I don't want to make a pre-emptive claim at an Obama victory, but I believe this election will be historic either way. The historic implications of an Obama victory are obvious- the country's first black president. But the historic implications of a McCain victory??
It would be perhaps the biggest and most improbable comback in US Election history- at least in the last 70 so years.
The fact is, at this point, Obama has pretty much every possible structural advantage. The national polls: Obama has had a statistically significant lead for several weeks now. While his lead has fluctuated between 6 and 11 points, it has still been significant. WIth only two weeks left in this election, overcoming this deficit is not an easy task for McCain.
But it's actually the Electoral College that matters. For the sake of comparison, let's start with the 2004 map. It was actually closer than people might think.... if Obama won only every Kerry state, he would have 252 electoral votes (needing 270 to win, 269 to tie). It now seems extremely likely that Obama WILL win every Kerry State. In fact, as far as I know, McCain has actually conceded these states- except perhaps Pennsylvania and MAYBE New Hampshire. I'll talk about those later, but let's assume now, for the sake of discussion, that Obama wins.
It also seems exceedingly likely that Iowa and New Mexico will go for Obama, which pushes Obama to 264. This means that Obama, in effect, only has to win one of the following "red states" now considered as toss ups: Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. ALSO, winning only Nevada would mean a tie, which, given the current structure of the Legislative Branch, would likely be an Obama victory. In other words, McCain would have to win all 8 of these states in order to win the election. Indiana he should win. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, and Florida might very well go for McCain as well. North Carolina is trending Democrat, but I still have a hard time seeing it vote for Obama, so lets give it to McCain anyway. That leaves us with Colorado and Virginia; in both states, polls show a 5-8 pt Obama lead- quite tough for McCain to win.
The only other possibility? Assuming that McCain wins all the states above EXCEPT for Colorado and Virginia.... in this case, he needs to win Pennsylvania- which will be tough given his current double-digit deficit, but apparantly he's going all out there. Winning NH, would give him leeway in Nevada, but this is an unlikely scenario.
In short, structurally speaking, there are only two ways in which McCain can feasibly win: either he wins all of: Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Colorado AND Virginia, OR he wins Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Florida, Indiana, North Carolina AND Pennsylvania.
Even if these scenarios seem feasible, Obama has a few more advantages. Firstly, continued wall street volitility only helps Obama. Secondly, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama is a pretty big blow to McCain's campaign. Thirdly, what is rarely talked about, Obama's campaign has a lot more money and can simply outcampaign the McCain people. Obama is even hoping to buy primetime airspace the week before the election! McCain, with limited resources, must scramble. He's also forced to campaign in states he earlier thought he would win, while conceding important blue states (eg, Michigan).
Not to say it's impossible for McCain... it just would be a remarkable turnaround. And with only two weeks left, something BIG has gotta happen.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Updated Thoughts on US Elections: Why Republicans are sinking lower, and why this is helping Obama
The following things have been heard at Palin and McCain rallies in the past week: "[Obama is a] terrorist!" "Treason!" "Off with his head" "Kill him!" i"m not making this stuff up. Read this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/more-hatred-at-rallies-of_n_133115.html, or you-tube it.
There are a few things that are striking about this. Most obviously, is the pure passion and hatred associated with this election. This goes back to a point I made in my prior entry, namely, how the US is in the midst of a culture war that very well could turn voilent. These comments have pure signs of hatred.... not polite disagreement... HATRED. It may or not be racially motivated, but even if it isn't, this is beyond disturbing. Even if you don't agree with his values of political positions, there is no reason to HATE Barack Obama. Obama, like McCain, is a normal human being, who has served his country. Obama is a loving husband and father. How anyone could say such hateful things about ANYONE is beyond me.
What's even more disturbing is the Republican response to this. At best, they've done nothing. Neither McCain nor Palin have publically condemned this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't hear these shouts when they happened. It must be loud on stage, and someone like McCain has got to have a bit of difficulty hearing. But that doesn't mean they're unaware that these things were happened, given all the you-tube & CNN time they've received. Many Americans know about it, so surely they should as well. Obama certainly knows about it. Assuming they know about it, then they should PUBLICALLY CONDEMN this behaviour. They should run an ad, similar to the positive one they ran on the last day of the DNC, which shows that McCain respects and honours, but disagrees with Obama. This is a civil election, not an all out war, and it disgusts me. In my eyes, unless McCain publically condemns these horrible outcries, he has lost his honour. Paradoxically, some Republicans are blaming OBAMA for this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx. I'll dismiss that as absolute insanity.
The silver lining in this? Obama's response. Many candidates would be quite shaken by the things being said about him. What does Obama say? He says that he can handle one month of "character assasination", but Americans can't handle 4 years of more negativity. Obama has not blatantly backlashed against McCain. Yes, I'm not going to deny that there has been some negativity in the Obama campaign, but as I said in an earlier entry, nothing of this level. Obama ties McCain to Bush quite often, and he substantiates it with the fact that McCain really hasn't lined out a concrete policy difference from Bush, besides perhaps the minimal issue of "earmark spending". So in this sense, Obama's attack is valid. McCain being out of touch with the economy? Pretty valid when until just recently McCain didn't think the economy was much of an issue, and even now they are trying to turn the page on the economy, despite the fact that in the last week alone, Wall Street has lost about 25% of its wealth. So, I'd say Obama is very justified in this attack. Perhaps the worst attack on McCain is a jab at his honour, and the claim that he's erratic. This too is substantiated with recent events. How can McCain be honourbale when he launches blatantly false ads claiming Obama supports "comprehensive sex eduation for kindergartners" or that Obama "palls around with terrorists". This coming from a man who claimed he would take the "high road". So much for that. Erratic? How about the whole campaign suspension fiasco.... the contempt for Obama at the debates... the not-bringing-up Jeremiah Write, then bringing him up.... &c. &c. &c.
How does OBama respond to all this? He's cool, collected... in a word, presidential. Perhaps he has no "official" "executive" experience, but look at the campaign he's ran! In the face of adversity and viscious character assasination, perhaps worse than he'll ever receive as president, Obama has run a successful and reasonably clean campaign. Obama himself has been consistent and smooth. He clearly has respect for McCain. Even his body language in the debate, compared to McCain. He feels comfortable in his own skin. After all, you don't hear "kill him!" at Democratic rallies.
All of this has only hurt McCain. His polls have gone down drastically; Gallup has him consistently down by double digits on the national poll; CNN's current map shows that Obama needs to win only ONE of seven toss-up states, including states in which he's currently leading, such as Virginia, Nevada, Colorodo, and even Florida! And he only needs ONE of those!
