McCain's Big Speech: More Prison Cell Than Policy
| Thu Sep. 4, 2008 9:19 PM PDT
Number of sentences in John McCain's acceptance speech about his experience as a POW in Vietnam: 43.
Number of sentences about his 25 years in the House and Senate: 8.
The convention ended as it began: a commemoration of McCain's hellish years in a Hanoi prison cell four decades ago. The political equation was a simple one: POW equals patriotic hero equals a fighting president. Before McCain walked down the long runway at St. Paul's Xcel Center, a baritone voice declared over the P.A., "When you've lived in a box....you put your people first." Case closed.
But there was a speech to get through. And before McCain arrived at the climactic I-was-a-POW finale, he delivered, in wooden style, a no-better-than-par speech that was mostly a series of traditional GOP buzz phrases: lower taxes, cut spending, open markets. He noted, "We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities." (Just not community organizers.) Was the speechwriter who penned Sarah Palin's acceptance speech too busy to work on McCain's?
Unlike most speakers at the convention, McCain acknowledged that some Americans are facing tough times. "I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market," he said. "Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills." And he said he would fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. "Jake," he explained, "works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master's Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism." But how would McCain help these folks? Moments later, he offered a dumbed-down version of his economic plan: " I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it." (By the way, many analysts and journalists have repeatedly noted that Obama's economic plan would cut income taxes far more than McCain for Americans below the top 1 percent.)
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Over and over, McCain cited his love of country and his dedication to the nation that "saved" him. He tried to present himself as the candidate of change, who wants to transform "almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children." (He did not explain why after eight years of a Republican administration the country needs so much change.) McCain reminded the GOP delegates that he has on occasion challenged his own party. His domestic policy ideas, the few he offered, did not rouse the crowd--except when he called for more oil and gas drilling. In response, the delegates once again enthusiastically chanted, "Drill, baby, drill!" It was one of the biggest shout-outs of the night. The audience was notably silent when McCain called for boosting alternative energy sources.
Maverick, fighter, fixer--McCain said he was all of that. But, above all, he was McCain the warrior who had returned home. He had fought for the country once before--and he had suffered. He will fight for it again. "I have the record and the scars to prove it," he declared. "Senator Obama does not." Wave the bloody shirt.
McCain denounced the "constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving" the nation's problems. But this week McCain had commanded a convention that had reprised the standard GOP playbook of spin and fear. Speaker after speaker accused Barack Obama of plotting to raise taxes on middle-income voters. They portrayed Obama as weak, indecisive, inexperienced--particularly concerning national security. On the final night, retired Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, denouncing Obama's stance on Iraq, told the delegates that the United States' "enemies don't talk about timelines for retreat." Yet the United States' ally in Iraq--the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki--has called for a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops. (Whoops: reality.) Repeatedly, GOP speakers claimed that Obama is not a man who can handle evil. "We cannot afford a president who thinks you can negotiate with evil," proclaimed Representative Mary Fallin, an Oklahoma Republican. But didn't Ronald Reagan negotiate with the Evil Empire? On the first night of the convention, the delegates watched a tribute film to the late President Gerald Ford that celebrated his negotiation of an arms control treaty with the Soviets. (A onetime negotiator-with-evil, Henry Kissinger, was sitting in the V.I.P. section as Fallin spoke.)
Branding Democrats as national security weaklings and tax-and-spend drunkards was predictable. After all, the convention planners didn't dare defend the current administration. In fact, there was hardly a mention of the Bush presidency--except when George W. Bush addressed the convention by video on its first night. And there was no talk of what the Republicans did between 1994 and 2006 when they controlled both houses of Congress for most of that time. The convention was a very Soviet-like affair; the Bush administration and the Republican Congress of recent years were airbrushed out of the picture.
And there was a heavy dose of us-versus-them--with "them" being the usual targets of conservative agitators: the media, liberal elites, Hollywood celebrities, "cosmopolitan" Americans (as Rudy Giuliani, of all people, put it), and the government. McCain was exploiting the culture wars. Sarah Palin praised small-town America and mocked Obama for having been an urban community organizer. Onetime football coach Joe Gibbs called for a government of people who "follow [God's] game plan, his Bible, his word," adding that John McCain would be such a leader.
There were more words spoken at the convention about the evils of elites than the subprime meltdown, more words devoted to depicting Obama as an ambitious egomaniac than to addressing the health care crisis. Former Senator Fred Thompson dismissed the Democratic convention for focusing too much on the economic challenges of the day. (He nearly called the Democrats whiners.) When Cindy McCain, the candidate's wife and a multimillionaire heiress, recalled traveling on the campaign trail and seeing Americans facing "difficult situations," she noted that these Americans could "make things right" if the federal government would get "out of our way." A string of speakers accused Obama of failing to recognize the true threat of Islamic terrorism, but none of the major speakers said much--or anything--about Afghanistan. McCain himself uttered not a single word about Afghanistan. And nothing about climate change. More words at the convention were spilled about McCain the POW than job loss in America. And the Vietnam War was mythologized over and over as a fight waged for America's freedom and survival.
On the last night of the convention, Senator Sam Brownback told the delegates, "It's not about him; it's about us." Not really. It was about what happened to John McCain forty years ago and what that means to Americans today. His acceptance speech broke no new ground, and it was not meant to. It was just another reminder to cap a convention of reminding. The balloons then dropped, video fireworks fell, the crowd cheered. And for McCain, it was on to the final battle, the old soldier, faith-tested and faith-proved, accompanied by a stylish hockey mom representing small-town goodness--against those whose mettle have not been tested, whose love of country has not been tested, whose America is rather different from the America of the Republican convention.
