Bring It On!

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 15, 2008 | Reply

Actually, in the same speech in which McCain said Guantanamo Bay “may be one of the nicest places in the world to live in but it has become a symbol and we need to close it”, he also said of Abu Ghraib and torturing prisoners, “Now my friends, what is the moral superiority of the United States of America if we torture prisoners? We can’t do it. Can’t do it. Can’t do it.” So it’s not nearly as simple as saying McCain is the same as Bush. Another example is that McCain was pushing a surge long before Bush finally came around and put it into action so actually, we might have seen the vast improvement in Iraq far earlier if McCain had been commander in chief, I don’t know but it’s possible. What I DO know is that if Obama had been commander in chief and, instead of the surge and the change in anti-insurgency tactics that General Petraeus put in place in Iraq, Obama had pulled us out as Obama said we should do, Iraq would be chaos and a killing ground. Instead, violence is at the lowest levels since the invasion began.

McSame? I don’t think the story is quite that simple.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 15, 2008 | Reply

Another example of McCain being not McSame: as much as I loath the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, McCain pushed for it Bush, although he finally did sign it, said that he thought it was probably unconstitutional at least in part. Both McCain and Bush caught hell for that Law. McCain for co-authoring and pushing it and Bush for signing a law he thought was probably unconstitutional. The difference between McCain and Bush? It should be obvious that McCain had no constitutional qualms about any part of his own bill. Even after the Supreme Court struck parts of the bill as being unconstitutional as applied in a Michigan case involving a Michigan Right to Life ad, McCain still defended his bill.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 15, 2008 | Reply

Besides, the choice is McCain or Obama. McCain wasn’t even my third choice this year for Republican presidential nominee so believe me when I say, voting for McCain is not my preference (as in, if I had my choice of Republican presidential nominees). The choice is the co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Abomination and pusher of virtual amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens or the Congressperson whose voting record not long ago made him the most liberal member of Congress.

What’s a Conservative to do? Vote for the guy who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito over the guy whose Supreme Court hero was the very liberal former Chief Justice Earl Warren and who (if I’m not mistaken) opposed Roberts and Alito.

By Cranky Liberal on Aug 15, 2008 | Reply

Well Craig, I can’t answer what a conservative would do not being one. You could vote for the party that has spent nearly 30 pushing FEAR as their #1 campaign slogan, or you could choose to break with tradition and vote for a guy who is preaching hope….

You could vote with the party that continually insults your intelligence by lying, then contradicting themselves with another lie and EXPECTING you will just go along with it; or you could vote for a man who, flawed though he may be, is actually trying to give thoughtful intelligent answers and not treat you like a child.

You could continue to vote for a party that gives lip service to your ideals and then fail to deliver even a smattering of what they pledged…or vote for a man who while certainly not on the same page as you in many respects, shares an interest in helping make life better for the people living in this country……

Like I said, I can’t imagine what a conservative would do this time out. I do know what the majority of Americans seemed poised to do.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

But I should vote for a guy that offers hope…for exactly what no conservative hopes for? If I want hope preached to me, I’ll go to Church. That’s the sort of hope I want. More Justice Early Warrens on the US Supreme Court isn’t anything I’m hoping for. I thought I made that clear. I guess not.

I should vote for the party that gives me nothing I’m hoping for and everything I oppose? Yeh. Gee. That sounds like a good deal.

As for your “majority of Americans”, McCain is within the margin of error in nearly every national poll. Get a grip, will you?

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

And with all the changes Obama’s been making to his own stated positions (like public funding and not raising large amounts of soft money from corporations and unions, etc.) At what point do you just say, “Everybody’s lying/pandering/saying what they think they need to say at the moment to get elected”, call it a wash and vote on the few issues for the guy who hasn’t promised to vote against you on those issues? That’s the point at which I am in this election. For me, the two big issues were Iraq and judges. Since events in Iraq and Obama’s own nuancing of his Iraq policy have both gotten to a point where I can live with Obama on Iraq, the issue that’s left is judges. McCain voted for Roberts and Alito and promised more of the same. Since he voted for those two, I think I have reason to hope that he’ll give us more of the same as President. Obama voted against Roberts and Alito and says his model Supreme Court Justice is Earl Warren.

Sorry, man. I wouldn’t vote for Obama if he promised a Mercedes in every driveway and had a credible plan to fulfill that promise just based upon that criterion, alone.