Only one of three things could deliver a McCain victory.... (emphasis the word COULD). Firstly is a clear rout in the final debate. Given the previous debates this is quite unlikely. Obama is out-McCaining McCain in the debates, and I don't see anything more than a draw happening. Secondly is another 9-11 like attack, but with less than 4 weeks left this simply seems unlikely (although its possible that the Republicans would engineer one just to win the election- at this point, i would not put it beneath them). Thirdly, is the race issue. Are people lying to the polls becauuse they are ashamed to admit they would not vote for a black person? I would be surprised and utterly disappointed if this were the case. If nothing major happens in the next 4 weeks, and McCain wins, its quite possible this is the reason. In that case, it would be a national travesty worthy of lament. Not so much a McCain presidency, but the affirmation of the fact that the US has not yet emerged from its racist past. But, given that Obama was able to win the primaries against a very worthy and formidable opponent, I'd like to this this is unlikely.
Even if these things happen, a McCain victory just seems almost inconceivable now. The fact is... and what both candidates realise.... "it's the economy, stupid". Especially right now, and it won't change in less than 4 weeks, the US is in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. McCain is by no means an economic stalwart and does little to inspite people of his expertise and ability to revive the economy. And, whether this is fair or not, his association with the republican party that has been in power for 8 years is hurting him. This is not necessarily true, but Bush and the Republicans are seen as the cause of the current crisis... and the Dems are quite smart for pointing this out. Of course, Obama doesn't strike anyone as the economic specialist either, but ONLY by virtue of his association with the alternate party can he legitimately effect his message of change. Change, when the economy is in a spiral unseen in our lifetimes, is what people want. The fact is, in a volatile time like now, people will vote with their wallot, not based on obscure scandals.
There are a few things that are striking about this. Most obviously, is the pure passion and hatred associated with this election. This goes back to a point I made in my prior entry, namely, how the US is in the midst of a culture war that very well could turn voilent. These comments have pure signs of hatred.... not polite disagreement... HATRED. It may or not be racially motivated, but even if it isn't, this is beyond disturbing. Even if you don't agree with his values of political positions, there is no reason to HATE Barack Obama. Obama, like McCain, is a normal human being, who has served his country. Obama is a loving husband and father. How anyone could say such hateful things about ANYONE is beyond me.
What's even more disturbing is the Republican response to this. At best, they've done nothing. Neither McCain nor Palin have publically condemned this. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe they didn't hear these shouts when they happened. It must be loud on stage, and someone like McCain has got to have a bit of difficulty hearing. But that doesn't mean they're unaware that these things were happened, given all the you-tube & CNN time they've received. Many Americans know about it, so surely they should as well. Obama certainly knows about it. Assuming they know about it, then they should PUBLICALLY CONDEMN this behaviour. They should run an ad, similar to the positive one they ran on the last day of the DNC, which shows that McCain respects and honours, but disagrees with Obama. This is a civil election, not an all out war, and it disgusts me. In my eyes, unless McCain publically condemns these horrible outcries, he has lost his honour. Paradoxically, some Republicans are blaming OBAMA for this: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/10/1529529.aspx. I'll dismiss that as absolute insanity.
The silver lining in this? Obama's response. Many candidates would be quite shaken by the things being said about him. What does Obama say? He says that he can handle one month of "character assasination", but Americans can't handle 4 years of more negativity. Obama has not blatantly backlashed against McCain. Yes, I'm not going to deny that there has been some negativity in the Obama campaign, but as I said in an earlier entry, nothing of this level. Obama ties McCain to Bush quite often, and he substantiates it with the fact that McCain really hasn't lined out a concrete policy difference from Bush, besides perhaps the minimal issue of "earmark spending". So in this sense, Obama's attack is valid. McCain being out of touch with the economy? Pretty valid when until just recently McCain didn't think the economy was much of an issue, and even now they are trying to turn the page on the economy, despite the fact that in the last week alone, Wall Street has lost about 25% of its wealth. So, I'd say Obama is very justified in this attack. Perhaps the worst attack on McCain is a jab at his honour, and the claim that he's erratic. This too is substantiated with recent events. How can McCain be honourbale when he launches blatantly false ads claiming Obama supports "comprehensive sex eduation for kindergartners" or that Obama "palls around with terrorists". This coming from a man who claimed he would take the "high road". So much for that. Erratic? How about the whole campaign suspension fiasco.... the contempt for Obama at the debates... the not-bringing-up Jeremiah Write, then bringing him up.... &c. &c. &c.
How does OBama respond to all this? He's cool, collected... in a word, presidential. Perhaps he has no "official" "executive" experience, but look at the campaign he's ran! In the face of adversity and viscious character assasination, perhaps worse than he'll ever receive as president, Obama has run a successful and reasonably clean campaign. Obama himself has been consistent and smooth. He clearly has respect for McCain. Even his body language in the debate, compared to McCain. He feels comfortable in his own skin. After all, you don't hear "kill him!" at Democratic rallies.
All of this has only hurt McCain. His polls have gone down drastically; Gallup has him consistently down by double digits on the national poll; CNN's current map shows that Obama needs to win only ONE of seven toss-up states, including states in which he's currently leading, such as Virginia, Nevada, Colorodo, and even Florida! And he only needs ONE of those!
Only one of three things could deliver a McCain victory.... (emphasis the word COULD). Firstly is a clear rout in the final debate. Given the previous debates this is quite unlikely. Obama is out-McCaining McCain in the debates, and I don't see anything more than a draw happening. Secondly is another 9-11 like attack, but with less than 4 weeks left this simply seems unlikely (although its possible that the Republicans would engineer one just to win the election- at this point, i would not put it beneath them). Thirdly, is the race issue. Are people lying to the polls becauuse they are ashamed to admit they would not vote for a black person? I would be surprised and utterly disappointed if this were the case. If nothing major happens in the next 4 weeks, and McCain wins, its quite possible this is the reason. In that case, it would be a national travesty worthy of lament. Not so much a McCain presidency, but the affirmation of the fact that the US has not yet emerged from its racist past. But, given that Obama was able to win the primaries against a very worthy and formidable opponent, I'd like to this this is unlikely.