Comments
"Jake and Toni Wimmer"?I'm sure they're great folks, but why exactly do they need the soon-to-be leader of the free world to "fight" for them?
Every post I have read this morning is questioning this comment. Come on people, do not tell me you have no idea the autistic crisis this country is in???? We are far behind Canada and GB in this situation. Families are fighting like hell to get proper education and therapy for their children with Autism. Sarah Palin was strategically placed. With her knowledge of fuel and her child with special needs. That is a huge vote they are after. Did you not see the signs??? "Special needs mothers for McCain"??? This is the HOT seat in Washington. People with autistic children want the drug administration to ban mercury in our immunizations. They want compensation for their loss of the typical child. Come on People....wake up!!!!!
This was a HUGE statement!!!!
I see a lot of talk about voting for third party candidates. In all honesty, all other things being equal, I would completely support this idea. Should you decide to vote for any candidate for any position from municipal to federal, from any party or even non-partisans ? well, I can only applaud your sense of civic pride and duty in voting for who you believe will serve your country best. There is an exception to this rule, however, and it is not what seems to be most heavily discussed ? media coverage, funds, partisan support, etc. The President of the United States of America is chosen in a manner not entirely understood by the general public.
I refer of course to the Electoral College. Your president is chosen by the Elector College. The number of 'electors' present in this system is exactly the number of representatives in the House, and the number of senators (including the president of the senate) in the Senate. Fifty percent of this number plus one vote equals a win. In addition, there is the little considered rule regarding the acquisition of the electors needed to win. Winner takes all. In any given state, who so ever wins the majority (even fifty percent plus one vote) wins the sum total value of the entire state's Electors.
In the constitution, the popular vote counts for very little in selecting the president. Of course, people vote ? other wise on a state by state level it would be very difficult to allocate the electors ? but on the federal level the popular vote is irrelevant. In theory this prevents instability in selecting the president, and promotes efficacy in these quarters. In practice this virtually guarantees a permanent two-party unofficial system. Only a candidate with the vast support a major (read Democrat or Republican in these times) has any realistic chance of competing in our system with our rules. Historically it has taken nothing less than disaster (to a political party) for a third party candidate to come into power. The most recent example was 148 years ago when Lincoln's Republican Party swept to power; the Whigs where promptly swept to the dust bin of history. The next time this happened Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft and Hoover. Despite nearly destroying the Republican Party, the Bull Moose Party only managed to divide the Republican vote, not 'pull a Lincoln' as it were. Despite the passage of 98 years this has yet to happen again. Under our own constitution (again, in practice) only when one of the two dominant parties is consumed by a powerful new party does a so-called 'third party candidate' become president. At the current juncture this kind of rift is highly unlikely to form in American politics when one considers both the state of the electorate and the engendered state of the Democrat and Republican parties themselves.
Am I advocating the maintenance and continuation of the current system of electors? Certainly not, it is as anachronistic as the 'Horse and Buggy', the 'Turing Machine', or dare I say it? ? Genuine State Sovereignty within the United States. The Electoral College is a relic, worthy of its place in the texts of legal history, and little else. Were I to advocate anything regarding it, it would be either it's alteration to fit the realities of the times, or the abolishment of the Electoral College in favor of actually utilizing the popular vote in determining the President. This would require an amendment of the Federal Constitution, which is highly unlikely to happen ? at least in the near term.
In the mean time, my independent minded friends, I encourage you to vote your heart and vote your mind for all offices across the land ? except for the president. I say this with great vexation in my heart; if you vote for a third party candidate you really are throwing your vote away. Vote for the candidate who at least approaches your political ideal. Heck, just vote for the 'lesser of two evils' if you have to, but please vote for someone who counts, even if it is not your true ideal. As you may have noticed, I have neither endorsed nor advocated for any candidate today. But, were I to be speaking to Mr. Nader today, I would try to remind him of these pressing constitional realities, and perhaps advise him, were I so bold, to join the legislature where his lifetime of experience and citizen advocacy could be put to more immediate use. I thank you all for your time and consideration -
- Jeremiah Johnson, a simple law student
"Jake and Toni Wimmer"?I'm sure they're great folks, but why exactly do they need the soon-to-be leader of the free world to "fight" for them?
Every post I have read this morning is questioning this comment. Come on people, do not tell me you have no idea the autistic crisis this country is in???? We are far behind Canada and GB in this situation. Families are fighting like hell to get proper education and therapy for their children with Autism. Sarah Palin was strategically placed. With her knowledge of fuel and her child with special needs. That is a huge vote they are after. Did you not see the signs??? "Special needs mothers for McCain"??? This is the HOT seat in Washington. People with autistic children want the drug administration to ban mercury in our immunizations. They want compensation for their loss of the typical child. Come on People....wake up!!!!!
This was a HUGE statement!!!!
I see a lot of talk about voting for third party candidates. In all honesty, all other things being equal, I would completely support this idea. Should you decide to vote for any candidate for any position from municipal to federal, from any party or even non-partisans ? well, I can only applaud your sense of civic pride and duty in voting for who you believe will serve your country best. There is an exception to this rule, however, and it is not what seems to be most heavily discussed ? media coverage, funds, partisan support, etc. The President of the United States of America is chosen in a manner not entirely understood by the general public.
I refer of course to the Electoral College. Your president is chosen by the Elector College. The number of 'electors' present in this system is exactly the number of representatives in the House, and the number of senators (including the president of the senate) in the Senate. Fifty percent of this number plus one vote equals a win. In addition, there is the little considered rule regarding the acquisition of the electors needed to win. Winner takes all. In any given state, who so ever wins the majority (even fifty percent plus one vote) wins the sum total value of the entire state's Electors.
