About Me

Name: Yubaduck
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The "Tone" of the campaign

Posted by Yubaduck on Sunday, October 19, 2008 7:19:58 PM
The media complains about it constantly.  The Democrats vilify Republicans for it daily.  Collin Powell cited it as one of his main reasons for supporting Obama.  McCain decries it and says he won't do it.  How dare we go negative, go personal,  and come at our political enemies with such a negative tone?  Negative tones are a part of politics.  If there is no major difference, why vote for one candidate over the other.  If both are right, if both are moral, if both are good, what are you choosing between?  To me, the complaint about a "negative attack ad" is the official whinyness of the political class and it rings completely hollow.  Why do I oppose Obama?  His past decisions reflect judgement that casts question on his future decisions.  Bringing up associations, drug use, military service or absence thereof, past writings, past speeches, past votes, and past business dealings are all legitimate.  Any action taken by a politician in the public arena is fair game.  If I run for office some day, the words of these blogs and the comments I make are fair game.  The people I was friends with in college say something about me.  If they are all radicals, if they are all slacker partiers, if they are all cheating dirty dealers, that says something about me.  
Obama and his relationships to Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, and others tells us what kind of people he has leaned on when deciding things in the past, and it matters.  McCain and his association with those involved in the Keating 5 says something about him.  It all matters and it is all relevant. 
 
I only once have felt Republicans took it too far.  That was with the Clintons.  Bills tawdry doings in the White House only mattered to me because it seemed he had abused his position to have an affair of any sort with an intern.  The character flaw that led him to repeated dalliances with random women was despicable, but not politically relevant.  It was the relationship with a subordinate that bothered me.  His financial dealing because of their potential illegality mattered.  His wife, because of her role as the architect of his health care plan was relevant.  But any and all criticism of Chelsea was over the top, until as an adult, she campaigned for her mom or perhaps worked on her staff.   Likewise, Palins actions as governor, her relationships with business and lobbyists, her financial actions, her professional associations, these are fair game.  Bringing them up is not dirty or negative.  Attacking the kids, the spouse if they are uninvolved, the personal decisions such as whether to be a working mother or not....these are irrelevant. 
 
Negative is in many cases a matter of perception.  Collin Powells' claim that McCains "negative" campaign was one of his reasons for choosing Obama is ridiculous.  All campaigns go negative, if there is nothing negative to say about an opponent there is no reason not to choose them.  If Powell does not like negativity, he was wise to stay out of politics.  But to see it all on one side is to have willful blinders on.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (19) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Wisdom of Country Music, and a dose of perspective on 2008

Posted by Yubaduck on Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:59:00 PM
I am not a big fan of country music, but one of its virtues is its down home real life applicable lyrics.  In todays post, I will be wading into a "little" firefight we have had here on townhall between two longtime townhall bloggers whose writings I respect but whose conclusions on the current election are far apart. 
Dave writes on the Conservative in Cinncinnatti (I can't seem to spell that city right without looking it up) site.  He was one of the earliest commenters on my blog and a great encouragement to keep it up.  He writes prolifically with very good insights.  He is coming down on the side of Kenny Rodgers. 
 
Brian R is an outstanding writer and a natural leader of people with something of a rough edge.  He writes  on "A View from the Island" and often hosts rather lengthy conversations as well.  He comes down on the side of Aaron Tippin.
 
In his song "The Gambler", Kenny writes:  "You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run."  In his song "Coward of the County" , he writes at the end:  I promised you dad, not to do the things you done,  I've walked away from trouble when I can.  Please don't think I'm weak, I couldn't turn the other cheek.  Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."  Both of these songs extol the virtue of choosing your battles, of standing when standing is necessary, and compromising when compromising does the greatest good.  Dave (and many others around here) were not early McCain supporters.  They became McCain supporters because they see this as a time when the differences between the parties mean more than the differences they have with McCain.  They see 65 to 80% conservative (depending on whose numbers you use) as better than 5 to 10% conservative.  They see the next four years as too important to throw under the bus in the hopes that a "new Reagan" will arise from the ashes of the "new Jimmy Carter".  Unlike 1976, the Democratic party is militant in its determination to destroy the family, socialize every aspect of American life, and remove all American Exceptionalism, making America over in the image of enlightened agnostic and socialist France and Germany.  While in 76 elites in the party believed in this vision, there were too many union and interest group Democrats who would oppose such extremism.  Today, union members like Joe the Plumber are constituents to be bought, no longer with the power of influence.  The true influence in the party lies in San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and Ivy League campuses spread throughout New England.  They feel that the Democratic Party has moved so far left, that even a pathetic RINO is better than unchecked leftists.  At least the RINO ought to block some of the extreme agenda, and since McCain picked Palin, a more legitimate conservative to many of us, they see a hope that a voice of Conservatism will have some place in McCains White House and in the future of the party.  In other words, this is not time to walk away from the party, its time to hold your cards, and play out the hand you were dealt.
 
In his song, Aaron Tippin sings:   "You gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything.  You've got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string.  Never compromise what's right, and uphold your family name.  You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."  Brian has said Romney was as far as he could go in the compromise direction.  McCain has thumbed conservatives in the eye on McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman.....over and over he has betrayed the principles of conservatism in the name of compromise, to the point where he has no conservative principles.  He in fact "stands for nothing".  While he over a lifetime is conservative in a relative sense, he has been drifting leftwards for years, especially the last 10 or so.  He will not only choose not to stand for any conservative ideals, he will tarnish the R behind his name with RINO policies that will fail, that will equal the leftward drift of Obama but will do so under the flag of Republican so when the liberal ideals fail as liberal ideas almost always do, Republicans will still be the target of the masses anger and resentment.  These people believe that you have to suffer the purging of a Goldwater defeat and the cleansing of a Ford fall to reap the glories of a Reagan Revolution.  They believe either that the harm Obama and a liberal congress can do is little worse than McCain and a liberal congress, or they believe that the pain of this will so anger the masses, that a real Republican revolution can occur in 2010, 2012, and beyond and short term pain is worth it for the long term gain.  They believe that until the RINO wing of the party is resoundly defeated, the Conservative wing will always be marginalized.     
 