You support Obama because he promises things that you want. I won’t vote for Obama because he promises things I oppose. That’s politics in America. You find the guy that comes closest to being likely to give you what you’re hoping for on the most issues that are most important to you. No candidate is going to perfectly fit your policy preferences. In this case, neither of the candidates are a good fit for me but McCain is the best fit in this case.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

In short, it isn’t true that Republicans have never given me any of what I wanted. Bush gave me two mismanaged wars, a much expanded and more costly Medicare program, big debt and more that I did not want but he’s given me Roberts and Alito on the Court. This, I feel perfectly confident in asserting, neither Gore nor Kerry would have given me. Sometimes the Republicans actually do give me what I want.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

In any case, in looking through RealClearPolitics’ listing of national Obama-McCain polls, only a few have shown a majority (more than 50%) of Americans favoring ANYBODY. At this point, I can only go along with saying that a plurality of Americans seem poised to vote for Obama. And not a terribly large plurality, at that. McCain probably will not be our next President but it won’t be because I voted for more Supreme Court Earl Warrens.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Or for the guy that gets 100% scores from NARAL Pro-Choice America on abortion rights issues.

By Liberal Jarhead on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

I am not enthused about Obama at this point, as he’s caved and/or gone corporate on the FISA law and some other critical questions, and he’s gone on the record in the past advocating banning and confiscating handguns. But McCain is doing the worst kind of pandering to the very people he correctly called agents of intolerance (when he wasn’t desperate and willing to do or say anything in his last shot at running for president before he’s too old to even be considered.) And the way he goes all deer-in-the-headlights when reporters ask him about issues, makes stern pronouncements about Iran training Al Qaeda and about troubles on the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border, and invites his wife to participate in a topless beauty contest for the bikers at Sturgis, tell me he’s clueless - more so than Dubya or Reagan, if that’s possible.

This is getting dismal. Seems like every time either Obama or McCain open their mouths, I like them less.

If I vote for Obama, it will be mainly because:
1. He offers more hope for a coherent exit from Iraq and avoidance of a war with Iran;
2. The Supreme Court should not be tilted too far left or right and it’s leaning rightward at the moment, so the next appointment should ideally be just left of center, someone with integrity who’s progressive without being an ideologue (Sandra Day O’Connor, come back!); 3. The White House should not be occupied by someone willing to get on board with the intolerance and bigotry of the religious right (I tend to like people who actually practice spiritual values, but those folks are all about getting rich and promoting hate); and
4. Of the two, Obama is unmistakably mentally sharper and more on top of events, so when the crises that are inevitable come along, he will be better suited to respond quickly, decisively, and in a way that’s based in reality.

Maybe I’ll write in Keith Olbermann or Jon Stewart.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

At least if a politician promises something in campaigning, you have something to hold him/her to, a reason to oppose him/her on something else the politician may want and needs the support of his base in order to achieve. Take Bush and Supreme Court Justices. When he put Harriet Myers up for the Court, just the most cursory bit of blogger vetting revealed that Myers was far from the sort of SCOTUS nominee that Bush promised. Bush continued to push her in spite of her obvious failings as pointed out by conservative bloggers but eventually he backed down. Why, I’m not sure. I suspect he knew that he would need our support for other things and if he betrayed us by going through with a Myers appointment, we might abandon him altogether, making things that much harder for him.

That may be wrong. As I say, I don’t know for sure. But that makes sense. Besides, we spared us the spectacle of a sitting Supreme Court Justice being served a subpoena to appear and testify before Congress.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

One more reason for me to vote for McCain rather than Obama. The first six years of the Bush presidency convinces me that it’s not good for the country to have one party in power in both the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. Too little opposition. That government governs best that governs least. At least with mixed party ownership of the two political branches of government, there should be constant pressure against BOTH branches. In a one party government, checks and balances are less likely to function effectively.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Seems like every time either Obama or McCain open their mouths, I like them less.

I have a different view. Every time Obama opens his mouth, I oppose him less. Problem is, I don’t believe what he’s saying now, as he tacks rightward to the middle. As his former pastor, Rev. Wright, hinted, Obama’s saying and doing what a politician says and does: the politically expedient thing.

I do think you cogently and logically lay out your reasons for preferring Obama.

By Liberal Jarhead on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

That last is a good point, Craig - it kind of relates to why I’m discouraged by both candidates; at this point, the differences between the Republicans and the establishment of the Democratic party are more illusion than reality - they’re all lobbyist-directed corporate puppets. And when it comes to checks and balances, we need them most when it comes to weighing the interests of big business and the uberwealthy versus the interests of the other 99% of Americans, and I am afraid there are no meaningful checks and balances there.

Obama offers a slightly less bleak prospect in that regard, though only slightly. I could sum it up by saying that whereas the Republicans are actively malignant the Democrats are nearly useless but slightly less toxic.

What I think we really need is a new party that would draw its funding and constituency exclusively from individual contributors in small amounts and make an ironclad commitment to put the interests of the majority of Americans first when it comes to distribution of the tax load, to social programs, to consumer protection and regulation of big business, and to comply with the views and values of the majority/mainstream when shaping policy on other issues, as long as that’s consistent with respecting the rights of those who don’t happen to be in the majority on an issue.

