"Country First" and John Wayne Gacy
First of all, could I say, in the spirit of a new kind of politics, country first, my ass!
Everytime you see a McCain sign proclaiming "Country First" at the Republican convention or on the campaign trail, it should immediately remind you of his pick of Sarah Palin to be his vice president and how that alone makes the notion ridiculous.
McCain's new slogan is an extention of his charge that Obama puts politics ahead of his country. He even said, disgustingly, that Obama would rather lose a war than an election. McCain even accused Obama of having "ambitions" to become President! (Horrors! Thank goodness McCain, who's been trying for the White House since before a lot of Americans were born, doesn't have any ambition to become president. Come to think of it, in light of his recent actions, maybe he doesn't.)
McCain is trying to say that he, unlike Obama, will always put what's right for the country ahead of politics. He'll be guided by what's best for the country, not cynical political ploys, he insists.
As I noted in a response to a comment, McCain's choice of Palin proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Country First" is just another cynical and meaningless slogan. The reason is obvious.
No one who takes the stewardship of this country in the least bit seriously would have picked someone like Palin. I don't care how many goofy ways they conjure up to somehow pretend it was in the least bit responsible, it's all transparently false or downright laughable.
The woman is NOT, will not be, and can not possibly be considered by any rational person qualified to lead this nation at any time, let alone one so fraught with danger and complex foreign policy questions.
This is how it is:
McCain is like a soon-to-be father who walks around loudly proclaiming that, unlike other fathers (hint, hint), they will ALWAYS put their children's welfare first, always keep them safe, and that their precious children's well-being and success is their only priority. "My children FIRST!"
What a reassuring notion. So nice to know he'll be so committed.
Then when the blessed event happens, he announces that he's picked John Wayne Gacy as the kids god-father. (in case anything happens to him.)
That is exactly what McCain has done to this country with his reckless entirely politically motivated pick of Palin for the sole purpose of trying to energize the religious right and cynically try to garner the votes of disaffected Hillary supporters (the "cracks" as they're known.) as if they're mindless ditzes who will vote for any woman, no matter if she's 180 degrees from them politically.
When the choice of Palin was announced, the first thing the McCain campaign was asked, repeatedly, was, "Are you SURE you vetterd her? Checked her out completely?" With each new stunning revealtion about Palin, the McCain campaign is asked again, "Are you SURE you vetted her?". The answer is always yes. But I don't think anyone believes it. How could you?
P.S. I find it interesting to see a favorite Republican talking point for inexplicable and indefensible actions by their leaders return after the Palin pick.
Every time Bush would do something inexplicable and reckless, they'd all in a chorus describe it as "BOLD". Remember, "bold" = "I have NO CLUE why they did this and can not for the life of me come up with a rational explanation that wouldn't be embarrassing." Of course, that does not stop many of them from trying. And embarrassing themselves. Sure, it's no fun to sell off your integrity and dignity before a national audience, but the pay is good and the perks are great. And there might be a plum position in it for you.
Watching coverage these last few days, I can't COUNT the number of times I've heard Republican shills use that term to describe a choice that I'm sure leaves even their heads pounding.
If McCain announced he was going to jump up and touch the moon from a trampoline, they'd say it was a "bold." idea.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 9/01/2008
9 comments
9 Comments:
I don't understand, are you saying that P{alin is incapable of being VP?
Of being a Commander-in-Chief, if it came to that?
Why is that? Because she is a woman?
Why is that? Because she is inexperienced?
This is a wonderful choice of VP...
She is smart.
She is 'Change.'
She is a Government reformer.
She has Executive Office experience.
She is 'outside of DC.'
By the very question (by dem's) - 'does this make the Obama (lack of) experience issue a mute point?' - by its very asking, reminds everyone that Obama has no experience.
It begs people to say, 'well, maybe I am not comfortable putting someone with limited experience a heartbeat away from the Presidency, but I certainly am MORE uncomfortable putting someone with limited experience in the Presidency!'