Even if these things happen, a McCain victory just seems almost inconceivable now. The fact is... and what both candidates realise.... "it's the economy, stupid". Especially right now, and it won't change in less than 4 weeks, the US is in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. McCain is by no means an economic stalwart and does little to inspite people of his expertise and ability to revive the economy. And, whether this is fair or not, his association with the republican party that has been in power for 8 years is hurting him. This is not necessarily true, but Bush and the Republicans are seen as the cause of the current crisis... and the Dems are quite smart for pointing this out. Of course, Obama doesn't strike anyone as the economic specialist either, but ONLY by virtue of his association with the alternate party can he legitimately effect his message of change. Change, when the economy is in a spiral unseen in our lifetimes, is what people want. The fact is, in a volatile time like now, people will vote with their wallot, not based on obscure scandals.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Why I believe the US may be on the brink of collapse
The US has seen its share of hard times. I think of the Civil War, when the country was torn apart at the seems. I think of the Stock Market Crash and the ensuing great depression, when unemployement was at 25% and many Americans lost their savings. I think of WWII and the constant threat of attack on US Soil. And I think of the Vietnam war- an internationally unpopular war which drained American military and financial resources.
My friends, regardless of who wins the November election (and you all know my biases), the US is showing ALL of these signs, and as far as I know, this is unprecedented.
Like in the years prior to the civil war, the US is undergoing a regionalistic culture war. In 2004, we all saw the Red State- Blue State map, and had a few laughs over it, but it has only gotten worse. Not since the Civil war has this country been so culturally polarised, to the point where there appears to be little room for compromise. We have people on the left who say they will move to Canada if the Republicans win, and people on the right who find the concept of supporting a liberal to be heretic. This is unsustainable. The closest in history we have ever come to this is in the 1850s, when people in two different parts of the country had fundamental differences as to the ideology and the future of the United States. And taht culminated in the bloodiest war in the country's history. Now, I don't believe the US is on the brink of physical civil war, but it is looking more and more like there may be a complete cultural meltdown.
Secondly, Wall Street is crumpling in a way we have rarely seen since the 20s and 30s. In fact, most experts would agree that we are in the worst econominc crisis since then. Despite the passing of a 700$ Billion "bailout", the markets are down massively today. Many people consider a depression "likely".
Thirdly, we face the constant (perceived) threat of attack on US Soil. Only twice since the early 20th century has the US been attacked in a major way: in 1941, and in 2001. After both cases, the US entered a war, and continued to face the possible threat of an attack. To this day, the individiausl who perpetrated the 2001 attacks are still present, and the threat of terrorist action still exists.
Fourthly, the US continues to be involved in a war which is tapping away militaristic and financail resources- a war which has (or had originally) little or no relevance to any real threat to the US.
Basically, if we consider these four things, the US is, right now, reliving 4 of its worst crises... simultaneously. This gives me reason to be scared.
The only thing I can conclude? I don't even know why Obama and McCain want to be president anymore. Whoever wins the election will inherit a giant mess, from which we may not emerge-or at the very least, we will surely not emerge unscathed.
My friends, regardless of who wins the November election (and you all know my biases), the US is showing ALL of these signs, and as far as I know, this is unprecedented.
Like in the years prior to the civil war, the US is undergoing a regionalistic culture war. In 2004, we all saw the Red State- Blue State map, and had a few laughs over it, but it has only gotten worse. Not since the Civil war has this country been so culturally polarised, to the point where there appears to be little room for compromise. We have people on the left who say they will move to Canada if the Republicans win, and people on the right who find the concept of supporting a liberal to be heretic. This is unsustainable. The closest in history we have ever come to this is in the 1850s, when people in two different parts of the country had fundamental differences as to the ideology and the future of the United States. And taht culminated in the bloodiest war in the country's history. Now, I don't believe the US is on the brink of physical civil war, but it is looking more and more like there may be a complete cultural meltdown.
Secondly, Wall Street is crumpling in a way we have rarely seen since the 20s and 30s. In fact, most experts would agree that we are in the worst econominc crisis since then. Despite the passing of a 700$ Billion "bailout", the markets are down massively today. Many people consider a depression "likely".
Thirdly, we face the constant (perceived) threat of attack on US Soil. Only twice since the early 20th century has the US been attacked in a major way: in 1941, and in 2001. After both cases, the US entered a war, and continued to face the possible threat of an attack. To this day, the individiausl who perpetrated the 2001 attacks are still present, and the threat of terrorist action still exists.
Fourthly, the US continues to be involved in a war which is tapping away militaristic and financail resources- a war which has (or had originally) little or no relevance to any real threat to the US.
Basically, if we consider these four things, the US is, right now, reliving 4 of its worst crises... simultaneously. This gives me reason to be scared.
The only thing I can conclude? I don't even know why Obama and McCain want to be president anymore. Whoever wins the election will inherit a giant mess, from which we may not emerge-or at the very least, we will surely not emerge unscathed.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Republicans = Desperate?????
I never thought it would get this bad.
It started in late July with the "Paris Hilton" commerical, which branded Barack Obama as a mere "celebrity". That was pretty low, but the Democrats could laught it off.
Then, at the RNC in early September, Sarah Palin took a jab at Obama's experience as a community organiser, applying firstly that this is the totality of this experience, and secondly that community organisers lack "actual responsibilities". This remark in itself was offensive, but I think is more reflective of Palin's ignorance than anything. It's clear that she doesn't appreciate inner city poverty which is actualy one of the biggest domestic problems in the US. So that she made such an offensive remark- I could dismiss it as ignorance on her part.
Then, in mid-September, the Repubicans launched a pair of ads that I posted in my last entry- one of which called Obama sexist, and the other one claiming he supported sex education for kindergartners. I think at this point it was clear that the Republicans were becoming desperate. I would call these ads "disgusting" and "inexcusable".
But maybe it was just a gaffe? Truly John McCain, as much honour as he seems to have, couldn't genuinely approve of these ads? Maybe the advertising campaign manager was acting out of line, and the campaign fired him?
But, it's not that simple. Just within the pat few days, Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of fraternising with terrorists. Buzz-word: terrorist. In effect, she called Obama a terrorist. In present-day American society, that is about the worst, most offensive thing you could call someone. She might as well have called Obama a (n-word). See the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm.
My question is this: why is this accepted? This is absolutely innapropriate campaigning. Yes, the Democrats have commited their share of negative campaigning, but none of this type. I have not heard the Obama people call McCain sexist, or in fact anything short of a hero. And certainly, Obama/Biden themselves speak with McCain (and Palin) with great respect; admittedly, they may make untrue statements about their policies, but I have not seen an outright attack on their personality (There are two exceptions. One ad attacked McCain for having 7 houses. I believe this is valid, however, because it demonstrates that he is out of touch with the economic suffering of the American people- he doesn't even know how many houses he has. The second is an attack on McCain's honour, but this ad was aired ONLY in response to the sexist/sex-ed duo).