In the constitution, the popular vote counts for very little in selecting the president. Of course, people vote ? other wise on a state by state level it would be very difficult to allocate the electors ? but on the federal level the popular vote is irrelevant. In theory this prevents instability in selecting the president, and promotes efficacy in these quarters. In practice this virtually guarantees a permanent two-party unofficial system. Only a candidate with the vast support a major (read Democrat or Republican in these times) has any realistic chance of competing in our system with our rules. Historically it has taken nothing less than disaster (to a political party) for a third party candidate to come into power. The most recent example was 148 years ago when Lincoln's Republican Party swept to power; the Whigs where promptly swept to the dust bin of history. The next time this happened Teddy Roosevelt ran against Taft and Hoover. Despite nearly destroying the Republican Party, the Bull Moose Party only managed to divide the Republican vote, not 'pull a Lincoln' as it were. Despite the passage of 98 years this has yet to happen again. Under our own constitution (again, in practice) only when one of the two dominant parties is consumed by a powerful new party does a so-called 'third party candidate' become president. At the current juncture this kind of rift is highly unlikely to form in American politics when one considers both the state of the electorate and the engendered state of the Democrat and Republican parties themselves.
Am I advocating the maintenance and continuation of the current system of electors? Certainly not, it is as anachronistic as the 'Horse and Buggy', the 'Turing Machine', or dare I say it? ? Genuine State Sovereignty within the United States. The Electoral College is a relic, worthy of its place in the texts of legal history, and little else. Were I to advocate anything regarding it, it would be either it's alteration to fit the realities of the times, or the abolishment of the Electoral College in favor of actually utilizing the popular vote in determining the President. This would require an amendment of the Federal Constitution, which is highly unlikely to happen ? at least in the near term.
In the mean time, my independent minded friends, I encourage you to vote your heart and vote your mind for all offices across the land ? except for the president. I say this with great vexation in my heart; if you vote for a third party candidate you really are throwing your vote away. Vote for the candidate who at least approaches your political ideal. Heck, just vote for the 'lesser of two evils' if you have to, but please vote for someone who counts, even if it is not your true ideal. As you may have noticed, I have neither endorsed nor advocated for any candidate today. But, were I to be speaking to Mr. Nader today, I would try to remind him of these pressing constitional realities, and perhaps advise him, were I so bold, to join the legislature where his lifetime of experience and citizen advocacy could be put to more immediate use. I thank you all for your time and consideration -
- Jeremiah Johnson, a simple law student
I question McCain being a Candidate as well as a US senator, simply because he WAS trapped in a little box under duress at the hands of then-enemy, Vietnam, and basically used as a political puppet. He may gain points with some people, but torture and abuse take a toll on a person, plus, he's old, now, so...you decider if you want him or not. I side generally with Obama, I think Obama would work to get our military out of Iraq, where I don't think they belong, I think Obama would take issue with corruption and military overspending, where McCain would at-best be an enabler,
but, campaign promises aren't legally binding, and there's no telling 'til one or the other of em actually gets the job and starts in January. Until then, it's all a big party...
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 2:26 AM PDT.
The reason why patriotism, being a P.O.W., and experience are core GOP campaign issues is that they have no real campaign issues. They have apparently even abandoned "family values".
They have the most untenable positions to defend and the weakest arguments to defend them since... the LAST presidential election.
My dog in this fight is Nader, so I am just an interested bystander in the tussle between the Democrat party and the GOP. But come ON, you'd have to be an idiot to vote for the GOP ticket in this race.
Seriously.
-Wexler
Hey, wait a second. Didn't we lose the Vietnam war? If I remember right, we left Vietnam on helicopters form the top of buildings as the Viet-Kong moved in. Then ten years later they were trading partners with us. Makes me wonder why we fought the war in the first place.
Did anyone else see in the middle of Lindsey Graham's speech, twice I saw lines of tombstones on NSNBC very, very briefly when he was talking about Obama . Then I switched to C-Span, but by then it was over. It looked like Arlington . Subliminal messages? Shame, shame
In the end, the impression left by the Republican convention was of a party intellectually and morally drained. The only "excitement" came from shrill, mean-spirited and bitter attacks.
Sarah Palin may have made a big splash, but she's a lightweight with a poison tongue. I had the impression she was really auditioning for a well-paid spot with Fox News. McCain's bizarre about face to embrace a message of "change" was as sad and desperate as it was cynical and transparent.
The message coming out of St. Paul was clear: they have no ideas or solutions and even more chilling, no concept or understanding of the situation the nation and the American people are in. They got nothing.
"Jake and Toni Wimmer"I'm sure they're great folks, but why exactly do they need the soon-to-be leader of the free world to "fight" for them?
Every post I have read this morning is questioning this comment. Come on people, do not tell me you have no idea the autistic crisis this country is in???? We are far behind Canada and GB in this situation. Families are fighting like hell to get proper education and therapy for their children with Autism. Sarah Palin was strategically placed. With her knowledge of fuel and her child with special needs. That is a huge vote they are after. Did you not see the signs??? "Special needs mothers for McCain"??? This is the HOT seat in Washington. People with autistic children want the drug administration to ban mercury in our immunizations. They want compensation for their loss of the typical child. Come on People....wake up!!!!!
This was a HUGE statement!!!!
Submitted by Christopher Brown (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 6:17 AM PDT.
I'm surprised no one has picked up on something Huckabee said in his speech. The former Arkansas governor stated "the presidency is not a symbolic office." What does that mean, exactly? I think he meant to say that electing Barak Obama to the presidency would be an exercise in symbolism--a codeword for tokenism.
