You can add me to the long, long list of bloggers who are already second guessing John McCain's performance even before the debate has begun. I am deeply distressed that Senator McCain cannot gain traction against Barack Obama. Obama is a terribly flawed candidate, one who certainly should not be elected President.
I remain absolutely convinced that Barack Obama will win and win by a landslide. Can John McCain do anything tonight to stop the train wreck? No. So what McCain should do is simply argue policies and facts. He should leave William Ayers and Rev. Wright at home.
Two recent Wall Street Journal articles point out the road Senator McCain needs to follow. First is Obama's 95% Illusion which clearly point out the flaws and absolute fantasy of Barack Obama's constant claim of a tax cut for 95% of all Americans, and a tax increase only on the rich. Like the Journal, I remain stunned that McCain and the Republicans haven't blown this house of cards up before now. It is, quite simply, a lie. And it's a huge lie.
Obama's plan actually is a dramatic increase in welfare. And his plan increases welfare in a way that will dis-incentivize people from working or improving their job or salary. If people get a better job, they will actually lose money.
Worse, it's a plan that will institutionalize poverty. Obama's plan will pass out a lot of checks to people who pay no taxes. But the checks will be too small to lift people out of poverty. Yet his program actually penalizes those who try. We will create the largest underclass in history, permanently on the dole.
Second McCain needs to genuinely attack Barak Obama on his absolute failure to lead during the fight for legislation that could have saved the world from this huge Banking Crisis. Again, I'll reference a Wall Street Journal article, Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform
I must also reference my own essay from October 11th, We're About to Elect a Good Listener When We Need a Strong Leader which covers all the same facts. I can only assume, since my essay preceded the Journal article by 4 days, that they are reading my stuff...... O.K., probably not.
The Journal article is much better and much more complete than my own. You need to read every word to really understand why this collapse happened and how it was that the Democrats, and not Republicans, authored "the only banking deregulation in recent years." We are reffing to the Democrats deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage lenders who caused the subprime disaster.
While Barack Obama wasn't the only villain in this meltdown, he could have personally stopped it. And, worse yet, he clearly saw the disaster in the making and yet he did nothing.
The Journal writes, "In the summer of 2005, a bill emerged from the Senate Banking Committee that considerably tightened regulations on Fannie and Freddie, including controls over their capital and their ability to hold portfolios of mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. All the Republicans voted for the bill in committee; all the Democrats voted against it. To get the bill to a vote in the Senate, a few Democratic votes were necessary to limit debate. This was a time for the leadership Sen. Obama says he can offer, but neither he nor any other Democrat stepped forward."
"Instead, by his own account, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to the Treasury Secretary, allegedly putting himself on record that subprime loans were dangerous and had to be dealt with. This is revealing; if true, it indicates Sen. Obama knew there was a problem with subprime lending -- but was unwilling to confront his own party by pressing for legislation to control it. As a demonstration of character and leadership capacity, it bears a strong resemblance to something else in Sen. Obama's past: voting present."
These are just two of the real issues Senator McCain needs to address. There are several others, but Bill Ayers is not among them. Senator McCain, you cannot win. So you need to fight with class and bring the real issues of the election to a public that, frankly, does not want to see them.
15 comments:
Actually McCain can win. We still have to vote. He just needs to overcome the MSM and Obama tonite.
Except he wont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
David Brookes is your echo in this assessment. Non-Obama-blinded Democrats who see the MSM touted McCain and Obama past many with more substance, ability and skill.
McCain's early media supporters would say things like "the era of Reagan is dead" We have to move to the Center to get elected. Well, here you are, exactly what you wanted with the execption of Sarah the Great.
When exactly did McCain get a boost in the polls? When he selected a true conservative, someone who actually has straight talk, values and does not care about the MSM's one sided coverage. Then they sequestered her, instead of going with that momentum.
Also, when are we going to hear someone say Obama bought his way into the Whitehouse?
If Obama wins, and if he is the empty suit we all are seeing, we are headed towards massive change. I guess we can all hope that we can survive four years...