But Sarah Palin called Obama a terrorist!!!! There is absolutely no basis for this claim, and it is, in my opinion, utterly utterly offensive. There should be a public outry- by everyone. The Obama campaign should rip this to shreds- they should say that this type of campaigning is simply unacceptable and they should demand an apology from Sarah Palin. All they say is that it was "offensive" and "unsurprising": http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html. Not that this isn't true, but, as I just said, this is UNACCEPTABLE, and the Democrats SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT.
Further, I think that Republicans should condemn this. I'd like to think that Republicans are decent, compassionate human beings. But this is an outright lie. What are the facts? Some guy was part of a radical group in the 60s that plotted to bomb the Pentagon, in protest of the US's role in Vietnam. Obama served on the same charity board as this man in the 90s. Obama has publically condemned the acts, does not maintain a strong relationship with him, and most of all, he was eight years old during the man's "terrorist" actions. It is an untrue stretch to say that Obama is a terrorist. Republicans, who pride themselves as "compassionate conservatives" are acting like anything but. I'd like to see how any Republican could justify this.
I really hope that mainstream Americans aren't dumb enough to be swayed by this. Please: anyone who thinks that Republican campaigning has been anything but disgusting and dishonest, please comment on this blog, and justify your position. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is in ANY WAY qualified to serve as presidetn, please commet on this blog and justify your position. I really want to hear what you have to say, becuase i simply cannot understand how ANYONE could genuinely believe these things.
It started in late July with the "Paris Hilton" commerical, which branded Barack Obama as a mere "celebrity". That was pretty low, but the Democrats could laught it off.
Then, at the RNC in early September, Sarah Palin took a jab at Obama's experience as a community organiser, applying firstly that this is the totality of this experience, and secondly that community organisers lack "actual responsibilities". This remark in itself was offensive, but I think is more reflective of Palin's ignorance than anything. It's clear that she doesn't appreciate inner city poverty which is actualy one of the biggest domestic problems in the US. So that she made such an offensive remark- I could dismiss it as ignorance on her part.
Then, in mid-September, the Repubicans launched a pair of ads that I posted in my last entry- one of which called Obama sexist, and the other one claiming he supported sex education for kindergartners. I think at this point it was clear that the Republicans were becoming desperate. I would call these ads "disgusting" and "inexcusable".
But maybe it was just a gaffe? Truly John McCain, as much honour as he seems to have, couldn't genuinely approve of these ads? Maybe the advertising campaign manager was acting out of line, and the campaign fired him?
But, it's not that simple. Just within the pat few days, Sarah Palin accused Barack Obama of fraternising with terrorists. Buzz-word: terrorist. In effect, she called Obama a terrorist. In present-day American society, that is about the worst, most offensive thing you could call someone. She might as well have called Obama a (n-word). See the story here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7653132.stm.
My question is this: why is this accepted? This is absolutely innapropriate campaigning. Yes, the Democrats have commited their share of negative campaigning, but none of this type. I have not heard the Obama people call McCain sexist, or in fact anything short of a hero. And certainly, Obama/Biden themselves speak with McCain (and Palin) with great respect; admittedly, they may make untrue statements about their policies, but I have not seen an outright attack on their personality (There are two exceptions. One ad attacked McCain for having 7 houses. I believe this is valid, however, because it demonstrates that he is out of touch with the economic suffering of the American people- he doesn't even know how many houses he has. The second is an attack on McCain's honour, but this ad was aired ONLY in response to the sexist/sex-ed duo).
But Sarah Palin called Obama a terrorist!!!! There is absolutely no basis for this claim, and it is, in my opinion, utterly utterly offensive. There should be a public outry- by everyone. The Obama campaign should rip this to shreds- they should say that this type of campaigning is simply unacceptable and they should demand an apology from Sarah Palin. All they say is that it was "offensive" and "unsurprising": http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/05/palin.obama.terrorist.claim/index.html. Not that this isn't true, but, as I just said, this is UNACCEPTABLE, and the Democrats SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT.
Further, I think that Republicans should condemn this. I'd like to think that Republicans are decent, compassionate human beings. But this is an outright lie. What are the facts? Some guy was part of a radical group in the 60s that plotted to bomb the Pentagon, in protest of the US's role in Vietnam. Obama served on the same charity board as this man in the 90s. Obama has publically condemned the acts, does not maintain a strong relationship with him, and most of all, he was eight years old during the man's "terrorist" actions. It is an untrue stretch to say that Obama is a terrorist. Republicans, who pride themselves as "compassionate conservatives" are acting like anything but. I'd like to see how any Republican could justify this.
I really hope that mainstream Americans aren't dumb enough to be swayed by this. Please: anyone who thinks that Republican campaigning has been anything but disgusting and dishonest, please comment on this blog, and justify your position. Furthermore, anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is in ANY WAY qualified to serve as presidetn, please commet on this blog and justify your position. I really want to hear what you have to say, becuase i simply cannot understand how ANYONE could genuinely believe these things.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thoughts on US Election - 27 September '08
For the first time, it appears to me that Obama is poised to win this thing. Now- I may eat my words in a month's time, but the way the polls are going, things aren't looking good for the McCain people. I would make the statement that if the election were held today, Obama would win. Further, barring three scenarios of variable likelihood, Obama should win the November election. What are the three scenarios: 1) if another 9-11 like attack happens between now and the election, McCain should win; this is, hopefully, unliklely; 2) if McCain routs Obama in the two remaining debates; this is also unlikely considering his mundane performance in last night's debate, which was on his strongest subject; 3) if race is more of a factor than it appears to be; this is something we simply cannot predict, but, in my opinion, it seems unlikely.
The most remarkeable thing about Obama's lead is that he hasn't really done anything to earn it. In fact, McCain seems to be working quite hard to give this election to Obama.
Follow me here. Empirically speaking, in January '08 it seemed like this election would go for the Democrats no matter what happened- what with Bush sporting a approval rating less than 30%. The primary season could not have gone better for the Repubs; Clinton and Obama fought to the bitter death, while McCain, the most moderate candidate, won handily. McCain is most certainly the best candidate for the Republicans due to his appeal to moderate independents. By the summer, this election was oh-so-close, even perhaps favourable for McCain.
Today it's still close, but increasingly favourable for Obama. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama camp, except perhaps his charisma. What does it have to do with? The McCain campaign is destroying itself. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the brilliant Karl Rove working for them. This election, which could be McCain's to lose, is now Obama's to lose.
Here are four huge mistakes made by the McCain camp:
1) Really sleezy ads. It started in early August with the "celebrity" ad, which invoked Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. What is Paris Hilton doing in a presidential ad????? What does she have to do with anything?????? Did the McCain people go insane????
Ok. Maybe give them a mulligan for that one. Then they aired this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHx2P3Yixyk. This was a pretty low attempt to use Hiliary Clinton to their advantage.