No offense, Molly, of course autism is a huge problem. But if you thought Senator McCain meant he wanted to help autism, as opposed to just throwing out words to jangle heartstrings, well you might want to have some testing done yourself. Yes, I know neo-conservatives have a long history of helping the mentally and physically disabled, always putting social services and care above military, wealth and biblical morality. Ok sorry I can't go on after that even in sarcasm lol.
maverick - david. please, please bring up the REAL MEANING OF MAVERICK AND ITS ORIGIN. i'm from s.a. texas. home of maury maverick sr. and maury maverick jr. and their grandpappy sam maverick. each and every one of them would be offended at the use of their name in this manner. maury sr. & jr. were both firebrand liberals. please, please make this a story. progressives in s.a. that know their history are so, so tired of the misuse of one of the beloved names in political history here!
You don't have to be an ex-pow to be president, nor does it quilify him to be president. McCain has offered nothing to fix the problems this country is facing, except he will continue to spend tax payer money on foreign wars.
The idea of McCain as the next president really scares me. The man is just aching for someone to invade, bomb or belittle. And as a woman and a taxpayer, I would like that silly woman from Alaska to go home and take care of her children. She has no business in DC - not on one of her pork-belly fundraisers and most certainly not in the White House.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 9:36 AM PDT.
To "another lib"... no offense, but....
No, I didn't see Nader clapping for anything the GOP has ever said or done. At this convention or anywhere else.
Are you trying to tell me in America you don't have a RIGHT to be a socialist? If that's what you're saying, I toss the F bomb in your general direction. The best things that you slacktavists enjoy about America have been delivered by 3rd party activists like ME who have stood up and spoken to power.
You whine about "McSame". Yet you have absolutely nothing intelligible to say if you are asked to define exactly how America will change under an Obama presidency.
Are you going to see single payer health care? NO. Are you going to see an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? NO. Are you going to see religion and government returned to separate entities? NO. An end to domestic spying? NO. Public campaign financing? NO. An end to mercenary corporate soldiers killing people all over the world? NO. The list of things that AREN'T going to change is bottomless. Yet you can for sure count on a continuation of business as usual, and that's just the plain truth.
The party YOU support, referring to it as "liberal", is bought and paid for by corporation lobbyists and saying it's "liberal" is simply an indicator of your own IGNORANCE. I have cast my last vote for the lessor of two evils.
There comes a time when you have to make a stand. When I see "free speech zones" in the city I used to love, when I see journalists attacked by police in riot gear while they are doing nothing but their JOB, when I see the opposition party act like a spineless bunch of political cowards who are set to lose ANOTHER elecion that should be a slam dunk, simply because they are spineless, gutless, and clueless about how to win, then that's where I make my stand.
I'm a socialist, and proud of it. So are most people in the industrialized world.
Get with the program.
-Wexler
I'm really tired of hearing about this "war hero" business. Let's put it into perspective. The man flew a jet airplane over Viet Nam over 30 times, dropping God knows what killing God knows who. And for what? Protecting the USA from attack? I think not. He came back alive, but his victims never had that option did they?
McSame has to distance himself from Bush, and represent himself as the "change" candidate. Not an easy task considering he voted in support of Bush 90 percent of the time. He can't talk about the issues. He can only repeat campaign slogans and declare himself a "maverick."
You want more Bush - vote the McCain/Palin ticket. You'll get more war, more debt, and an economy in a continuing tailspin.
Just to let you know, they arrested almost 400 anti-war youth right before McCain's speech.
The total in St. Paul is over 850 arrests. A mini police state run by the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service, with handmaidens in the Republican Ramsey County Sheriff's office.
The youth of Minnneapolis/St. Paul were radicalized this week. It will be something they will not forget in the years to come. The Republicans have lost the youth.
Submitted by lostsouls (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 11:25 AM PDT.
excellent comment. I feel exactly the same.
Frustration with our fellow citizens for being so ill informed...for shOpping instead of seeking the facts.
I tell ya greed is going to kill us all....what we do to feed it will I mean.
We don't deserve democracy.
Could you imagine us as a society protesting, voicing our opinions and fears, trusting we still rule this Country by the Constitution... taking to the streets and oh! yes! we did/ I do, in the place(s) set aside for us, and they were treating everyone like we were China.
and it's all ok.
Oh we're a stupid bunch
HOLY COW PIES! The Republicans couldn't have chosen a better mascot than the elephant. They have one in every room, as the phrase goes. They revert to sentimentalism rather than substance because this year they have no platform to stand on because the Jokers, Bush/Cheney, dismantled it for them. So, they're running Buck Rogers and Annie Oakley on their ticket. The visuals on the backdrop screen during their speeches should have been POW! BAM! ZAP! BONK! & ZING! They're taking our Constitution and transforming it into a comic book, but their leader just happens to be the antithesis of animation. The Republicans need to take a very long Intermission.YAWN!!!
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 12:17 PM PDT.
Steven...
If that comment is meant to help persuade Nader voters to vote for Obama,
YOU'RE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE, BUDDY.
I believe that my vote and those who vote with me could actually cost Obama this state, and if that happens I'll be the happiest guy in the state on election night. I will feel that I have repaid my debt to society for being a precinct captain for a lying, opportunistic, POS Chicago shyster posing as a progressive.
Have a nice election.
-Wexler
I, for one, really wish we Dems would have selected Hillary Clinton intsead of the Obamateur. Obama is now being portrayed as the typical preening liberal opportunist compared to meat and potatoes Republican reformners. Yikes.
