Peggy Noonan: Is my man the right one? What if both sides say no?
the best quote: "The economic crisis brings a new question, unarticulated so far but there, and I know because when I mention it to people they go off like rockets. It is: Do you worry that neither of them is up to it? Up to the job in general? Is either Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama actually up to getting us through this and other challenges? I haven’t heard a single person say, "Yes, my guy is the answer." A lot of shrugging is going on out there. This is a read not only on the men but on the moment."
from
Peggy Noonan's "Why It's Getting Mean"
Labels: election, mccain, obama, politics
"Message" a.k.a. Political words that mean even less than political promises
So,
Politico is saying that Obama supporters are worried that his 'message' isn't resonating compared to McCain's. All that McCain seems to have done differently is to choose Sarah Palin, who actually had a discernable record. Funny enough, though McCain's numbers have gone up, typically among Republicans, Obama's have stayed roughly in the same place. What this article fails to note is that neither candidate has a message or any serious vision. Neither one offers a voter any real choice, rather, just two disparate images of 'character' and 'leadership' and 'vague words that mean nothing' in place of "issues." And while Democrats complain about being "defined" in the "messaging" by "Republicans" they forget that Republicans have a natural advantage: they can readily screw over their base, like McCain, and the base will still vote for them! Obama has none of the same flexibility. McCain can talk about gun control, being pro-choice, being pro-union, and raising taxes, and he'll only shave off a point or two but will gain ten. Obama can't deviate on any of the major issues without risking a real revolt: he can't kick big unions, admit that abortion is murder or even admit obvious facts about Israel, race, entitlements, social services or even foreign policy. In terms of the "message", the constraints are not due to Republican chicanery, it's due to the ferocious strength and political acumen of the varied interests on the left. McCain can play the populist and Obama's stuck in a message box held together by his "friends" to always toe the leftist line. No wonder why he's stuck at 45%.
Labels: election, mccain, messaging, obama
Obama's Infanticide Votes
We live on borrowed time. Abortion in this country is so depraved that it's killing children outside of the womb, and our "leaders" are justifying the madness and not working for truth. God bless Rick Warren for giving the candidates the chance to confront the slaughter in our midst, though it's worth pointing out that McCain's answer indicts
himself and the slaughter of the unborn embryos lost to "science." It's interesting that his campaign site is
trying hard to hide this fact.
Jill Stanek's fabulous blog, my favorite one in the pro-life movement, has been covering this scandal and covering it perfectly.
Labels: abortion, mccain, obama
McCain revealed, again.
So
John McCain isn't as conservative as we were told? Color me shocked! That the party would lie to conservatives? Not possible! On every key issue:
guns,
God,
babies,
taxes, John McCain is anathema to the core constituencies of the party. Which may mean that
he polls well in very generic national polls, but who will be stumping for McCain on election day,
other than Sam Brownback? People within the GOP hitched their star to McCain's wagon and we may see the results in the fall. Personally, I think very large, near huge portions of the GOP base of donors, activists, academics and intellectuals are tired of the lies, tired of the excuses and fed up with broken promises. McCain's a singular man, a maverick and has a great personal story, but people want to vote on issues and feel as though they can get results on those issues. We're more policy oriented than a generic feel-good candidate, because we've learned that those kind of leaders frankly can't be trusted to deliver.
Labels: election, mccain, obama, politics
The High Cost of Empire
The war has been quite a poignant collegiate issue, not the least of which because it hearkens back to the era of Vietnam war protests that have been wrongly romanticized. However a real issue has been the cost of these endeavors, and as one who supported both operations when they started, and still do to a degree, I think it's still worth noting that the administration originally said an estimate of $50-60 billion was excessive, and is now receiving a $165 billion appropriation for one year of both operations. Where have these costs come from, and where is it going? It just defies sense, if you paid 250,000 men $100,000 each for a year, you'd get a $25 billion pricetag. Yet wikipedia tells us there are 154,000 troops in Iraq, and 23,000 in Afghanistan. That works out to 177,000 total troops deployed. The Defense department has a normal budget of $439 billion dollar budget on top of all this. So, taking $165 billion divided by 177,000, you get a per troop allotment of $932,203.39 per troop. How can it possibly be costing this country a million dollars per troop abroad, and those brave soldiers are obviously not getting paid a million dollars per man. Where is this money going? Does the label 'unpatriotic' scare away other people from asking this most basic of questions? Why have we given the government a blank check to spend money on war, and continue these outrageous overseas actions. Let's assume that Saddam had WMD, and was the worst guy around, worthy of being toppled… he's gone! The left does seem unpatriotic when they selectively argue for withdrawal from Iraq but ignore the 70,000 troops in Germany or those in Japan, Korea or anywhere else we feel the need to unnecessarily project power. Those who supported the war, such as myself, ought to acknowledge that it appears we have been used and duped by a President more intent on global empire than on keeping America's interests safe. This mirage of world government secured through our military power should be dialed down, toned down, and brought back to the level where it serves us best: when our foreign commitments only serve our clear and compelling national interests. Our commitment to Iraq must end, someday, and when good Americans such as Ron Paul mention this, they ought not be demonized by the anti-intellectual crowd like Sean Hannity. We ought to resist the urge to control the lives of people a world away. The war is over, we're in an occupation, and long-term occupations almost never go well for the foreigner. Let's find a way to exit with honor and stop this senseless hemorrhaging of lives and resources that this operation is causing. Those who propose staying ought to give us clear metrics on what they seek to achieve by staying, without simply saying "stability."
Labels: afghanistan, budget, iraq, mccain, ron paul, war