Or there was this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs, baselessly attempting to call Obama sexist.
I think this one tops them all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoFVoPCMfg. I don't think I need to comment on why this ad is ridiculous, insulting, and disrespectful.
This one is so ridiculous it's just funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPAdN6XQG0.
These ads clearly go away from the issues, and call into question McCain's honour. I have enough respect for McCain to believe he didn't personally approve of all these ads. I also think the American electorate is intelligent enough to not buy into these ridiculous ads.
Oh, and I must acknowledge that Obama has aired some negative ads as well. Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k. The key difference in my opinion is that negative ads from the Obama people either stick strictly to the issues (and don't make baseless character judgements) or, as in this one are directly and justifiably respondind to the ads which I mentioned above.
2. Sarah Palin
At first, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seemed brilliant. She's an "outsider", a "social conservative", and a "hockey mom from Alaska" who can relate to the average Joe... or Joan. And, after all, she's a women.... and Clinton voters like that, right?
Even I thought it was a brilliant pick. Until, of course, I heard her speak. Yes, she gave a good speech at the RNC.... rather, she gave a well-delivered speech, albeit one full of lies and offensive remarks (I still can't get over the community organiser business....).
But then she had interviews with the media, such as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related. She doesn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is, she has only had a passport for a year, and she seems to believe she has foreign policy qualifications based on Alaska's proximity to Russia.
McCain's strongest argument against Obama was his inexperience. Yet he chose as his running mate someone with almost a complete lack of experience. Granted, she's running for VP and not president, but a VP still needs to be qualified and ready; after all, she would be a "heartbeat away from the presidency", which is definitely a concern given McCain's age and health.
Not only that.... but she has so much baggage of her own. How about "troopergate"- a scandal for which she's being investigated by the court of Alaska. Then there's the book banning issue; the bridge to nowhere; her pregnant 17 yr old daughter. As if this isn't enough, every time she speaks she seems to turn off more and more people.
The McCain people seemed to believe that she would draw Clinton voters. Yet based on the women with whom I've talked, this is far from true. In fact, I've heard some women say that they decidedly dislike Palin because if she ever became president, she would be so bad that it would ruin it for any other women. To top it off, they're trying to play the sexist card.... something which even top Republicans like Huckabee finds ridiculous.
3. Agreeing with "Bushenomics"
Quite simply, this is why Obama is winning right now. Bush subscribes to X economic theory, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. X economic theory has been practiced since 2000. After 8 years, the economy is in dire straights and people are suffering. McCain still believes in X econonmic theory. Obama supports Y economic theory. Y is different than X, and since people are not happy with the current economy, they want to support Y. McCain should present a radically different economic policy if he wants to win, but that would mean breaking with party lines.
It's important to note that I am not saying that our current economic crisis is BECAUSE of X economic theory. That's something that I do not profess to know; but most Americans will probably see it this way, seeing how things were so good under Democrat Bill Clinton. I personally support Y simply because it benefits me and my family more- as a member of the middle class family.
My Thoughts on the Debate
Personally, I don't think either candidate won the debate. I thought both candidates appeared poised and articulate. I got the impression that both candidates were equally qualified to serve. Most pundits say that Obama won the economic part, but I'm not so sure that's true. Both candidates dodged the question about the bailout, and how their spending would change. Most pundits say McCain won the foreign policy part, but I don't think that's true either. They both showed they're knowledgeable. McCain perhaps is a bit stuck in a 20th century mindset, and Obama is perhaps in a 22nd century mindest. (My personal bias is with Obama's mindset).
I said that I thought the debate was a draw. This is true if you consider the debate in itself. Considered in larger context, it's a victory for Obama. Why?
1) McCain is currently the underdog, and he needed a change in momentum. He didn't get it here.
2) In Obama's perceived weak areas, he was able to stand up to McCain. I said that both candidates appeared equally ready to serve, and this is what most people think following the polls. Empirically, this is a draw, but in reality it's an Obama victory. Before the debate, no one would argue that McCain is qualified in ready, but there were still doubts about Obama. Thus, the only thing that has changed is the doubts about Obama. Obama did a great job in appearing presidential, articulate, and knowledgeable.
Those are my thoughts and observations. Politics aside, I think this election has been supremely interesting and entertaining, albeit little more than a political circus. Whoever wins will inherit a total mess of a country, and will probably be quite unpopular in the first year. But only time will tell these things.
The most remarkeable thing about Obama's lead is that he hasn't really done anything to earn it. In fact, McCain seems to be working quite hard to give this election to Obama.
Follow me here. Empirically speaking, in January '08 it seemed like this election would go for the Democrats no matter what happened- what with Bush sporting a approval rating less than 30%. The primary season could not have gone better for the Repubs; Clinton and Obama fought to the bitter death, while McCain, the most moderate candidate, won handily. McCain is most certainly the best candidate for the Republicans due to his appeal to moderate independents. By the summer, this election was oh-so-close, even perhaps favourable for McCain.
Today it's still close, but increasingly favourable for Obama. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the Obama camp, except perhaps his charisma. What does it have to do with? The McCain campaign is destroying itself. Unfortunately for them, they don't have the brilliant Karl Rove working for them. This election, which could be McCain's to lose, is now Obama's to lose.
Here are four huge mistakes made by the McCain camp:
1) Really sleezy ads. It started in early August with the "celebrity" ad, which invoked Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. What is Paris Hilton doing in a presidential ad????? What does she have to do with anything?????? Did the McCain people go insane????
Ok. Maybe give them a mulligan for that one. Then they aired this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHx2P3Yixyk. This was a pretty low attempt to use Hiliary Clinton to their advantage.
Or there was this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL_PYj7zZAs, baselessly attempting to call Obama sexist.
I think this one tops them all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JoFVoPCMfg. I don't think I need to comment on why this ad is ridiculous, insulting, and disrespectful.
This one is so ridiculous it's just funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pPAdN6XQG0.
These ads clearly go away from the issues, and call into question McCain's honour. I have enough respect for McCain to believe he didn't personally approve of all these ads. I also think the American electorate is intelligent enough to not buy into these ridiculous ads.
Oh, and I must acknowledge that Obama has aired some negative ads as well. Such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k. The key difference in my opinion is that negative ads from the Obama people either stick strictly to the issues (and don't make baseless character judgements) or, as in this one are directly and justifiably respondind to the ads which I mentioned above.
2. Sarah Palin
At first, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin seemed brilliant. She's an "outsider", a "social conservative", and a "hockey mom from Alaska" who can relate to the average Joe... or Joan. And, after all, she's a women.... and Clinton voters like that, right?