And these two sides of the conservative movement are so invested in their strategies, so sure of their rightness, they can barely speak without "a negative tone".  I will post on that in a minute......I find Powells assertion that McCains negative tone is the problem to be ridiculous beyond belief.  I have been back and forth for a long time.  I have thought as I see Schwartzenegger destroy California with the liberal assembly in ways Gray Davis never would have dared that maybe this is the tipping point and I need to stand against compromised principles.  But then I hear Obama say to Joe the Plumber how important it is to redistribute wealth and realize who we are facing here.  I see McCain talk about Democrats in his cabinet and think "no way".  But then I hear Obama supporters and Pelosi and the plans they have and think.....Amnesty and Campaign Finance Reform are horrible, but what about the fairness doctrine a massive single payer health care bureocracy, a UN mandated foreign policy and trying to end the 2nd amendment?  The desires of the far left make the bad bills McCain has signed seem minor to me.  I have to come down on the side of compromise.  I have to vote for McCain because the alternative scares me so much.  Does that make me weak?  Maybe.  Does it make me unprincipled?  Absolutley not, any more than Jefferson and Adams were unprincipled because for years they wanted to work within the British system rather than scream from the rooftops with Patrick Henry stirring phrases like "Give me liberty or give me death", and "If this be treason, make the most of it".  They came to a tipping point where they say independence as the only viable option.  I may eventually reach that tipping point with the Republican party, but I am not there yet. 
 
I can say that some individuals in the party, I can't support.  If I lived in Oregon, I would be voting third party in the Senate race, even if it gave the Dems their 60th senator.  Gordon Smith has strayed from a solid conservative at the State level to a liberal after 2 terms in Washington, and though the third party guy is anti Iraq, so is Smith, and the third guy seems more conservative on other issues.  I can say if the law was changed and Schwartzenegger ran for President, I would never vote for him again, and if he runs against Feinstein or Boxer, despite my desire to see them removed,  I will vote third party given that option.
 
But in most cases, hardline conservatives will be marginalized whether they lead the party or whether they abandon it.  I was not around in 1964, so correct me if I am wrong, but the Goldwater nomination was a response to "RINOs" of the Eisenhower/Nixon years and compromise on too many New Deal residuals to suit the conservative wing of the party.  The Goldwater Republicans were the coming out party for Reagan but were so far to the right, that they led to LBJ in 64 with huge majorities that rubber stamped the Great Society, boondoggles far worse than the New Deal that we are still paying for today.  The Goldwater years were followed by 3 straight RINO tickets in 68, 72, and 76 before they led to Reagan.  Are we ready for 4 years like the 64-68 era followed by 12 more years of moderate ascendancy all in hopes that we might get another 1980?  Because if Democrats sweep all three places, I see 1964, not 1976.  And as bad as Carter was, that is far far worse considering how far left of LBJ we see BHO. 
 
Did I articulate the arguements correctly?  Did I state something wrong that anyone I am speaking for disagrees with?  Feel free to correct me.  I may not be around much between now and the election, but even if I don't have time to respond, I still receive the comments.     
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Average Joe and the American Dream

Posted by Yubaduck on Saturday, October 18, 2008 3:54:28 PM
Joe the Plumber is not the issue.  Whether he is or is not a licensed plumber, whether he is a nice guy or not, whether he would make a competent politician or not.  Joe the Plumber is not running for anything.  His dream is apparently to someday own his own plumbing company and make 1/16th of the money Barack Obama made last year.  So if Joe the Plumber is not the issue, what is?  Why is everyone talking about him?  Because Joe with a well placed and well phrased question caught on you tube exposed Obama (once again) for the paternalistic elitist that he is.  Joe asked simply "If I want to buy the company I work for some day, and I make 250,000 in doing so, why would you punish me with higher taxes?"  And Obama smugly answered, as we all know by now, that if we "Spread the wealth" to those beneath you, its better for everyone."    Joe put the taxation question into terms that people can identify with.  And Obama answered like the smug elitist that he is. 
So now team messiah is trying to smear Joe and distract from the truths that his question raised.  Joe Biden (Or Joe the Career Politician) said plumbers don't make 250,000 in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  I have to wonder how many Plumbers Joe from Scranton is on intimate terms with, intimate enough that they tell him their yearly salary.  I also have to wonder who appointed Joe the Politician to determine what Joe the Plumber ought to make.  Team Obama has raised the fact that Joe owes back taxes, as a character flaw.....many self employed people, contractors, small business owners, and others do as well because they do not have taxes removed from an hourly, weekly, or monthly wage, they pay them quarterly out of pocket.  As a contract plumber, Joe may or may not fit into this category, but it raises another flaw of the tax system that Obama defends.  They brought up the fact that Joe is divorced.  So is half of America, Obama, do you want to really raise that standard as required for someone to ask you a question?  Ultimately, thats what its all about to him.  He can't defend his position, so he is attacking the messenger.  84% of American according to a poll I heard quoted on Mark Levins show do not believe in redistribution of weath when asked point blank.  So Obama can't defend his answer, its indefensible.  He is telling us that this "average American" is too flawed to question him or may have had alterior motives in questioning him.  Basically, like when Palin was chosen, Obama and his team of arrogance want to belittle anyone and everyone who opposes him, including some poor schmuck whose question to him happened to be caught on you tube.  Why?  Because when examined, his policy proposals are in many cases the antithesis of the American Dream.
 