With Clinotn on the ticket (preferably at the top) there would be no Sarah Palin who, featherweight as she is, is going to be a real problem for the dual male Senator ticket of the Democrats. This current Senate has an even lower public approval rating that Bush -- and we have two of them on one ticket? Wha?
The Biden pick is another attrociously safe decision by the Dems and will be a loser. Again, the Democrats make a move to cover a perceived weakness and sabotage their message and diminsh their strengths. Biden's a lifetime insider politician, with multiple draft deferrals and a disturbing plagairism charge on his resume. So much for change we can believe in...
It feels to me like Barack Dukakis will be yet another one of our Democratic Party losers who was propped up by the standard liberal-left vanguard and is in over his head against a conservative A-game. I pray I am wrong.
Like Mr. Wexler, I feel that it would wound my morality to vote for either candidate, so I'm going to do what he is doing and throw my vote away by penciling in a candidate in every respect as good as Ralph Nader ... Soupy Sales.
I'm sorry to say, Mr. Wexler ... a vote for Nader is, in fact, a wasted vote. You might as well stay home. Nader has never, ever had a real chance of winning. People who vote for him are not realists ... you're voting for a symbol of "the Other", not "for" anything realistic. If you think you are making any kind of "statement" by increasing Nader's vote count, possibly all the way up to 50 or 60 votes, then you are mistaken. Nobody gives a rat's ass about how many votes Nader gets. He's impotent. He's not socialist. He's not even a "symbol" of socialism.
I wish it were otherwise, really I do. But if you look into it seriously, instead of trying to be "cool", you will realize that what I am saying is absolutely true, and you'll just pop another brewski and flip through a few more channels rather than waste the gas needed to get to the polls.
Soupy '08!!
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 1:12 PM PDT.
Manny... right on.
James...
I guess we'll have to disagree about the statement part.
First, I think it IS a statement directly to the Democrat party. The statement is, "If you were running less like Republicans you might pick up a few more votes from the left wing of your party. You probably are not going to get those Republican votes anyway. Plouffe and Axelrod had a dream, but now the dream is shattered and they will lose the election. If the Democrats had embraced liberalism instead of phony conservatism, they would have won."
Wow. That's a long statement. They probably won't have the attention span to figure that one out.
However, the "statement" part of it isn't my only motivation. We DESPERATELY need to break the stranglehold of the two parties on this political system. Until that happens, we are going to get Tweedledee and Tweedledum as candidates, while the two parties put on a Punch and Judy show and use YOU for the puppets.
Surely you can find another candidate to vote for.
Think it over. Seriously.
-Wexler
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 1:15 PM PDT.
PS to James....
I've gone way beyond cool.
I've gone to reality, which is 60 years of political BS slapping you in the face like a big, wet, trout.
-Wexler
:-)
I'm surprised no one picked up on another repeated theme in McCain's speech (I wasn't diligent to count how many times he said it, as opposed to "P.O.W."). Let's think historically--who else has demanded "country first"? The Falangists, the Sinarquistas, the Fascisti, the Nazis... That ought to give even dedicated right-wingers pause--what happened in regimes that put state and nation FIRST, which means BEFORE family and BEFORE religion, not to mention BEFORE individual rights??? Wooden delivery, to be sure... but the very frightening message is right there. Folks, let's work against this pair's coming to power--or who knows what we might see all too soon?
WWW - You got a problem with Soupy?!?
Aside from that, I more or less agree with you on most points. It would be nice to have a serious challenge to the status quo. Some believe Obama provides that. Others, McCain. Still others think Bob Barr might make a dent in perceptions. You like Nader, and God bless you for it.
Compared to all of the above (except for Soups), Paris Hilton's platform seems downright thoughtful.
Well Wexler, if your vote actually does cost Obama the election, I hope you'll still be "The happiest guy in the state" when the McCain/Palin team takes over in January. Of course the rest of us citizens won't be happy at the prospect of 4 more years of war, debt, a failing economy, etc. etc.
You probably voted for Nader in 2000 and again in 2004. Look what that got us. Were you the happiest guy in the state when Bush/Cheney took office?
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 3:29 PM PDT.
I like Soupy, I just think some people should stick to comedy.
Steven... I truly do not believe that putting a Democrat in the WH is going to make any difference in the items you mention.
Obama plans to escalate Afghanistan, in case you hadn't heard. If either candidate has made noise about the debt problem (other than blame) it would be the GOP, who say they want to curb spending. How is Obama going to do anything about the debt? What is Obama going to do about the failing economy? I don't know what you mean by "etc etc." Please elaborate... I hate to put you on the spot, but since you're talking to a former Obama precinct captain, I'd like to know what your take is on how exactly Obama is going to be any different than McCain... on ANYTHING.
As far as how I voted, I've always voted a straight Dem ticket. In retrospect, that's pretty much something I regret although I'm very happy with our Congress Critter, he's one of the leftiest in the House.
In 2000, the SC and the State of Florida stole the election, not Nader. If Nader causes Obama to lose, it STILL won't be Nader's fault, because my vote belongs to ME. I cast it for somebody who earns it. Nader has earned it through 40 years of public service to Americans. What has Obama done? Learned how to read a speech and grease the wheels of the Chicago machine?
Sorry, backtracking on his pledge to speak to any foreign leader was extremely troubling. Backtracking on his Iraq position and telling us that he had to "talk to commanders on the ground" was an insult and exactly congruent with the positions of McBush. His FISA vote and the accompanying explanation was weasel words. His "faith based initiative" was like a lightening bolt out of nowhere and an utter insult to anyone who loves the First Amendment (especially me, since I have been a card-carrying member of Americans United for around a decade). Public campaign financing? Fergeddaboudit. SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE???? Not on your life... you're gonna have insurance company premiums and denials of service for the next 8 Obama years, too. Just as an aside... my GP, who was well-loved and sought after in our little burg, quit the practice and went to work for the state. We had often discussed politics, and in my last visit she confided to me that insurance company rules were part of the decision. Did you know that they are going to start GRADING physicians by their "compliance" with insurance company rules and put their scores up on the net? Wow.