Great analysis Wiz. I totally agree that is exactly what McCain should do.
Unfortunately, McCain is not likely to follow your advise, and even if he does, he will not be able to explain it as clearly as he needs to.
As I heard Doug McIntyre (local radio talk show host) say this morning: all Obama has to do to win tonight is not yell "Allah Akbar!" at any time during the debate.
Oh Gawd! We're headed back to those bad old Clinton days: Budget surpluses! Full employment! Peace! Omigod! Where do I sign up to vote for McCain?
Well, Shoo, at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner this evening, Obama and McCain were both there. I don't often compliment McCain, but he does have a great sense of humor. Then again, so does Obama, but more in a bad little boy way.
They were both delightful. Most amusing was when Obama stated that he was going to change his name to Steve, then followed up with, "That's my name, Barak Steve Obama."
I have the video on Swiftspeech for those who are interested. Whether you support McCain or Obama, you'll have to admit that this was a fabulous moment in this campaign after all the mud-slinging.
Lee and Shoo, based on McCain's comments about overturning pro-choice and (maybe) the possibility of leaving the matter as states' rights, I am disgusted. And, since Sarah supports his platform, there is nothing "great" about this candidate.
Many states will outlaw abortion and force women into back alleys with coat hangers again. Why do many conservatives respect the life of the fetus and ignore the life of the woman?
How can you talk about Obama being an empty suit when George Bush has bankrupted our nation through deregulation, has taken money from schools, disallowed sex education (but he's against abortion... yeah, that makes sense), can't articulate the words in his speeches, forced us into an unnecessary war, and doesn't get why his poll numbers are so low.
Jeez, speaking about an empty suit. I'm 100% with Vig, as always.
I agree with you, Stella. I happened by accident to catch most of this mutual roasting. McCain did have better material and delivery than Obama, but both were amusing. And both surpassed Bush's known efforts at humor on the scale of a total eclipse.
Stella,
George Bush isn't running. But his record is clear: he added money to schools, not took it away. There has been no meaningful deregulation during his tenure. The only regulation that could possibly have contributed to the financial collapse happened in 1999. When he "forced us" into this unnecessary war, he had the support of every major Democrat, including Obama's pick for Vice President, and support of about 70% of the population, according to the polls at the time.
As far as abortion goes, you are a abortion zealot. There are more issues than just abortion. If you agree with either candidate on every single issue, then you are simply a koolaid drinker incapable of independent thought. Do you really believe, with Democrats firmly in charge of Congress and having to approve every judicial pick, that McCain Palin could do anything about abortion?
But worry not, you candidate is going to win. And soon the country will revisit the horror of full control of the government by liberals. It has worked so well here in California, might as well take it nationwide.
Shoo, you live in California? Such a pity—conservatives in California. That ain't right.
:L) -->LOL!
I love the conservatives' line—George Bush isn't running—but he might as well be, given that McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time since 2000.
As far as abortion goes, you are a abortion zealot. There are more issues than just abortion. If you agree with either candidate on every single issue, then you are simply a Kool-Aid drinker incapable of independent thought.
Let me save the abortion issue for last. I detect condescending tone in your response, and demand to be treated with the same respect I treat you. Name calling, such as zealot, kool-aid drinker, and incapable of independent thought, is extremely disrespectful and counter productive. I will refrain from using my education card.
Shoo, I absolutely agree with you on blindly following a party. I am extremely frustrated with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They have done nothing. Pelosi took impeachment off the table, a position with which I vehemently disagree. I am terribly disappointed in the House leadership, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Henry Waxman.
You're also right about the financial problem in, actually, 1998. It was called NAFTA, and I've never forgiven Clinton for signing the bill.
The Dems are firmly in charge of the House, but not the Senate. The Republicans held Congress for 12 years; the Dems for two. They fumbled due to Bush's 750 signing statements. He vetoed of stem cell research resulting in many people who will suffer great pain as a result. He vetoed a ban against water boarding. He vetoed SCHIP, which contained both health and educational provisions. The Senate passed all these bills on a bipartisan basis: I commend such unity.