So let me tell you about a plumber I knew.  When I lived in Georgia during my military enlistment, Chris was a contract plumber working for a man who owned a business.  He went to our Church with his wife and 2 kids.  He was slowly working to save up for his own business, setting aside money whenever he could, renting a home instead of buying, not taking vacations, pouring every spare cent into an account.  When he had saved up 20,000 dollars, after about 3 years, he put it down on 120,000 dollar truck.  The truck was a plumber truck, with all the things necessary to be an entire office on wheels.  It included tool boxes, spools for hoses and such, places to hold every part imaginable that a plumber might need.  He took a huge risk to be his own boss, to start his own business.  For the first 6-8 months of owning his own company, Chris nearly went under.  In the beginning, he did not have health insurance like he had as a contract plumber working for someone else, and when one of his three kids (they had another one right before he made the big leap)  got seriously sick, he almost had to stop.  But the plumbers union (yes, they sometimes do some good things) raised money for him, the church raised money for him, and his wife (who wanted to be an at home mom), got a part time computer based job to keep the family afloat.  His son got better and Chris built up a customer base, and by the time I left Georgia, he was making between 90 and 100,000 dollars a year.  He had paid down the truck considerably, been able to get himself health insurance through the union, and saved to put a down payment on a house.  He worked some days as many as 15 hours, but he was his own boss, loved his job, and took pride in his work.  He was considering buying a second truck and hiring another plumber to use it.  When I knew Chris, I was in the Navy.  I was making 1,879 a month as an E-5, but I lived in free base housing, had free medical, paid only for TV, phone and internet as utilities, and had the security of a check every two weeks.  I made less because I chose a secure job rather than a job with financial risk.  I had a different American dream.  I grew up in a family where lack of security was a scary thing.  My dad worked hard and did his best for a lumber mill for about 20 years.  He moved up through the ladder and was making a pretty good living when all at once, they closed.  For almost 7 years, he bounced from minimum wage entry level jobs with kids half his age to part time mill work to the unemployment line, always hoping to find a job that would bring security.  Finally, after seven years of this, he did, and he worked the last 12 or so years before medical retirement for a specialty mill that made crossarms.  Chris and I had different American Dreams.  His was to be his own boss, to own his own company.  Mine was to have a secure job where I did not need to fear the unknown and could support my family.  Besides financial aspects, there are other components of the Dream.  Some want a job they can leave behind them and be free of on their off time.  Some love to live their work, to have it be all consuming.  Some want to "do good" for others, some want to "save the world", some want a job that is easy, others a job that is fun.  All would like to make a lot of money, some are willing to put in the long hours for it, others the intense schooling, others take the financial risks.  For each one of us, the American Dream is a slightly different picture.  Many of us are too fearful to chase it and live our dreams outside of work or always talk about it.  Others chase it and fail, then either give up or rebound to try again later.  The key thing is, the American Dream is earned, not given away.  
 
Who is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or any other public "servant" to pompously tell Joe that when he reaches his dream, he owes it to those below him, those who did not take the risks he took, work the hours he worked, or endure the challenges he endured, that he owes these people a large portion of his income to fulfill their American Dream.  Right now, if Chris or Joe, pay 36% of their income to federal taxes.  Out of 250,000, this is about 88,000 dollars.  Lets say half of that can be written off in some way and they pay 44,000 in taxes.  Then they pay state taxes.  Each state is different, the highest is about 13%, so lets say 5%....That is another 12,500.  Then they pay property taxes on their house, registration fees for their cars, and license fees to the state to be a plumber, local taxes, sales taxes, fees and tolls.....Out of the 250,000 dollars that a "rich" business owner is making, they are probably approaching 80-100,000 dollars in taxes if they find all the loopholes, much more if they try to navigate the tax system themselves.  Barack Obama wants to raise that rate by 3%, another 7,500 dollars of Joe or Chris' money.  He wants to mandate health coverage for any employees he has at a cost of thousands more.  He wants to impose new OSHA, EPA, Carbon Offsets, Fuel Taxes, and other hidden costs onto this mans income, raising that 80-100,000 already paid to more like 120,000 dollars.  Meanwhile, somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40% of American pay no tax.  Many of them recieve tax rebates, a pseudonym for redistributed wealth.  Is this fair?  It is justice?  Is it right to stick it to the evil business owner in this way?  Why bother to risk it all, to work the long hours that so many business owners work, to go through all of this, when he could make almost as much without the headaches as a state worker of some sort, or part of a corporation.  Because its his American dream.  He took the risks, he deserves the riches.  I chose a "safer" route, and I don't begrudge him the money he earned.   Patrick Henry once cried "As for me, give me liberty or give me death."  With Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, especially if the Senate gets to the filibusterproof 60, we may lose many of our liberties, including the right of people to pursue an American Dream and reap its rewards. 
 
Tell me again, does this election mean nothing?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taking Back Congress the Constitutional Way

Posted by Yubaduck on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:48:39 PM
Walt Williams wrote an article that explores the idea of the the Founders intent in the bicameral legislature.  The intent was for the House to be a place where the people were close to their representative.  He points to Federalist Papers #56 as his evidence for this, and shows that the idea was abandoned in 1929 when Congress limited the number arbitrarily at 435.  I say we abolish this congressional mandate, and make the House as it was intended to be.  I already discussed this last February.  Here is that link as well as the link to Williams' article:
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Giving in to Despair

Posted by Yubaduck on Monday, October 13, 2008 9:02:36 PM
Don't worry, I'm not.  I am not avoiding blogging because I am upset with the sudden electoral college surge Obama is showing, nor because I am not an expert in economic affairs.  I have just been swamped with work and such.  Later this week, I will try to go around and visit all of your great blogs, but in the meantime, let me comment on the last 3 weeks.  Keep in mind that I have not been up to date as I should be on all that is going on, so I may repeat things you all have said. 
 
Why the sudden shift in the electoral college?  I believe there are three main reasons:
 
First, oil prices have gone down.  The urgency of the issue is not on peoples mind like it was a month or two ago, and it was a great contrast between the two candidates.  The price of gas is still insanely high, people are still hurting, but there is some level of relief and other issues have clouded this.
 
Second, the world is on hold.  Russia, China, Iran, they are all quiet and waiting, not rocking the boat, waiting until after the election to act.  There is no urgent world crisis, no great and powerful reason to seek a commander in chief.  If foreign policy is not on the table, McCain has to win based on domestic policy.  This is much tougher ground for him to stand on.
 
Third, McCain is rivaling Obama in incoherence on economic issues.  He does not believe like Reagan did that supply side economics is a cure for any economic ailment, and so he spouts lite liberalism.  Lets fix the market with a bailout.  Lets play games with incentives and tinkering at the margins of the tax system rather than call for overhaul.  Lets propose a pseudomarket approach to health care, not a real market based reform.  Lets talk in the language of environmentalism, not discredit it as a scheme of extremists to move Americas market towards socialism.  Because McCain does not believe in these reforms, he cannot call for them with conviction.  So what should he do?
He needs to bring back the reforms he believes in:
 
1) Bring energy back on table and tie energy to economic stimulus.  Opening our coasts, ANWR, and building nuclear plants in addition to taking regulation off of alternative energy will provide a huge boost to our economy and our long term prospects for growth.
 