Yes, a wonderful choice on all fronts!
I understand the point you are making but I think the mention of John Wayne Gacy in your analogy is absolutely sick and to mention him in the same sentence with ANY public figure crosses the line of decency.
I know you are angry about politics and you hate the Republicans' guts, but Gacy? Many of us remember the details of the John Wayne Gacy case. And frankly... whatever point you are making, you should really go back and edit your blog and delete his name and try to come up with a different name to make your point. I'll bet Barack would even agree. But hey, it's your blog.
Do you have any real arguments for why she's qualified or ready to be commander in chief?
Or just vague and absolutely ridiculous notions like the fact that she happens to live far away geographically from D.C.?
(I'd remind you that Alaska isn't all THAT far from D.C. They consistendly receive more PORK BARREL spending than any state in the union.)
And let's see. Your second reason she's "wonderful" is that she's "change".
Hmmm. Care do define that? Or take a stab at why she's "change"?
I'm all ears. She's a lock-step far right conservative. Unless I'm mistaken, haven't they been in charge the past 8 years. How does another one qualify as "change" in any way, shape, or form?
Please answer.
And she's a "reformer". Yeah, apparently she took a whack at some of her fellow Republicans for corruption. But seeing as how the state is all Republicans and nearly all are corrupt, she pretty much had no choice.
OK, let's pretend she's a reformer.
She has "executive office experience".
Well, yep, she does. As executive of the third smallest state by population, and for less than one full term. Gonna hang your argument on that? Pretty flimsy if you ask me.
She's been in office such a short time, it's impossible to even judge whether she was a good executive or not. What crisis did she deal with? What tough executive decisions did she have to make?
Being a governor does NOT make you a good exective. Does it? Even the Nazi's made the trains run on time.
Are you concerned with what her views are on issues that actually matter to the lives of Americans? Or are you more concerned with how well she'll deal with the budget for the vice presidents office?
No offense... after all, you tried.
But seriously, those aren't serious arguments. None of them prove her fit for anything, except maybe governor of Alaska.
Hell she's a fisherwoman, right?
In her case, they should throw her back and let her grow a little more.
I think the success of Obama's candidacy is in proving that "Experience" is not a high priority for voters. He broke that barrier and proved that one does not need a lot of governmental experience to be president, which in turn helps Gov. Palin overcome that concern.
Only 2 presidential candidates in modern history have had LESS experience than Barack Obama: Republican Wendell Willkie in 1944 who was a corporate lawyer, and Democrat Alton Parker in 1904 who was a Judge for the New York Court of Appeals.
It is awesome and impressive that someone who is the LEAST experienced Democratic nominee since 1904 can fill a stadium with 85,000 people. It means that voters don't care that much about experience and that "qualifications" are in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks for recognizing that this is, indeed, my blog Nico.
For that alone, you're head and shoulders above many others, who have weirdly seemed to lose sight of that fact, thinking it was up to them to determine what I wrote or how I wrote it.
Toss me the name of another psychopathic pedophile and I'll consider it.
And yes, you are absolutely correct in supposeing that Obama would find that crude and objectionable. I have no doubt about it.
But Obama is a far better person than I am. He's vastly more intelligent and graceful, and more articulate by a factor of about 48344.
That's why I beleive he should be president.
Unlike Republican thinking, I do NOT want some guy who's as stupid as me, someone who'd hang out at a bar and get drunk, or someone I could feel was an equal, as president.
I'd prefer someone with better judgement, better temperment, someone far more intelligent and shrewd than myself (how hard could it be?) sitting in the Oval Office.
How the Republicans conned Americans into thinking that's a bad thing is nothing short of tragic.
And don't confuse my committment to speaking my mind with anger.
I'm not angry at all. Actually, after Denver, I've never been happier!
Nico,
What you're conveniently doing, and what the Republicans hope Americans do, is to pick their next leader based on a paper resume with no regard to the person at all.