Just because 70% of people think something wrong is right doesn't mean it's right. Senators Boxer, Feingold, and Wexler did not vote for the war because they knew this was an unnecessary war. I don't have every Senator's name, but (trust me) I will. And, yes, I know Joe Biden voted for the war.
But let me spark your memory: the people who voted for the war voted based on misinformation from the Bush Administration. Read After Downing Street. You might want to study PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses or visit PNAC directly. Wiki has a nice summary. Further, you are only considering the U.S. in your statistic: According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war. Do these people not count because they live in other countries?
Speaking of Kool-aid, how do you respond to this statement? God "told" Bush to invade Iraq...the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did." I can't trust a president with a Messiah complex.
In 1991, McCain statedIt would be unwise to invade Iraq. President Bush, Sr. agreed and ended the Gulf war with few casualties. McCain was absolutely right. What happened to him? He truly was a maverick at one time.
You are also in error about the educational budget. I read the GAO federal budget each year. Education and veterans' benefits were indeed cut. Are you really unaware that veterans' benefits were cut six years in a row? I am against our troops coming home to cockroach infested hospitals like Walter Reed and overturning the GI bill.
The national infrastructure built by Dwight D. Eisenhower is crumbling due to budget cuts, which led to the Katrina catastrophe and undermines the national interstate system, which Eisenhower created. However, we are now spending 44% of the GDP on military equipment, creating, in Ike's words, the largest "military industrial complex" in the world.
Bush has cut benefits to displaced workers, Medicare, health programs, teaching hospitals. He failed to adequately fund "No Child Left Behind" or "Homeland Security," which were his own programs. Only this year is he investing increasing Homeland Security funding.
I am well aware there are more issues than just abortion. Unlike many Democrats, I'm not sure I agree with third trimester abortion, but recognize this procedure as situationally dependent. The process unnerves me, but is not my business to decide for someone else.
As a male, abortion and access to birth control, which McCain wants to overturn, does not affect you the way it would affect a woman who would be forced to have a child she doesn't want. I want to be clear as to why I am a staunch pro-choice supporter. Making abortion illegal will harm our society terribly.
I absolutely believe that McCain would force through an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice and overturn Roe v. Wade and, in the best-case scenario, make the procedure a states' right issue. That situation may cause many states to outlaw abortion and birth control. I don't believe he would select a Justice who is pro-choice.
This leads to poor women without access to choice. Review the poverty levels for single head of household families and single women. Women earn $.77 to every man's dollar. However, this statistic is misleading, as approximately 5% of women in this country are fortunate to have good jobs. If you omit that 5%, the rate significantly decreases the earning percentage.
Since women do not make as much as men, they are less able to provide for their children and often have to work two jobs just to survive.
Worse still, George Bush omitted sex education from many public schools in favor of abstinence only lessons. McCain supports his position. This is plainly stupid. If children are not educated about sex, young girls are more likely to get pregnant. In fact, teenage pregnancies have increased since 2006.
As concerns pro-life, I would like to provide you with a definition from a Catholic Priest:
Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Nigeria... said that, if he had a vote, he would support Sen. Barack Obama for President. Interviewer John L. Allen, Jr., asked how the archbishop could support a pro-choice candidate, and Onaiyekan responded thus:
Let me put it this way: The fact that you oppose abortion doesn't necessarily mean that you are pro-life. You can be anti-abortion and still be killing people by the millions, through war, through poverty, and so on... If my choice is between the person who makes room for abortion but who is really pro-life in terms of justice in the world, peace in the world, I will prefer him to somebody who doesn't support abortion but who is driving millions of people in the world to death.
What the archbishop points out is that it takes more to be pro-life than to simply support overturning Roe v. Wade. Pro-life means all life—the unborn and the born [a woman's life; a soldier's life] alike. To vote pro-life may sometimes mean supporting a candidate, like Barack Obama, who is pro-choice.