2) Talk about corruption.  Inside and outside government.  You love this issue.  The economic crisis has three causes:  People buying houses and consumer goods they couldn't afford because they believed the hype that the bills would never come due, and now are panicked because they came due, the loan companies that made bad loan decisions and gave loans to people they knew couldn't pay them, hoping that the equity that could build up could keep the ball rolling, knowing that eventually the loans would fail, but hoping they wouldn't be holding the bag, and third government regulations demanding that some of these loans to unqualified people be made for reasons unrelated to economics.  It was a failure of responsibility on the parts of everyone involved.  The last thing that we need to do is force those who were responsible and paid their loans, those banks who did the right thing, the only ones not culpable in all of this, to foot the majority of the bill. 
 
McCain needs to make that case.  He needs to make clear that the solution is found in the free market.  Investors buy the houses people can't afford, and they rent while repairing their credit and next time buy a home the right way.  (The way I and my family will have to)  Investors buy the failed companies, reform them, fire those who need firing, and build them up the right way.  If anything, the government can loan the money to these good companies to make liquidity available in the short term....invest and see the hope of the retirement age people restored when their investments recover.  There will be pain, but most of it is earned pain.  That is the problem. 
 
Both parties want to tell us pain is avoidable.  They want to be Santa Claus.  They want to be liked and popular, and holding people accountable is not fun.  McCain needs to be a leader, not our friend.  Then he needs to make the case for a vast overhall of regulatory and legal red tape tying up financial activities of all kinds.  Get rid of social engineering laws.  Free up companies to seek wealth, and they will pull us along with them.  Get power out of Washington and people can fix it themselves.  McCain loves to fight corruption.  There is a plethora of corruption to fight, he just needs to demand it both within and outside of government.  Like Palin, fight it inside and outside the party.  Line up with Coburn and Jindal and the other few who still have credibility on this issue.  And Do It NOW!!!!! 
 
Bring back the free trade issue, reminding us that Clinton supported NAFTA and was right.  Explain that trade barriers do more harm than good, and push the Columbia free trade pact both under economic and foreign policy grounds.
 
Finally, he needs to remind us that unchecked liberalism is what we had from 76-80 and from 92-94 and in both cases, it led in directions people didn't like.  Bring up Pelosi as often as possible and remind voters who she is and that Obama has stood with her and the liberal wing of his party over 95% of the time.  McCain crosses lines, not Obama.  He has proven that.  They both have.  Keep hammering these points and keep making the case for energy independence as a part of economic policy.  People do not want unchecked liberalism, they want leadership.  Show some.  Be proactive, not responsive, and shape the debate.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I couldn't resist

Posted by Yubaduck on Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:39:56 AM
I saw this article onyahoo news, and I couldn't resist.  I have to wonder if kangaroo meat will come up as an issue in the vice presidential debate tomorrow.  I got a kick out of this even as I shook my head about how bizarre these people can get.  Enjoy the latest installment of bizarre science in the name of fighting global warming:
 
 
 
Kangaroos:  The other white meat?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Actions are Responsible for Russia invading Georgia?

Posted by Yubaduck on Monday, September 22, 2008 5:52:36 PM
This post is in response to a comment by Caday5 on my last post.  I know as I have read elsewhere that I shouldn't "feed the troll", but I can't help myself.  I may not have much time to argue on this one, but anyone else feel free:

In 1990, when we went through the whole UN system to force Iraq out of Kuwait, we had multiple allies around the world, and a UN mandate to do so.  Part of the ending of that war was that our mandate did not extend to regime change in Iraq, simply to a removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.  So despite the fact that our troops were in Baghdad and there was no organized resistance to them, we stopped, and soon after left Iraq. 

What did Saddam do in response?  He shouted defiance from the moment we left.  He went after elements in his own nation that rose against him and killed thousands of them, so we instituted no fly zones.  He repeatedly shot at the planes we sent to enforce those zones.  We were doing so at UN request, yet the UN did nothing in response.  I was an Arabic linguist.  I know of several missions he shot at just when I was working.  Again, the UN did nothing.  In all, he flouted 14 or more resolutions from the precious UN and they did nothing.  Why? Because several of them were involved in an oil for food scandal making millions from it.  Others were afraid of retaliation.  For 12 years, our planes were shot at and our resolutions ignored and people thought it wasn't worth fighting back.  We allowed him to be defiant with no personal responsibility for 12 long years.  His people suffered though, through years of sanctions and limited trade, they suffered greatly.  But none of that reached the ruling circles.  So you tell me, is warfare worse than containment?  Ask someone who has lived in a regime being contained.  War is brutal but war has an end, containment does not.

Al Qaida formed as a response to American presence in Saudi Arabia, they had no love for Saddam or the Ba'ath party.  They first went after governments like the Saudis who allowed us to have troops there, then when capable began to go after us.  In 2000, 17 sailors died on the USS Cole, before the Iraq war.  They died in port in Aden, Yemen because Al Qaida wanted us out of Saudi Arabia.  As long as the UN wanted the no fly zones maintained to protect the Shi'ites and Kurds, we had to stay in Saudi Arabia.  Unless we decided not to live up to our UN obligations, we would keep offending them. 

9/11 changed our perspective.  We had to deal with Al Qaida, they had shown us what they were capable of.  And we had to deal with Iraq because our containment of them was a recruiting tool of Al Qaida.  We had 4 choices:

1) Walk away, let Saddam continue to rule, watch him brutalize his own people when the no fly zones went away, let him restart weapons programs and threaten his neighbors, and let him use oil profits to undermine us as we fought in Afghanistan.

2) Level the place.  Carpet bomb Baghdad, all military bases, all centers of control, and let them pick up the pieces.  Do the same to Afghanistan and let the chips fall where they may as we come back home.  Think the UN would like that better?