You want 8 more years of THAT?
So tell me, please. What has Obama done to earn a progressive vote other than act like one when he needed our help? He needed our fresh young faces and naivete to run around Iowa in the dead of winter, knocking on doors and earnestly explaining why he was better than the rest. He was going to change stuff. He sure did... he changed his posture on everything until he looks more like Bush than McCain does.
LOL!
Pfffft.
-Wexler
Nader is as old and ugly as McCain. He is a mean, anti-social man who comes out of the woodwork every four years to help the republican party stay in power to continue ruining the country. Nader will not win anything. He is in it for the attention and the harm he can do.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Fri Sep. 5, 2008 6:12 PM PDT.
So, Vicki,
What do you actually know about Ralph Nader?
Have you ever visited Ralph Nader's website and read his policy page?
Be honest, now, there may be a test later.
For that matter, have you ever read Barack Obama's policy pages?
Just askin', because, no offense, your post(s) sound(s) like something my granddaughter would have written when she was about 8 or 9.
-Wexler
John McCain is nothing but a corrupt & power hungry politician who's only looking
after his ego and he'll do and
says anything to get elected.
I am really sick & tired of hearing of POW stories & I am
wonder what else would he'll be talking about if was not for the (20)hours of active duty before he was captured !
Every time I hear about his experience on national security,I ask myself,can anybody ask him what did he do to gains this kind of experience ? PEOPLE ! we're talking about 40 YEARS AGO !!
when McCain or Obama give promises about energy independed,Can anyone ask HOW
they're going to do it ? both Republicans & Democtats are watching the media to see what the people would like to hear and they write a speech
to tell you what you like to hear to make you happy to get your vote.Republicans and Democrats are LYING to all of us without any sham and if you ever watched the daily show on comedy center you'll see what I mean.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=184082
If elected, is John McCain going to be a new kind of POW (President of the Wackos)? Given the religious and political nutjobs in the GOP, he might as well be one. He certainly not going to represent all Americans. He'll just succeed George Wacko Bush.
If the Republicans hate America and our government so much that the candidates wife says it should get out of her way, then why in the hell is he running to govern us? All Republicans should just go away and let the rest of us live in the country that was created by those who fought and died in its creation. If they think that a monarchy or theocracy or dictatorship is the way they want to live then they are not in the right place. If they don't believe that everyone has the right to be an equal citizen regardless of race, gender, religion or pay grade then they are living in the wrong place and should just leave. It's not like they would be missed. How can mean spirited, snarky, lying, cruel, greedy, self centered, self righteous know nothing, war mongers be missed by a country of citizens who live and work for each other? The Republican party has become the party of rich white elitists who hate themselves so much and try to project that hate onto everyone else. They can't stand that they are just human and fallible. They have to prove to themselves that they are the only ones who are "true" Americans and anyone who doesn't think like them is the "other" and should be shunned. this is not normal behavior. They will say and do absolutely anything to justify what they do and to gain and keep power. They are even willing to use thier religion to stay in power. They try, and in some cases, convince churches to put their tax exempt status at risk to gain more power for Republican party. They don't believe in God. How can they believe in God and do and say the things they do? No these people use everyone and anyone they can to attain their goal. This is not the American way. These are the ways of people like Saddam or Hitler or Malosavich. The Republican party is no longer a party of the American people.
What the Republican Convention solidified was nothing more than a party that has seen its own defeat in November. The history of this year throughout the primary campaigns shows clear evidence that as early as "Super Tuesday" when Sen. Obama surprised the DNC/Clintonian establishment by pulling off upset after upset, the Republicans realized that their dreams and hopes of competing against Sen. Hillary Clinton were over. Right then and there they realized that no matter who they ran that the GOP was finished in this election. So all of a sudden instead of Gov. Mitt Romney being the front-runner and standard bearer of the GOP, Sen. McCain suddenly leaps to the front. Didn't anyone notice that just two weeks prior this guy didn't even have the money to run a city council campaign, but all of a sudden he's the GOP front-runner? I mean they had touted Guiliani as their "man of the hour" for over a year, and there he was basking in the sun in Florida. What this all signaled was a sign of surrender on the part of the GOP. They know they can't win against Obama's ground-breaking community organizing machines to win the election, nor against the wheels of history, so they continue to put forth their "best face" and march on towards the proverbial cliff.
The polls have also shown how out of touch the GOP and same-as-usual politics are in the USA now since one of the biggest blocks of Obama's support is from college students, who by the way can't be polled by phone since the vast majority use cell phones and don't have the traditional living room phone that pollsters are used to calling. This is why the polls were so out of whack during the primaries, and why the polls even now are meaningless. The problem is that the media and press aren't reporting this because of fear that they might be hit by the GOP as being an instrument of the "liberal media". Frankly I think its time for the media and the press to step it up, show how far ahead Obama really is, and expose McCain for the empty shirt he really is. If true polling were done in the universities and colleges across the country, you'd find that Obama is easily double digits ahead of McCain. You'd also find that McCain and the GOP have already lost the key battleground states.
Since the GOP knows they can't steal a third national election, they have resigned themselves to the fact that they can only put forth the "best" effort to look like their going through the motions. The selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate clearly shows that they are only going through the motions for the final two months of the election cycle. Every woman, Republican and Democrat alike, that I've talked to since Palin was announced as his running mate have all said she scares the hell out of them, and that they have no plans at all to vote for a McCain/Palin ticket simply because they think they can pull some "gimmick" to sway the woman's vote.