To see McCain and Palin in the White House would surely be the end of American society as we know it, particularly our civil liberties. I will be overjoyed to see Obama and Biden win.
Shoo, are you aware our governor is a Republican? That's why our state is struggling. We had the same problem when Reagan was governor.
If you're worried about California's liberalism, this philosophy has worked well here. Jerry Brown may well be our next governor 2010. If you're not a native Californian, you might want to know he was the first politician to install wind powered turbines in the country, created the nascent stages of satellite communication among state offices, and left the state with a large surplus.
Shoo, do you still think I'm not aware of a broad spectrum of issues? I look forward to any links you can provide me to support your position.
This is an enjoyable read!
lol...you have way too much time on your hand, Stella. I don't have the time to counter everything you said point by point, but let me provide a few comments.
To give a brief example: out state was struggling long before Arnold was Governor...um, remember we recalled the Democrat. Unfortunately, though he ran as a Republican, he has turned into a Democrat with an R next to his name. He certainly is no conservative.
I didn't exactly call you a kool-aid drinker: just a generalized statement that if you agree 100% with your candidate, you are one. I have no idea whether or not that is true of you.
The Iraq war...god I hate debating that. Look, not only did all 16 of our intelligence agencies support the WMD determination, so did the Intelligence agencies of Britain, Israel, France, and Russia. In the late 90's, everyone (including Clinton), was saying Saddam had WMDs. McCain changed his mind on Iraq because situations do change in 12 years. If you are going to use sites like After Downing Street to support your willful blindness on this, you are too far gone to ever change your mind or understand.
But you are certainly a zealot on abortion. You are as far to the left of that issue as Palin is to the right.
I share your concern about civil liberties. We will lose them by the bucketful in an Obama Presidency, and most likely you will cheer them all the way.
I firmly believe abortion should not be outlawed, any more than our founding fathers thought it wise to outlaw slavery in their day. I hope someday society changes enough the people universally recognize it as an evil. That time is not yet.
I love the point that Archbishop John Onaiyekan makes, and I agree wholeheartedly, at least with his logic that you have to balance the deaths from abortion with other deaths. I disagree that Obama's policies will result in less deaths than McCain's. Fortunely, this will likely be put to the test over the next 4 years.
I got the impression from your previous posts that the abortion issue overrode all other considerations. You call it the right to "choose". I call it the right to change your mind later when you didn't like the consequences of your choice.
The agreeing with Bush 95% of the time is a stupidly contrived number. Nobody seems to sure where the Obama campaign came up with it, but it seems to be some sort of measure based on the Senate voting record. If that is the measure, Obama agrees with Bush about 80% of the time. My sense, on issues where there is any real disagreement, Obama disagrees with Bush all the time and McCain disagrees about half the time.
"we are now spending 44% of the GDP on military equipment" -- that doesn't even pass the giggle test.
"God told Bush to invade Iraq" -- the single source for this is a Palistinian foreign minister, who I am sure would never lie to discredit our President.
"conservatives in California. That ain't right." -- Orange County. What can I say?
It's very nice that you read the GAO and budget. I don't have the time to go through that to coax out the numbers to support my point of view.
But I did find this nice site: Tax Foundation. It shows an average 40% increase in Federal spending per pupil between 1999 and 2004. I am not real sure, but I think $919 > $578. What it is in 2008 I don't know, but I will bet the farm it is bigger than $578 number from 1999, and probably bigger than the $919 from 2004.
Excellent discussion. Curiously, in reading these (mostly) fact filled posts, I believe Stella and Shoo are much closer together on most issues than either of them realize.
But Stella, you really got my attention with the statement "approximately 5% of women in this country are fortunate to have good jobs"
Where in the world did you get this information and how was it developed? What makes up a good job?
You know what a woman's rights, equal wages, equal rights proponent I am. I'd love access to that data and logic.
But it just doesn't feel right. Is it just possible that this is a typo on your part?
Let me add two thoughts I believe with total confidence.
First I don't believe we will lose civil liberties or civil rights under an Obama administration.