3) Attempt to maintain the status quo in Iraq while fighting in Afghanistan.  The problem was we had thousands of troops in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, enforcing all these UN mandates, and they were being undercut right and left.  How well would the alliance remain if we were fighting in Afghanistan against other Moslems?

4) Deal with Iraq while dealing with Al Qaida in Afghanistan.  Messy, difficult, and in fact, mandated by the UN when Colin Powell took his intel to the UN.  The idea that we went in without a UN mandate is not true.  It was after we went in that they changed their mind.  This was the toughest but most noble of choices. 

Like Korea, Vietnam, WW1, and every recent war in our history, except WW2 and Afghanistan, this was a war of choice.  We chose to fight what appeared to be an imminent threat to our ability to succeed against Al Qaida.  The idea that Iraq was a first is wrong.

1) We fought against Spain in 1898 in a war brought about because we sent a ship to monitor a nearby colony where conditions were horrible and refugees were entering America by the thousand.  When that ship was blown up, we assumed who did it and declared war.  Winning the Spanish American war was the end of over 60 years of isolationism.         

2) We fought in WW1 in a war between Germany and Britain mostly because Germany kept sinking our shipping.  We could have stayed out, but we saw a difference between the two sides in what was really none of our business. 

3) We fought the Germans in WW2 because they declared war on us.  Only Japan attacked us.

4) We fought Korea and Vietnam under the Truman Doctrine, the idea that Communism was expansionist by nature and that we had to stop its expansion into the third world.  Sometimes we stopped it by propping up anti communist dictators, (like Zia in Pakistan and the Shah in Iran) other times we stopped it through proxies (like the Contras in Niceragua) and a few times we stopped it with our own troops.  UN mandates were used some of the time, but this was really a US strategy and others could accept it or fight it.

In fact, none of these wars were after an attack (except Pearl Harbor and 9/11 leading to Japan and Afghanistan), and the idea that there is some nebulous UN playbook that all the world follows is a joke.

So Iraq was not a simple "cowboy" response of an evil america, it was a decision made like all wars are with good intent but with a real case being possible to make against it.  Did it lead to Russia invading Georgia?  Lets look at facts:

1) Putin has said repeatedly that it was Kosovo that fueled resurgent Russian nationalism, not Iraq.  When Kosovo was carved from the nation of Serbia, the fear in Russian circles was that Russia itself could easily be carved up this way.  Chechnya, a muslim enclave, had been clamoring for independence and Russia brutally put down the insurrection.  But Kosovo paved a pathway for Chechnyan independence.  Putin and others decided to use the Kosovo model for Russia.  Russia had enveloped these states into the Soviet Union by planting Russians in them during the 1910's and 20's.  Now it uses these people as a pretext, a reason to go in and rescue an oppressed minority.  Georgia is just one of the former Soviet states with Russian minorities from this source.  

2) Russia has bitterly accepted that it lost the Cold War because its economy could not sustain its military.  Now it sees that its oil wealth has invigorated it economically and Europes total dependence on Russian oil has given it a political tool it lacked in the past.  It sees a chance to regain superpower status.  It sees that now is its chance to reassert its strength, before a Georgian pipeline, a free Iraq, American drilling, and a safe gulf region reduce Russian profits on oil.

3) Russian leaders want the perks of economic ties without the constraints of political ties.  Like China, with a vibrant economy but a repressive regime, Russian leaders, hope to be the same.  

Ultimately, none of these factors relate to US actions in Iraq except that some of the World is so angry at us, that they will support any opposition we face.  Whether we were in Iraq or not, this was coming.  The only way to stop it was to make Georgia too tough to invade or to make the consequences too severe to face, or to see a change in Russian leadership.  The third is our best hope, but for that, we rely on the Russian people and their election decisions. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Its still a dangerous world

Posted by Yubaduck on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 1:39:36 PM
The media will either not report this, or it will get buried in the avalanche of political reporting, but today, 16 died in an attack on the US Embassy in Sa'na, Yemen.  None were Americans, so its easy to brush this off, but this story shows us three things:
 
 
1) Al Qaida is weaker than it was 7 years ago.  Contrary to reports and commentary from the Left and the Democratic party, this is about the best they can do.  It is still bad, and the loss of life is sad, but they have been weakened.
 
2) Al Qaida still exists and still wants to harm us.  Contrary to some who say the war is over, we can come home, cut the military, and focus on social programs, there is still an element out there that wants to hurt us.  They have been weakened, not eliminated.
 
3) Our defensive measures did what they were supposed to do.  We had at least 2 layers of concrete fencing, Yemeni guards ringing American guards, and other security measures that may not have existed prior to 9/11.  Now they exist, and they did their job.  16 died, but 6 were attackers, 4 were Yemeni guards, and 6 were Yemeni civilians.  This is tragic, especially the civilian deaths, but since the Yemeni government has refused our help, they have led themselves to this result.  Hopefully no more have to die to make them see that they ought to pick a side.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't be Fooled

Posted by Yubaduck on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 11:03:44 PM
   I saw this headline and thought to myself,  "Yes, we did it, our pressure forced them to concede."  But then I looked closer.  Here is the AP story:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/offshore_drilling
 
Its headline reads "House approves offshore drilling"  and describes a bill which will do far more harm than good.  The essentials:
 
1) "The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out" and "The Democrats' bill would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast line. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico." and "They cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off limits because they are within 50 miles of shore. And they said few states would likely agree to drilling since the bill does not provide states with any of the royalties from the new energy production"
 
So it allows the states to vote for themselves on drilling, and since they get nothing from it, most of them would likely vote no.  It permanently limits drilling any closer to 50 miles out, putting off limits in perpetuity the best chance of large oil reserves
 
2) Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.
 
Just a thought here, but won't retroactive taxes raise the prices dramatically?  Isn't that part of the point?  Oil is a commodity like any other.  Taxes ought not be overwhelming and really, ought to be at the state level much more than the federal, since state residents are the ones impacted by things occuring in their states.
 
3) Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices
 
This is a ridiculous non solution that will seriously risk our security if there is a real crisis (such as a war with Iran or a natural disaster that takes out too many resources.
 
4) Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.  Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.
 