If you look at the long line of events during this election year you'll see evidence all over that the GOP know they will lose, and not just the White House, but that in general the GOP is done for at least 8 years. They'll go through the motions, but if you look at how many GOP members of Congress are retiring instead of running again, then you begin to see the writing on the wall.
McCain et al are betting the farm that the voting public now is just as stupid as it was when it elected Bush, not once, but twice. The funny thing is, the last eight years under Bush have turned out pretty much as predicted. His track record was to bankrupt every company he ran and guess what - he's bankrupted the US Treasury. McCain is counting on the dumbing of the electorate. That we're so dumb we actualy believe that just because he was a POW, he deserves to be president, that we're so dumb we can listen to him speak and think he actually says something, that we're so dumb, when he points to Sarah Palin, a running mate he took less time to choose than I would a puppy, and says, "Did I make the right choice, or what?", we actually agree with his judgement that in all the Republican party there was no one better than her. I don't know about you, my fellow Americans, but I am not that dumb!
WWW brings up some rather good points, but loses many with the strident comments. I will be voting other than the two sides of the same coin and no vote is ever wasted.
Has anyone ever considered that when the republican candidate brings up his time as a P.O.W. in a police action years ago that he may be the ideal Manchurian candidate? Just a thought that keeps coming up.
You would think that most anyone that served in the military, in war or not, would know that war should be avoided. That war is mainly fought by the young for the old that started it. And the biggest kicker of all is that veterans are ignored even in this "patriot" country. I see nothing from this ex-P.O.W. about either active duty or veteran soldiers, the others that shared his fate during that police action, nothing.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Sat Sep. 6, 2008 10:21 AM PDT.
Ken...
Sorry if you're offended by my remarks.
I probably should try to be more genteel. Sometimes I just have heard the incorrect, misleading, and derogatory comments people make about Nader one too many times.
I think they have pills for that, I should look into it, since so many people don't know jack you-know-what when it comes to Nader. But a lot of them are alive today because of Nader.
How interesting.
-Wexler
WWW- Not offended.
I know how hard it is to trying to talk to people about other parties than the same old-same old. Usually just make the point and move on.
We could take a football analogy since it is that time of year again. We put a quarterback in and after 4 plays (years) we have to give the ball back to the other team. Next time we get the ball we try another quarterback, only with the same results. During the game, we use this same tactic of the first one and then the second. We certainly aren't winning, just not losing too badly. There is this kid on the bench whom someone thought could be great and that is why he is on the team. The coach continues his game plan and ends the season with a losing record. Next year same game plan, same quarterbacks and still with that kid sitting on the bench, learning from the mistakes of his older teammates. Another losing season.
Perhaps, it is time for either a new game plan or put that kid in and see what happens. He certainly could do no worse than the two inept teammates.
Well written article.
McMigrane's speech was pure propaganda--though well rendered. Red-meat in the raw with some fresh blood au-jus.
If he can palm himself and "Paula Poundstone" off as 'agents of change', then its very simple--we Americans will abundantly deserve him as our leader.
But here's the heartwrenching irony: On his WORST day, McMigrane is still an exceedingly far better selection then was Bush-W on his best.
While J.M. entirely milked his POW status to Oscar Schlindler proportions, that should not erase the fact that being locked in a cage for over 5 years does build character in a way that Bush, who skipped out on National Guard pilot-lessons and paid his roommate to do his college homework for him can't possibly fathom.
McMigrane also owned-up and confessed to having spilt his guts to the Viet-Cong, which took guts.
I don't hate McMigrane, I fear that he will actually follow all his (sometimes rediculous) promises.
As for her, spunky yes. Lets see what happens when the press starts asking her modest questions requiring a minor amount of working knoledge about world affairs.
Why you guys praise this guy as a hero. did you all have forgoten how many inocent men, women and children of vietnam died by dropping naplam, agent oranage bombs and gods knows what else other bombs on them
and he deserved what he had got in the prison and I would not feel sorry for him and he is not hero and he must be put in jail for crime against humanities and he does not deserve to be president of U.S.. For his bad judgemnets
now we are in the same quagmyer. 4155 young man and women and almost 1000,000 Iragis died. Shame on them as far as I am concerned.
Considering that David Corn is just another of the many biased journalists, he does bring to mind a few facts not mentioned or clarified within his little article:
- McCain's speech was delivered in the typical McCain style. He is not really an accomplished public speaker, but that's not one of the constitutional requirements for the office of president. Yes, he was also "wooden", as Corn puts it. Perhaps Corn knows better, he being a "journalist" and all, but I seem to recall that McCain moves stiffly due to physical disabilities resulting from being tortured. I suppose if I wanted to be a "journalist" nowadays I would have to learn how to put aside that naive sense of American fair play I have.
- Much of McCain's speech dwelt upon his P.O.W. experience. I've heard quite a bit of John McCain's P.O.W. experience since 1973, but I did learn one thing during his speech that I had never heard before: his time as a P.O.W. is what gave him his appreciation and love for America.
- Corn was correct in stating that McCain cited his love of country and his dedication to the nation that saved him. Actually, Corn put the word "saved" in quotes, as if to imply something. What's the implication? Was McCain unbelievable on this point? Was Corn emphasizing a word that Corn himself didn't understand in this context? Here's my take: McCain was saved in a very real sense by what he knew of America while in prison away from it. His life was literally saved by other American men devoted to American values and principles. And his sanity was kept intact by his memory of the goodness that is America.