Even I thought it was a brilliant pick. Until, of course, I heard her speak. Yes, she gave a good speech at the RNC.... rather, she gave a well-delivered speech, albeit one full of lies and offensive remarks (I still can't get over the community organiser business....).
But then she had interviews with the media, such as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6KviFGzng&feature=related. She doesn't know what the "Bush doctrine" is, she has only had a passport for a year, and she seems to believe she has foreign policy qualifications based on Alaska's proximity to Russia.
McCain's strongest argument against Obama was his inexperience. Yet he chose as his running mate someone with almost a complete lack of experience. Granted, she's running for VP and not president, but a VP still needs to be qualified and ready; after all, she would be a "heartbeat away from the presidency", which is definitely a concern given McCain's age and health.
Not only that.... but she has so much baggage of her own. How about "troopergate"- a scandal for which she's being investigated by the court of Alaska. Then there's the book banning issue; the bridge to nowhere; her pregnant 17 yr old daughter. As if this isn't enough, every time she speaks she seems to turn off more and more people.
The McCain people seemed to believe that she would draw Clinton voters. Yet based on the women with whom I've talked, this is far from true. In fact, I've heard some women say that they decidedly dislike Palin because if she ever became president, she would be so bad that it would ruin it for any other women. To top it off, they're trying to play the sexist card.... something which even top Republicans like Huckabee finds ridiculous.
3. Agreeing with "Bushenomics"
Quite simply, this is why Obama is winning right now. Bush subscribes to X economic theory, particularly tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. X economic theory has been practiced since 2000. After 8 years, the economy is in dire straights and people are suffering. McCain still believes in X econonmic theory. Obama supports Y economic theory. Y is different than X, and since people are not happy with the current economy, they want to support Y. McCain should present a radically different economic policy if he wants to win, but that would mean breaking with party lines.
It's important to note that I am not saying that our current economic crisis is BECAUSE of X economic theory. That's something that I do not profess to know; but most Americans will probably see it this way, seeing how things were so good under Democrat Bill Clinton. I personally support Y simply because it benefits me and my family more- as a member of the middle class family.
My Thoughts on the Debate
Personally, I don't think either candidate won the debate. I thought both candidates appeared poised and articulate. I got the impression that both candidates were equally qualified to serve. Most pundits say that Obama won the economic part, but I'm not so sure that's true. Both candidates dodged the question about the bailout, and how their spending would change. Most pundits say McCain won the foreign policy part, but I don't think that's true either. They both showed they're knowledgeable. McCain perhaps is a bit stuck in a 20th century mindset, and Obama is perhaps in a 22nd century mindest. (My personal bias is with Obama's mindset).
I said that I thought the debate was a draw. This is true if you consider the debate in itself. Considered in larger context, it's a victory for Obama. Why?
1) McCain is currently the underdog, and he needed a change in momentum. He didn't get it here.
2) In Obama's perceived weak areas, he was able to stand up to McCain. I said that both candidates appeared equally ready to serve, and this is what most people think following the polls. Empirically, this is a draw, but in reality it's an Obama victory. Before the debate, no one would argue that McCain is qualified in ready, but there were still doubts about Obama. Thus, the only thing that has changed is the doubts about Obama. Obama did a great job in appearing presidential, articulate, and knowledgeable.
Those are my thoughts and observations. Politics aside, I think this election has been supremely interesting and entertaining, albeit little more than a political circus. Whoever wins will inherit a total mess of a country, and will probably be quite unpopular in the first year. But only time will tell these things.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Updates Thoughts on US Election (Part 3)
SO, the RNC is over and the race is on. And so we get an amazing look at a truly compelling and historical race.
1) I must say that McCain gave quite a good speech. If I had to grade him, I would give him probably a B+ (of course, Obama would still get an A). Yes, McCain is not quite the orator that Obama is. And his speech was largely devoid of specific policy issues. But, his speech made me like him more than I had. Unlike all the other speakers at the RNC, he did not spend much time attacking Obama. Instead, he took "the high road", and was mainly seeking to put partisan politics behind you. If someone ONLY watched his speech (and not the rest of the RNC), I could see why they might want to back McCain. And is it really fair to judge McCain by his backers? After all, some of the Dems key speakers could be equally as off-putting to right of centre moderates.
That said, I still had some grave concerns with his speech. First and foremost, as i,ve already said, is his lack of specific policies. It always seems that Repubs criticise the Democrats for their lack of specifics. But if you listen to McCain's speech, he just kept talking about stimulating the economy and reaching accross party lines, without really getting into specifics. Obamam on the other hand, is actually quite concrete in his speeches (at least int he more recent ones), and anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually listened to them.
The other thing is that he keeps talkin about his bloody record in Vietnam. Great. Who cares? It's like that's all they have going for them.
2) The republicans seeem to want to make this an election about character, and not about issues. Thats why, if you notice, the Republicans don't really talk much about concrete issues- half of their campaign has been how McCain is a Vietnam war hero, and the other half is how Obama is an inexperienced rat's ass. They are also trying to push the "change" idea. But, seriously.... how could McCain possibly be a greater agent for change than Obama? After all, McCain has had over 2 decades in Washington without much of a history of change.... so why is he waiting for now? The Republican argument once again falls to pieces.
3) The democrats continue to play it clean. Is this a mistake? Now don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of mudslinging. But the Republicans are never going to stop- and the sad news is that it works for them. It seems that the democrats give themselves a HUGE handicap in always playing it clean. Of course, at this point its simply too late to start playing dirty, and the dems would hurt themselves in doing so, simply because the republicans would just run ads about how they said they would "take the high road" and then renig on it. Such is the Republican way.
4) This was really evident in the election of 2004, but is just as evident now. The US is undergoing a cultural civil war. Sure, when its not election time, everyone can all get along, right? I don't know. It seems that the difference between Massachussets Liberals and Alabama Conservatives are far too great. While they can get along on non election years, the tension is going to keep returning at least every four years. The unfortunate consequence is this: such a fragmented America is not sustainable. Unless mainstream America can find, as Obama advocated, a middle ground- especially on social issues- America as a nation will have outgrown itself. This is a long topic for another entry, but such cultural fragmentation is one of many issues that will lead, in my view, to the significant decline, perhaps even collapse, of the American empire in our lifetimes!
1) I must say that McCain gave quite a good speech. If I had to grade him, I would give him probably a B+ (of course, Obama would still get an A). Yes, McCain is not quite the orator that Obama is. And his speech was largely devoid of specific policy issues. But, his speech made me like him more than I had. Unlike all the other speakers at the RNC, he did not spend much time attacking Obama. Instead, he took "the high road", and was mainly seeking to put partisan politics behind you. If someone ONLY watched his speech (and not the rest of the RNC), I could see why they might want to back McCain. And is it really fair to judge McCain by his backers? After all, some of the Dems key speakers could be equally as off-putting to right of centre moderates.