Tax credits?  I would rather see a less complicated tax code, not more, but I can live with that.  What I can't live with is the utilities mandate.  If these technologies are economically feasible, they will be adopted,  and if they aren't they won't.  This will force utilites to use higher cost alternatives to meet the mandate and they will pass ont he cost in the form of higher utility bills
 
5) Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.
 
I thought it already was a crime to bribe officials.  Isn't that what Sarah Palin made serious efforts to stop in Alaska?  I can support this, but don't know that it is really necessary.
 
6) Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.
 
Again with the tax breaks?  The idea that government needs to reward the behavior it wants with tax breaks is a sign that taxes as a whole are too onerous and need to be reduced.
 
7) Nowhere in this article did I hear mention of Nuclear Power, ANWR, Oil Shale, or any other of a number of serious reforms that need to occur in any productive energy bill.
 
We can't let up folks.  I am going to E-mail McCain tonight asking that he send Palin to the steps of the House to hold a press conference and speak with the Republican leadership of the House behind her about the faults in this bill, and the necessary components of an energy plan that will actually do some good.  Why her?  Because she is news right now, and she will bring press to house members who will otherwise be ignored.  If all of us who want energy reform do the same, maybe we will see it happen.  We can't let this ridiculous excuse for "comprehensive energy" give cover to the dems, and we must stand up to Republicans (especially in the Senate) who seek a compromise that does more harm than good.  I may have only 20 or 30 readers at most, but each of you has a few more and if we act fast, we can make this the issue that they must do something about. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Preparing to Lose

Posted by Yubaduck on Monday, September 15, 2008 10:30:08 AM
I have been swamped between the normal daily prep work for school and my two online classes (I am taking genetics and microbiology towards a masters degree), but I saw this and couldn't resist posting. 
 
The Democrats are preparing to lose.  They are getting it in gear, saying already two months ahead of time that if they lose, it is because of racism.  This quote comes from an article in "Salon":  
 
"I know there is a real concern out there that some people who normally would be voting Democratic might not vote for an African-American," said Tim Burke, the Democratic chairman of Hamilton County (Cincinnati and its suburbs). "Gov. [Ted] Strickland has spoken openly about this." Campaigning for Obama in Jackson County in the Appalachian southeastern corner of the state earlier this month, Strickland declared, "I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room -- and I'm not talking about any Republican. The elephant in the room is what everybody's thinking but nobody willing to talk about ... it's race."
 
Yes. There are racist people.  There are people I met in the Navy and in college who think that interracial marriage or dating is wrong somehow, that people of different races are less human than their own race.  I had a roommate in language school in the Navy that told me the Bible forbids interracial marriage.  He used as his verse some place in Leviticus where God told the Hebrew nation not to intermarry with the people of the land they conquered.  When I asked him wasn't that more because He didn't want them seduced by the religions of those people, he said it didn't matter and didn't want to talk about it.  So I get it, there are racist people.  But see what this author did?  He specified that "States like Ohio" are where this will be an issue, and further, that in the Appalachia corner of Ohio is where it needs to be dealt with.  It goes back to the assumption, the words Obama himself used, that it is poor uneducated rural white people who are too stupid to look beyond race to vote for the future.  Obama talked about rural white voters clinging to guns and religion and HATRED FOR PEOPLE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE.  He said that to an audience in San Francisco of rich liberals who completely agree with him.  We are seeing more and more of this from the press as Palin has an effect.  They are so convinced that their ideas are the right ones, so convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, that they cannot concieve of the possibility that their ideas are wrong, that maybe people move to rural areas seeking FREEDOM from government breathing down your necks, monitoring everything you do.  It isn't about race, for most rural voters its about freedom in an increasingly intrusive country. 
 
Now that the press is seeing the tide turn, they are getting ready, priming the pump, getting the memo to the community organizers, that if Obama loses it is Racism, and as such, there should be rioting in the streets.  How much more racist can you get than assuming that black voters will riot if Obama loses, that if Obama loses there will never be another black candidate, and that we the people are not individuals but are made up of monolithic voting blocs based on race, gender, and lifestyle?  I have a lot more to say, but no more time. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Most Important Race in November:

Posted by Yubaduck on Monday, September 08, 2008 7:53:47 PM
   While many of you are like me and have been made enthusiastic by the Palin pick, and others vehemently disagree either because McCain himself is unacceptable, or you find something objectionable in Palin or her record.  Wherever you fall on the Presidential race, don't forget that in many ways, the most important race this fall is not one race, but 435 races around the country for the seats in the House that come up every two years.  A house with over 290 liberals in Pelosi mode can override any action McCain may take, and can carry Obama in any direction he wants, especially if the Senate gets to the magic 60 for a filibuster proof majority or 67 for a veto proof majority.   You may think my seat is safe (like my rep who is very conservative and wins with 70% of the vote in Californias 2nd) or my seat is hopeless (like Californias 8th district, held by Pelosi, and never has she got less than 78% of the vote), and you may be right.  But at every level, from city council to Senate, legislators matter, and voting in the most conservative, diligent, and ethical legislators possible is very important, both for the sake of local government and to rise up future senate and house candidates with experience.  I will post on some specific races around the country that look close or look interesting, both in Senate and in the House, but my hope is that even if you can't pull the lever for McCain/Palin, you will vote thrid party or write in and still elect the conservatives to your local elections. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unhinged

Posted by Yubaduck on Monday, September 01, 2008 3:02:49 PM
As the father of three daughters, I cannot express how sick I am about the far left and their willingness to smear and lie about a child in an attempt to discredit a candidate.  They are scared to death of Sarah Palin because she represents what many of them fear most:  A woman or minority of accomplishment who is off the liberal reservation.  To discredit her, they will do anything, including starting rumors about her children.  The fact that her daughter is pregnant does not lessen the "crime" here, it adds to it.
 
I had often thought that perhaps in my fifties, I might retire early from teaching and run for congress.  I have long believed that we were meant to be a "citizen government" and that therefore citizens ought to consider serving in politics.  I have thought I would wait until my children were at least out of high school, to avoid subjecting them to the rigors and ugliness of a political life.  But I don't think I can do it.  I am the father of three daughters.  They are currently 9, 7, and 1.  They are wonderful little girls.  Do I really want to see Daily Kos and Huffington Post spread filth about them in an attempt to discredit me?  Worse, if one of them does make a mistake and ends up in drug rehab, being an unmarried mother, or cheating on a college exam, do I really want to put them through this kind of hell?
 