- Although not stated at the republican convention, it is true that "many analysts and journalists have repeatedly noted that Obama's economic plan would cut income taxes far more than McCain for Americans below the top 1 percent." But the fact that "many analysts and journalists" say this does not in any way make it so. Who are these supposed analysts and where are their stats? And given what we currently know about the bias of many journalists, are we expected to believe THEM just because THEY say it?
- Corn pointed out that the speakers portrayed Obama as weak, indecisive, inexperienced, a man who "thinks you can negotiate with evil." None of the speakers used the word "weak" that I can recall, but I am glad that at least one person (i.e. Corn) picked up on the reality that Obama would be weak in the face of our enemies. Obama's indecisiveness is a matter of public record, i.e. his voting record. And his inexperience is certainly beyond question.
- Corn's article is absolutely correct that it branded the democrats as national security weaklings and tax-and-spend drunkards. Although I think Corn was using some poetic license in the depiction of what was actually said at the convention (but that's his "right" as a "journalist"), the branding was predictable because it is very accurate.
- "There was a heavy dose of us-versus-them" with the targets being the media, liberal elites, Hollywood celebrities, and cosmopolitan Americans. Yes, there was an "us-versus-them" attitude, a response to the media, the liberal elites, Hollywood celebrities, and cosmopolitans who have targeted the American rural conservatives for years.
- Cindy McCain most certainly did say that Americans could make things right if the federal government would get out of our way. The first few years of my married life was lived in H.U.D. housing due to Carter (democrat) administration taxation and economic policies. I was unable to send my kids to college because of a tax debt of $35,000 due directly to Clinton (democrat) adminstration taxation policies. I most certainly can affirm that my quality of life has been hindered when the government was controlled by democrats. (Just to put things in proper perspective, I've never owned a business, I have always worked as a wage earner, I have never received a windfall, and the most I've ever earned was last year, $70,000. It is a lie that democrats will not raise taxes on the middle class, and it is a myth that democrat policies will not harm you. And it is a fact that, right now, almost 40 percent of the middle class income goes to taxes and other governmental fees.)
- Continuing about Cindy McCain: yes, she is a multimillionaire, one who has used her money to bring medical aid and a better life to other people in other lands.
- In poetic language, Corn describes that at the end of the convention, McCain, the old soldier, faith-tested and faith-proved, along with a stylish hockey mom representing small-town goodness, went on his way to do final battle against those whose mettle have not been tested, whose love of country has not been tested, whose America is different from the America of the republican convention. The mettle of the democrats and their surrogates has not been tested, except perhaps on the streets of America during instigated riots and violent protests and battles with law enforcement when they've tried to suppress the free speech of others; their love of country has not been tested, or more accurately they have not tested their own love of country, because they've been too busy burning the American flag, denigrating the American national anthem, insulting American military personnel, perverting American history to fit their agenda, subverting the American legislative process, and ignoring the American constitution, and attempting to suppress fellow Americans by any means; and it does seem that the democrats and the republicans each belong to a different America, and both of them are moving away from the idea that is the true America.
I'm not a republican, and I don't agree with McCain on alot of issues. But, for the past few years I have been infuriated by the tactics practices by those within the democrat party, especially the media. People like David Corn may think it all a game, but that "game" and what occurs in the playing of it directly affects the lives of other Americans. And lately, the slugs playing this "game" think there are no rules of decency and fair play. They're wrong.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Sun Sep. 7, 2008 4:35 AM PDT.
rws....
Interesting points.
But seriously, if you have been observing the last 8 years and can still conclude that the GOP should be allowed to have another crack at running the show... well, sir or madam, I think you need another cup o' coffee.
McCain's wooden speaking style may be partially due to his injuries. At least in the way he carries himself physically. But the worst part of his wooden style is his elocution and rhetoric. That's not because he was a POW, it's because he's on the edge of mental incompetence. My dad died of Altzheimer's disease and we've already had one president with it (Reagan). We survived that one by dumb luck. Do you really want someone as dull as McCain with their finger on the button?
The reason why Corn pounces on McCain's POW argument is that it's empty and irrelevent. It does not qualify McCain to be president. Yet that seems to be his primary claim to the crown. An in-depth look at his military service reveals something different and disturbing. His service is way less than distinguished, and if his dad hadn't been an admiral he probably would have been thrown out on more than one occasion. There are allegations from people who were in a position to know that during his POW days he actually COLLABORATED with the VC, and gave them information that could have been instrumental in exchange for priveledges. Yet nobody will talk about that, because he's a "war hero". Yeah, big hero. He's the guy who launched a missile on the deck of an aircraft carrier. He's the guy who barely graduated from his military academy 4th from the bottom of his class. Frankly, in the words of Tina Turner, WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER HERO.
I wish all politicians would just STFU about how much they love their country, how religious they are, how many family values they have (well, the GOP has cut back on that one), and so on. That's the political theater part of the election that has actually supplanted dialogue about issues. Issue candidates don't have a chance unless their issues can be condensed into a slogan. Unfortunately for America, our issues can't be discussed with sloagans, somebody has to actually do the work.
Well, this has turned into a rant, so sorry. Again, you raise some good points. If I get it correctly, you identify journalistic sloppiness as one of the problems in this election. I couldn't agree with you more, but I don't think this article or for that matter anything I've ever read from David Corn as very good examples of that. I've been reading him for at least 5 years.
-Wexler
I didn't know voting was like predicting who you thought was going to win....like in a horse race. Stupid me thought it was picking the candidate whose politics most appealed to your beliefs.
Since China will probably eventually take over the world, I might as well vote for everything pro China then?