That said, I still had some grave concerns with his speech. First and foremost, as i,ve already said, is his lack of specific policies. It always seems that Repubs criticise the Democrats for their lack of specifics. But if you listen to McCain's speech, he just kept talking about stimulating the economy and reaching accross party lines, without really getting into specifics. Obamam on the other hand, is actually quite concrete in his speeches (at least int he more recent ones), and anyone who says otherwise hasn't actually listened to them.
The other thing is that he keeps talkin about his bloody record in Vietnam. Great. Who cares? It's like that's all they have going for them.
2) The republicans seeem to want to make this an election about character, and not about issues. Thats why, if you notice, the Republicans don't really talk much about concrete issues- half of their campaign has been how McCain is a Vietnam war hero, and the other half is how Obama is an inexperienced rat's ass. They are also trying to push the "change" idea. But, seriously.... how could McCain possibly be a greater agent for change than Obama? After all, McCain has had over 2 decades in Washington without much of a history of change.... so why is he waiting for now? The Republican argument once again falls to pieces.
3) The democrats continue to play it clean. Is this a mistake? Now don't get me wrong... I'm no fan of mudslinging. But the Republicans are never going to stop- and the sad news is that it works for them. It seems that the democrats give themselves a HUGE handicap in always playing it clean. Of course, at this point its simply too late to start playing dirty, and the dems would hurt themselves in doing so, simply because the republicans would just run ads about how they said they would "take the high road" and then renig on it. Such is the Republican way.
4) This was really evident in the election of 2004, but is just as evident now. The US is undergoing a cultural civil war. Sure, when its not election time, everyone can all get along, right? I don't know. It seems that the difference between Massachussets Liberals and Alabama Conservatives are far too great. While they can get along on non election years, the tension is going to keep returning at least every four years. The unfortunate consequence is this: such a fragmented America is not sustainable. Unless mainstream America can find, as Obama advocated, a middle ground- especially on social issues- America as a nation will have outgrown itself. This is a long topic for another entry, but such cultural fragmentation is one of many issues that will lead, in my view, to the significant decline, perhaps even collapse, of the American empire in our lifetimes!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Updated thoughts on US Election (part 2)
So it's been a few days into the RNC, and I had a few new thoughts I thought I'd share.
1) Bush's role in this convention has been interesting. He gave one 8 minute speech, not in prime time. This speech did little to address issues, and spoke almost nothing of the last 8 years. Instead, Bush went on about McCain's courage, and how, if he could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" (vietnamese POW camp), then he could surely survive "the Angry Left". A part from this speech, I have not noticed any allusion to Bush, or to the last 8 years. I guess it's because Republicans know it's their Achilles heal. I'm just amazed that this hasn't damaged them more than it actually has.
2) I'm sick and tired of all this about soldiers "fighting for our freedom". That is simply not true. Would my freedom be at risk if my country had no soldiers in Iraq? Umm.... no. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Iraq is not currently a threat to the US. This is, and always has been an offensive war. Despite what republicans think, Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qayda... or at least it didn't- until the US invaded the country. If the war ended today, my freedom would not be effected. Sure, the freedom of the Iraqis might be, but I won't believe for a second that soldiers in Iraq are fighting for my freedom. The same goes for vets from Vietnam. Vietnam was an offensive war. The north vietnamese never threatened directly the US.... but that is a different story. Maybe one could argue that the war was preventing a Soviet attack? But, alas, I digress. The point is, despite what the Repubs say, the current soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for our freedom, and anyone who believes this is simply a fool.
3) Why can't the Republicans talk about anything else BESIDES McCain's experience as a POW? I have a few problems with this. Firstly, there's a lot we don't know about his days in the prison camp. I'm not prepared to make judgements in any direction, although there have been people skepitical of McCain's claims. Of course, we just assume what they tell us is true. Secondly, what does it have to do with ANYTHING? Let's assume that he's telling the truth about his experiences. Ok. Does that qualify him for presidency? Umm... No. That's like saying being a holocaust victim qualifies you for the presidency. Sure, enduring such hardship may have built character. And I write with all due respect to Mr. McCain. But, is this all he has going for him? If it is, it isn't much.
And another thing about his experiences in Vietnam. You notice that the Reps go on and on forever about McCains Vietnam days. And even the dems are respectful of it. They will not deny the service that McCain has given to his country. But what about when John Kerry ran in 2004? He was a vietnam vet just like McCain, and he certainly tried to use that to his advantage, just like McCain. But the Republicans spent so much effort trying to trash his experiences there. Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?
4) I have a few problems with all the Repubs saying that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, and that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.
This is their argument. Palin's "executive experience" comes from her years as mayor of the town of Wasila, and her less than 2 years as governor of the state of Alasaka. Whereas Biden and Obama, being senators, never really led anything. Well.... this may be partially true- with a few problems. First of all, being mayor of a small, peripheral town of less than 10k people is not exactly "executive experience" which qualifies you for the oval office, and neither is less than 2 years as governor in one of the country's most peripheral states. Secondly, if you're going to get n Biden and Obama for their lack of executive experience, than you need to talk about McCain too... what exec experience does he have? He's been a senator every bit as Obama and Biden- not a governor.
Then, they say she has foreign policy experience. Why? Because she's "deployed the Alaskan Reserves" and.... get ready.... because Alaska is close to Russia! Give me a flippin' break. Anyone who buys this line of thinking seriously needs to get their heads checked.
5) Palin's speech. I'll hand it to the woman- she gave a very well-delivered speech. I believe she is certainly a smart cookie, and a force to be reckoned with. And, policies aside, I don't altogether dislike the woman. But I did have a problem with some things she said. I've already addressed the soldiers fighting for your freedom bulls**t. Then she's trying to glorify the fact that her son is going to Iraq. The fact that she is glorifying this disgraceful war- or war in general- is disgusting. Then she says that Obama has no answer to the energy crisis. Umm... what about his plans to invest lots of money in alternative energy? Then she says that Obama will raise taxes. What she fails to mention, is that these tax hikes are only for the richest 10% (specifically, people making over $200k per year). Such a detail is conveniently left out of her attack. In fact, he claims to lower taxes. and she says that McCain will simultaneously lower taxes for everyone AND balance the budget. Umm.... would someone like to tell me how this is possible? Unless if he slashes funding for education and healthcare. Anyone with half a brain should buy through this bulls**t.