I am a Christian, and I am raising my daughters in a Christian home.  But all have sinned and fallen short, despite my best efforts and despite their best efforts, they will make mistakes.  Apparently, those mistakes will be broadcast far and wide. 
 
In the Bible, two of Jesus' disciples made huge mistakes.  Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities, Peter denied Him for his own protection.  Both felt remorse after realizing what they had done.  Judas then went out and hung himself.   Peter was broken, and cried out for forgiveness and it was granted him.  He went on to lead thousands to saving grace and even if he hadn't, he was forgiven.  Judas turned his back on forgiveness but it was there for him if he'd have asked.  That is the lesson I would have my daughter learn.  To err is human.  To forgive divine.  Gods love is unconditional, and our love as parents ought to be as well.  Sarah Palin and her husband appear to be living that way.  My prayer is that I will do so as well.
 
Bottom line, kids ought to be off limits.  Whether they are very young like Obamas daughters or adults like McCains, they should be a non issue.  Unless something criminal is done to cover for them or unless they are exploited for political purposes (for example if Palin or Biden, who both have sons going to Iraq were lying and their sons were not serving in the military, that is newsworthy because of their lie, not their sons service or non service).  I am sickened by this past 72 hours and even further disgusted by the complicity of "respectable" media outlets and members such as Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan in perpetuating these sick comments.  Some things ought to be sacred, even for politicians.  But I guess not, and the sad thing is, our nation will be far weaker for it if good people refuse to serve because of the toll on their families.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Experience and Performance: Do they correlate?

Posted by Yubaduck on Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:09:42 PM
For the last several months, I have assumed that the experience a president brings relates directly to quality of their administration.  Especially in the area of foreign policy, that experience leads to success.  I decided to do a little research into this.  Here is what I found when looking at Presidents resumes: 
Presidential Experience since 1945:

Bush 2000-2008      54 when elected              Education            Yale and Harvard

Prior Experience       5 years Air National Guard, 23 Years Oil Industry Executive, 8 years Texas Rangers Executive, 5 years Governor of Texas
Totals:  5 years government, 32 years private sector, 5 years military

Clinton 1992-2000            46 when elected              Education            Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale

Prior Experience         3 years college professor, Universityof Arkansas, 4 years Arkansas Attorney General, 11 years Governor of Arkansas,
Total:  15 years government, 3 years private sector, no military
 
Bush 1988-1992             64 when elected              Education            Yale
Prior Experience              4 years Naval Aviator,  16 Years Oil Executive,  2 Years head of Texas Republican Party, 4 Years US House of Representatives, 2 Years UN Ambassador, 2 Years Special Liason to China, 2 Years head of National Republican Party, 2 Years CIA Director, 8 Years Vice President
Total:  18 years government, 20 years private sector, 4 years military 

Reagan 1980-1988            69 when elected              Education            Eureka College

Prior Experience:  5 years sports broadcaster, 30 years actor, 5 years training officer, US Army (made training films), 7 Years President Screen Actors Guild, 8 Years Governor of California
Total:  8 years government, 35 years private sector, 5 years military

 Carter 1976-1980             52 when elected              Education            Naval Academy, Georgia Tech

Prior Experience:  7 years Naval Submarine Officer, 9 years farmer, 4 years State Senator, 4 years Governor of Georgia
Total:  8 years government, 9 years private sector, 7 years military
 
Ford 1974-1976                 61 when appointed         Education            Michigan, Yale
Prior Experience:  3 years Navy Navigator, 24 years House of Representatives (8 years minority leader), 1 year Vice President
Total:  25 years government, 3 years military

Nixon 1968-1974               55 when elected              Education            Whittier College, Duke

 Prior Experience:  5 years Lawyer, 4 years Naval supply corp officer, 4 years US House of Representatives, 4 Years US Senate, 8 years Vice President, 8 years lawyer and author
Total:  16 years government, 13 years private sector, 4 years military

LBJ 1963-1968                    55 when appointed         Education            Southwest Texas State

 Prior Experience:  5 years teacher, 12 years US House of Representatives, 4 years Navy Reserves and Presidential Inspector (during the 12 years above), 12 years Senator, 3 years Vice President
Total:  27 years government, 5 years private sector, 4 years military

JFK 1960-1963                    43 when elected              Education            Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford

Prior Experience:   3 years Navy torpedo boat commander, 6 years US House of Representatives, 8 years US Senate,
Total:  14 years government, 3 years military
 
Eisenhower 1952-1960   62 when elected              Education            West Point
Prior Experience:  37 years US Army, 2 years Supreme command of European Front, 3 years Army Chief of Staff, 5 years NATO commander
Total:  10 years government (military political assignments), 37 years military

Truman 1945-1952           61 when appointed         Education            No College Degree
Prior Experience:  5 years Railroad timekeeper, 11 years family farmer, 3 years WWI Battery Commander, 4 years store owner, 6 years county judge, 10 years senator, 4 months vice president
Total:  16 years government, 16 years private sector, 3 years military
 
So what does all of this mean?  The decision to appoint Palin as Vice Presidential candidate for McCain caused me to look more closely at the issue of experience.  All Presidents in the past 63 years have had a minimum of 5 years in government.  (Bush had the least)  All of these Presidents except Clinton have some military experience.  Every President except LBJ and Ford had some experience as an executive of some sort, whether government, military, or private sector.   The three most experienced  "qualified" for the Presidency were Bush Sr, Ford, and LBJ.  The least experienced were Bush Jr, Reagan and Carter.  What I see is that my least favorite presidents fell on both extremes of the spectrum (Carter and LBJ) while my favorites (Reagan and Truman) were also at differing levels.  Truman was in my opinion the best foreign policy president of the last 60 years, and he had no prior experience....it was instinctual. 
 