And I do not believe we will lose a woman's right to choose under a McCain administration. In fact there is not a snowball's chance in hell.
On a side note, there is plenty of reason to fear the attack on free speech coming from the Obama camp. I do not like it one bit and I am generally fearful of the attacks on dissenting opinion that come from the left.
The Obama camp has a scary scorched earth policy that stiffles speech and dissent. I don't know that any of this comes from Senator Obama himself or if he even approves it. If that attitude were to become inbred into an administration, that might be cause for concern.
But, I am really confident the adoring, orgasmic press will soon turn on Obama and his supporters and the excesses of today will come under strong and unrelenting investigation. Of course it won't happen until after the election.
Lee among the things that will come under investigation is Obama's fund raising. He has found a hole in finance law so huge you can drive 18 wheelers loaded down with cash through it. And Obama is!
Everyone (and I do mean everyone) will regret the free ride Obama is receiving from the media today.
Congratulations on hosting such an excellent discussion, Wizard. I have thoroughly enjoyed the read. Talk about Killas, Stella is it!
Believe me, I would not want to intrude, except for your last deliberately provocative contribution pertaining to investigations and your illusions/delusions pertaining to 'excesses of today coming under strong and unrelenting investigation".
It's my fervent hope that the people will land big enough Progressive majorities in Congress that the Democrats can drive 18 wheelers loaded down with subpoenas and clean Washington out of the excessive corruption of this sorry decade - starting with the D.O.J. itself. You, Shoo, & Lee will of course call it 'hell on wheels'. I will call it the restoration of constitutional government.
You betcha!
Shoo, you are absolutely right about Gray Davis. Damn, how soon I forget. Shoo, you dig deep into the issues and force me to confront my beliefs. I always appreciate that trait in a person.
There's the conspiracy version that involved Texas oil. Pick your poison.
Yes, Arnold is definitely a RINO, a centrist. He's been fairly good environmentally and sort of snarky to Bush. The day after Bush vetoed the stem cell research bill, Ahnold gave California research centers $150 million to research stem cells. (I don't think they like each other very much.)
But you are certainly a zealot on abortion. You are as far to the left of that issue as Palin is to the right. Thank you for the glorious compliment! LMAO!!! Hurray, shoo thinks I'm nothing like Sarah Palin! Oh, my, you flatter me.
No, I'm not into Kool-aid. There are certainly areas with which I disagree with the party line. I tend to agree often with Obama. I admire my Congressman, Henry Waxman, very much. But... there are certainly areas both politicians support, such as certain Waxman Middle East policies, that I cannot support.
Shoo, why do you believe we will lose civil liberties by the bucketful in an Obama Presidency? Remember, this is in light of Bush's suspension of habeus corpus and FISA. Obama would overturn those laws.
I'm not going back to the abortion issue (enough already...) I guess I'm with you in one respect: better that girls and women have protected sex than an abortion. And better abortion is available than a woman is forced to have a child. It's not solely abortion, shoo, it's part of my staunch belief in the right to privacy, freedom, and the separation of Church and State.
I did additional research on military spending and found charts ranging from 22%-54%. The larger number, the more anti-war the site, so that wouldn't be a fair number. Sigh. Just like Twain said, "There's lies damned lies and statistics." I will have to get back to all of you on that.
I appreciate your Tax Foundation chart. LOL! Go ahead and bet the farm. I'm not taking the offer. Why do you dislike After Downing Street?
Wizard, here is a presentation from the General Accounting Office that discusses reasons for wage discrepancies between men and women.
When I discuss good jobs, I start with women CEOs: only 13, or approximately 3%, in the top 400 companies. These women make a significant dent in the overall earnings of women in general. As you can see, I was being generous.
Here is the source from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Men with a graduate degree make an average of $77,219, women earn only $50,937—that's 66% on the man's dollar: and that's presuming a woman gets hired to the same job as a man.
Oh, shoo. Orange County. NOW I get it...
;-)
Man, I just love Shoo's tenacity and candor.
Vigilante, thanks for that admission.
Post a Comment