After all these things, there was one thing that Palin said that boiled my blood... that made me want to throw items at my TV set, and that made me lose almost all respect I had for her. She was answering attacks that she lacks experience, and she was addressing the criticism that being mayor of a small town isn't really impressive. She said that "being mayor of a small town is like being a community organiser- except with actual responsibilities". How rude!!!! For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama passed up a job offer on Wall Street to become a community organiser in inner city Chicago, helping the impoverished underclass deal with everyday issues. This comment by Palin was blatantly disrespectful to Barack Obama, and to impoverished inner city dwellers. Much like OBama may not understand rural small town voters, which he rather accurately describes as "bitterly clinging to religion and guns", Palin clearly does not understand urban populations. Beyond this... how dare she blatantly disrespect Barack Obama. The Democrats do not do that. When have the democrats blatantly disrespected John McCain or Sarah Palin?
I'm well aware that all of my readers probably can't vote, or will vote for Obama. In this sense, I'm preaching to the choir. I just hope and pray that people don't buy this Republican crap. Now, I don't believe Obama is a dream candidate.... nor do I actually expect him to keep all of his promises. But at least he promises the right things. At least he plays cleanly.
1) Bush's role in this convention has been interesting. He gave one 8 minute speech, not in prime time. This speech did little to address issues, and spoke almost nothing of the last 8 years. Instead, Bush went on about McCain's courage, and how, if he could survive the "Hanoi Hilton" (vietnamese POW camp), then he could surely survive "the Angry Left". A part from this speech, I have not noticed any allusion to Bush, or to the last 8 years. I guess it's because Republicans know it's their Achilles heal. I'm just amazed that this hasn't damaged them more than it actually has.
2) I'm sick and tired of all this about soldiers "fighting for our freedom". That is simply not true. Would my freedom be at risk if my country had no soldiers in Iraq? Umm.... no. Iraq never attacked the US. Iraq never threatened the US. Iraq is not currently a threat to the US. This is, and always has been an offensive war. Despite what republicans think, Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qayda... or at least it didn't- until the US invaded the country. If the war ended today, my freedom would not be effected. Sure, the freedom of the Iraqis might be, but I won't believe for a second that soldiers in Iraq are fighting for my freedom. The same goes for vets from Vietnam. Vietnam was an offensive war. The north vietnamese never threatened directly the US.... but that is a different story. Maybe one could argue that the war was preventing a Soviet attack? But, alas, I digress. The point is, despite what the Repubs say, the current soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting for our freedom, and anyone who believes this is simply a fool.
3) Why can't the Republicans talk about anything else BESIDES McCain's experience as a POW? I have a few problems with this. Firstly, there's a lot we don't know about his days in the prison camp. I'm not prepared to make judgements in any direction, although there have been people skepitical of McCain's claims. Of course, we just assume what they tell us is true. Secondly, what does it have to do with ANYTHING? Let's assume that he's telling the truth about his experiences. Ok. Does that qualify him for presidency? Umm... No. That's like saying being a holocaust victim qualifies you for the presidency. Sure, enduring such hardship may have built character. And I write with all due respect to Mr. McCain. But, is this all he has going for him? If it is, it isn't much.
And another thing about his experiences in Vietnam. You notice that the Reps go on and on forever about McCains Vietnam days. And even the dems are respectful of it. They will not deny the service that McCain has given to his country. But what about when John Kerry ran in 2004? He was a vietnam vet just like McCain, and he certainly tried to use that to his advantage, just like McCain. But the Republicans spent so much effort trying to trash his experiences there. Seems a bit hypocritical, eh?
4) I have a few problems with all the Repubs saying that Sarah Palin has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, and that she has more foreign policy experience than Obama.
This is their argument. Palin's "executive experience" comes from her years as mayor of the town of Wasila, and her less than 2 years as governor of the state of Alasaka. Whereas Biden and Obama, being senators, never really led anything. Well.... this may be partially true- with a few problems. First of all, being mayor of a small, peripheral town of less than 10k people is not exactly "executive experience" which qualifies you for the oval office, and neither is less than 2 years as governor in one of the country's most peripheral states. Secondly, if you're going to get n Biden and Obama for their lack of executive experience, than you need to talk about McCain too... what exec experience does he have? He's been a senator every bit as Obama and Biden- not a governor.
Then, they say she has foreign policy experience. Why? Because she's "deployed the Alaskan Reserves" and.... get ready.... because Alaska is close to Russia! Give me a flippin' break. Anyone who buys this line of thinking seriously needs to get their heads checked.
5) Palin's speech. I'll hand it to the woman- she gave a very well-delivered speech. I believe she is certainly a smart cookie, and a force to be reckoned with. And, policies aside, I don't altogether dislike the woman. But I did have a problem with some things she said. I've already addressed the soldiers fighting for your freedom bulls**t. Then she's trying to glorify the fact that her son is going to Iraq. The fact that she is glorifying this disgraceful war- or war in general- is disgusting. Then she says that Obama has no answer to the energy crisis. Umm... what about his plans to invest lots of money in alternative energy? Then she says that Obama will raise taxes. What she fails to mention, is that these tax hikes are only for the richest 10% (specifically, people making over $200k per year). Such a detail is conveniently left out of her attack. In fact, he claims to lower taxes. and she says that McCain will simultaneously lower taxes for everyone AND balance the budget. Umm.... would someone like to tell me how this is possible? Unless if he slashes funding for education and healthcare. Anyone with half a brain should buy through this bulls**t.
After all these things, there was one thing that Palin said that boiled my blood... that made me want to throw items at my TV set, and that made me lose almost all respect I had for her. She was answering attacks that she lacks experience, and she was addressing the criticism that being mayor of a small town isn't really impressive. She said that "being mayor of a small town is like being a community organiser- except with actual responsibilities". How rude!!!! For those of you that don't know, Barack Obama passed up a job offer on Wall Street to become a community organiser in inner city Chicago, helping the impoverished underclass deal with everyday issues. This comment by Palin was blatantly disrespectful to Barack Obama, and to impoverished inner city dwellers. Much like OBama may not understand rural small town voters, which he rather accurately describes as "bitterly clinging to religion and guns", Palin clearly does not understand urban populations. Beyond this... how dare she blatantly disrespect Barack Obama. The Democrats do not do that. When have the democrats blatantly disrespected John McCain or Sarah Palin?
I'm well aware that all of my readers probably can't vote, or will vote for Obama. In this sense, I'm preaching to the choir. I just hope and pray that people don't buy this Republican crap. Now, I don't believe Obama is a dream candidate.... nor do I actually expect him to keep all of his promises. But at least he promises the right things. At least he plays cleanly.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)