What this little exploration into the past showed me is that on one issue, Obama is right.  Experience matters, but the right kind of experience, and experience is no where near as important as judgement.  Neither Obama nor McCain have been in a leadership or executive position in their lives.  Neither has Biden.  Palin has, though critics would say its on too small a scale to matter.  On judgement, on decisions made, I can say without hesitation I much prefer McCain to Obama.  I can say the same  but more so when comparing Palin to Biden.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Palin Pick: My Take

Posted by Yubaduck on Friday, August 29, 2008 6:55:56 PM
   About a year ago, a man visited my blog.  He left comments about how great it was, and wrote posts on his own blog about how it was one of the best he had ever seen.  Then one day, I wrote a post on Immigration policy he didn't agree with, and he debated a bit.  Later, I wrote about my support for Duncan Hunter and he totally disagreed.  Then he wrote a post about appealing to the middle and again I disagreed, and basically, I never heard from him again.   I took a break shortly after this because I got burned out on every post turning into an immigration debate, and the intense anger on both sides, and when I came back, he was no longer at townhall.
I mention this former townhall blogger, because before he disappeared, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of Palin for President (and later Palin as a VP selection).  Before he discussed this, I had never heard of her.  While I parted ways with this blogger, and do not even know if he still writes elsewhere, I must credit him in part for what I am about to write because when he supported her last year, even though I had sort of written him off, I did a lot of research about her.  I was not one who would have made this selection.  I am by nature not much of a big risk taker, and this is a big risk because of her short tenure.  Having said that, though, this pick could turn into a great decision and not because Palin is a woman.  (Of course that was a factor in her choice, but there are many other reasons to choose her, and that will not be why she succeeds if she succeeds)
 
Palin has only been a governor for two years.  Like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana though, in her short tenure, she has shaken things up.  She has been determined to root out corruption, cronyism, and scandal in her state, and has succeeded at this.  She has been willing to take on entrenched Republicans who play that game, and to some in Alaska, she is more an enemy to Republican politicians than Democrats.  This matches McCain almost too well and might make conservatives uneasy, but read on.  She has also cut taxes, cut spending in a big way, and shrunk government.  She did however, raise taxes on oil companies.  This is something I oppose.  I think a part of her decision for this was a sense that since the oil property is on state land, the state deserves some windfall from its exploitation.  I can see this logic though I don't agree.  Thus on economic issues, she is a spending cutter, waste hawk, and for the most part, wants lower taxes.  All qualities I approve of.
 
On social issues, she is pro life, not just politically, but practically as well.  She made a decision to keep a Downs Synrome baby, has been a mother of 5, and in every respect, supports life.  She can point to those who demand a woman has a right to choose and say "I chose life for a baby many of you would have terminated, and we have been blessed."  She can point to her son if she chooses and say "It is a baby, not a choice."  She can shame a proponent of partial birth abortion without saying a word.  She opposes gay marriage, but allowed domestic partners to have hospital visitation rights in Alaska.  I don't have a problem with this, myself.  I believe anyone close enough to a person to want to see them in an ICU deserves to.  This does not legitimize marriage for them. 
 
She is an avid supporter of 2nd amendment rights, and from what I read, property rights as well.  She has governed Alaska, a state with massive challenges, and done so well.  She has shown all the instincts of a conservative because of her fight against the Republicans in Alaska, not despite it.  She is also a regular person.  Obama went to Princeton.  Bush 1 and 2 went to Ivy League Schools, as did Clinton.  Palin went to the University of Idaho.  (So did I......class of 95...I D AHO Idaho Idaho Go Go Go...yes I am a dork).  Her husband did not ever finish college and had a union job.  She is as blue collar as a politician can be.  She will connect with regular people (especially in the west) because she is one.  She is an outsider, but with 14 years of executive experience.  She was a mayor for 8 years, ran an energy board for 4 years, and has been Governor for 2.  Obama has little more experience but all of his is legislative (and only 2 years are at the federal level).  She is accounted a tough campaigner.  She beat 2 entrenched well known politicians in her run to Governor, one from each party.
 
So what line of attack will Obama and team use?  Obviously, they will say she is a token woman.  If they do this, the only way to prove them wrong is with a superior grasp of the issues, especially foreign policy.  Attacking her experience will be fought the same way.  Attacking her in any other way seems to be a no win proposition.  I think that for her more than for McCain, the convention speech she gives will have incredible importance.  She can't just run as an out of the beltway maverick as McCain did in 2000.  She must show she grasps concrete issues like energy policy (which she has experience with in Alaska), economics (which she has dealt with at local and state and private sector levels) and most of all foreign policy.  It is in the last of these that she must show that her knowledge has depth, not just from the hip comments. 
 
After all, because of McCains age, this is a far more crucial VP than any other in my lifetime.  The last elected VP to actually take offiice was LBJ (Ford was a replacement VP for Agnew), and LBJ was a whole different character than JFK and changed the direction of the country greatly .  Conservative and Liberal alike, we want to know that she can handle the reigns should McCain go down in his years as President.  She can show us this by her convention speech, her campaigning, and most of all her debates with the "expert" who wanted to make Iraq like Bosnia, Joe Biden.
 
All in all, McCain took a big chance.  I hope it pays off, and I feel confident that she will show us she is ready to lead.      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Slump: Is it Racist?

Posted by Yubaduck on Saturday, August 23, 2008 6:04:35 PM
Here goes another one.  Liberals can't seem to help themselves.  This article from Slate decries the racism of McCain and Clinton supporters, and declares without a doubt that the only reason Obama is not winning handily is racism among rural whites.  What an arrogant, elitist jerk.  Read for yourself what he has to say.  I could dissect and analyze this junk line by line and show the stupidity of the arguement, but the convinced will not be swayed.  As he says near the end of the article:
 
If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
 
This is identity politics in a nutshell.  No real person believes in supply side economics.  No real person believes in the war on terror.  No real person believes in capitalism, American exceptionalism, or the candidacy of John McCain.  The only reason for a real person to vote for McCain is either 1) He is a multibillionare who wants evil capitalism or 2) He is a racist redneck who can't bring himself to vote for a black man, and will invent any excuse he can to justify this racism.  Again, what an arrogant jerk to presume to call me and anyone else who does not fall in line