Race-Baiting run amok. I wash my hands of that garbage. I'll remain registered a Democrat just so I can vote in the primaries against the most vile of the choices presented, but I proudly call myself an Independent.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home