But a party like that would be the biggest threat imaginable to both existing major parties and to the system of big business and media that pretty much owns and runs this country now, so they’d do whatever they could to strangle it in the cradle.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

I like these quotes from the New York Times:

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.

“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

Particularly, “[C]hange is not an issue.” Change can be good or disastrous. With insufficient “10 word answers”, clearly and specifically laying out positions (and then not abandoning those positions when it’s politically expedient), change is without content.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

I just don’t think that a third party can make it on a national level. Something about our constitutional form of government favors two parties, as opposed to parliamentary forms that favor many parties. I don’t know that one is necessarily superior to the other, but I do think that it’s a structural thing that isn’t going to change. At least, historically, so far as I’m aware, no third party has ever broken into national prominence in America while there were two strong opposing parties.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

So far as I know, no third party has EVER posed even a small threat to the two party system.

By rube cretin on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Craig,

Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

By steve on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Craig:

McCain is McSame…

He has one hot daughter, much like Mr. Bush.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Rube,

Read my comments. All I have to say on the subject of my vote this November, I’ve already said. I don’t give a shit how smart Obama is, and I don’t deny he’s smart, it’s his policies I don’t like and no amount of smarts is going to compensate for those issues. I don’t vote for smartest man in the western hemisphere. I vote for president. I’ve met guys whose IQ placed them in the top 0.1% in intelligence. Didn’t have a clue and I wouldn’t have voted them for town dog catcher. Intelligence is not irrelevant but it’s not necessarily the ultimate, be-all and end-all issue either. I’d rather have good, smart Justices on the Supreme Court who respect the Constitution and limits on their own powers rather than making shit up and pretending their brain burps are and always have been right there in the Constitution if only one had the heart to see it.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

Steve,

By steve on Aug 16, 2008 | Reply

I agree with your last comment Craig. My IQ tests out in the upper 140’s and I am a complete dumbshit. I never miss a math problem and my friends call me a human calculator but I difficulty reading (by now you should all notice that) but I am a good listener and would probably win a good argument if anyone would talk to me live.

I think you need more than IQ to be elected President, er um twice!! The really really smart people (Bill Gates) never seem to run for President. Why didn’t someone like Warren Buffett run for President? Why do we have someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor in California and not say, some Berkeley poly sci professor? It has a lot to do with personality. This time around we actually have candidates with more defined personality. Obama is genuinely a leader and can talk to anyone. He’s a well spoken black fellow He definitely gets people to listen when he speaks. McCain on the other hand has the I speak softly but carry a big stick mantra about him. I can listen to the guy, he seems presidential like he is a leader. It’s better than say Kerry or Gore. Bush had the good ole boy persona and a lot of America IS like Bush and that is why he won. Same with Bill Clinton. The middle America accent rules all.

By Liberal Jarhead on Aug 17, 2008 | Reply

The Republican Party started out as that type of populist reform party - they seemingly came out of nowhere when there was a two-party-dominated situation similar to today’s; the then-major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs, with the Democrats most resembling today’s Republicans. The Whigs had started out as a populist party opposed to autocratic government, but were becoming increasingly co-opted.

The issue of slavery wrecked the Whig party - it fragmented fairly fast with its members dividing themselves between the then-pro-slavery Democrats and the up-til-then-splinter party Republicans, who coalesced around the goal of abolishing slavery. After 1856 the Republicans erupted into major party status and Lincoln won the 1860 election.

So for something comparable to happen today, the Democratic Party would have to find itself fundamentally unable to find a position on a major issue that a consensus of its members would buy into; then, probably, a minority would defect to the Republicans, but the new party would pull in the rest of the former Democrats as well as a fair number of disaffected Republicans and become the stronger of two major parties, itself and the Republicans.

Some people are trying to organize a new Whig party and get it off the ground. So far not much traction, but under the preceding scenario they could get big fast if they were really seen by the public as a party of reform opposed to the incestuous system of corporate power and campaign funding, lobbyists, and bought-and-paid-for politicians we have now.

By Chris Radulich on Aug 17, 2008 | Reply

Actually if conservatives had any guts they would have their own nominee instead of voting for a party that has failed them in almost every regard. However they know that they are such a tiny minority that they do not stand a chance.

They are suppose to stand for less government. Yet the republicans have never decreased government. They have grown it. In most case more then the democrats.

They are suppose to be for fiscally responsibility. The republican party has blown the budget every year and double the deficit each time they were in office.

They are suppose to be pro economy. Yet the best republican president since Taff has not created as many jobs as the worst democratic president

The are suppose to be for freedom. Yet the republican party is all about suppressing freedom ( with the exception of gun control).

The only president forced to resign was a republican. And this administration proves that they do not believe in personal responsibility.

Still they vote for them.