You can shuffle numbers and say that Palin is more experienced than Obama, but you're tying to dodge reality.
I ask you, who do you sincerely thinks is better suited in seriousness, depth of knowledge, intelligence, maturity, and character to be President of the United States.... Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin?
You can say Palin, but I'd suggest you're wrong.
I'd welcome a chance to have the two of them stand side by side and get quizzed by any panel of foreign policy experts you want.
Who do you think would come off as more qualified?
For that matter, put McCain and Obama before a panel of experts and let the tough questions begin.
I truly believe Obama would make McCain look shallow, uninformed, and reckless by comparison.
Nico,
What you're conveniently doing, and what the Republicans hope Americans do, is to pick their next leader based on a paper resume with no regard to the person at all.
You can shuffle numbers and say that Palin is more experienced than Obama, but you're tying to dodge reality.
I ask you, who do you sincerely thinks is better suited in seriousness, depth of knowledge, intelligence, maturity, and character to be President of the United States.... Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin?
You can say Palin, but I'd suggest you're wrong.
I'd welcome a chance to have the two of them stand side by side and get quizzed by any panel of foreign policy experts you want.
Who do you think would come off as more qualified?
For that matter, put McCain and Obama before a panel of experts and let the tough questions begin.
I truly believe Obama would easily make McCain look shallow, incorrect in his views of foreign situations, and reckless by comparison.
This is if they were held to a standard of being correct.
IF, on the other hand, it were judged by jingoistic, John Wayne style bluster that many seem to prefer over substance, then McCain would come out on top.
TID,
You do not see that being a Governor and having 'Executive Office' experience is enough. I can appreciate this perspective - it is a fair opinion.
However, how then do you support and suggest that Obama is a wise choice?
If executive Office experience, however limited, is not enough for a VP position, then how is a few years in a State Legislature (voting 'Present' on most big issues) and 2-years int he Senate, primarily being invisible and 2-years campaigning is reasonable experience for Obama?
I can appreciate your concern for palin (although I do not agree with it), but that opinion then must be followed with Obama not being experienced...
...which is the problem for the Obama campaign.
In addition, up until his Middle East/ Europe trip, Obama had not ever been to Germany! (Not good for a Presidential resume).
"Me"...
You were making sense until that last paragraph.
You can't be experienced if you've never been to Germany? As Johnny Carson might say, I did not know that.
Bush had never been out of the country except on benders in Mexico and I believe tagging along to China with his Dad before being sworn in.
And really, are you saying Obama is unfit because he only went to Germany this year?
Are you aware that Palin never even had a passport until LAST YEAR and that was in order to go to Kuwait and Germany to visit Alaska National Guard units?
I don't recall Palin addressing an adoring throng of 200,000 German citizens either, though I may have missed it.
I wrote in a previous comment somewhere that if you want to compare resumes on paper, bring it on. I still think Obama's superior.
But if you insist on using the odd construction that Obama has had less "executive" experience, at least on paper, then fine. I'll grant you that...
But I don't feel it's a responsible way to choose a leader in this age in the slightest.
You could find a person with more experience on their resume than McCain. And they might be utterly unfit to become president.
The fact remains that NO ONE is prepared to be president. They only have to perform once in office.
And the most important factor is the sort of person they are.
ANY DAY....
I'd put Obama on stage with Palin in front of a panel of experts in foreign policy and international affairs, military affairs, geopolitics, energy policy, or any other subject.
And I know (as do you if you're honest) that Obama would outshine Palin by a mile. In fact, it might even be cruel to Palin, she'd look so badly out of her depth.
But I'll go one step further and say that if you put Obama on stage in front of the same panel with McCain, that McCain would be revealed to have vastly less knowledge than Obama, he'd get more wrong, be shown to have completely erroneous notions about international conditions and facts on the ground, and essentially make Obama look like the clearly superior candidate.
Aside from just being TOLD that McCain is a foreign policy expert, what exactly makes him that?
Has he ever been right about Iraq? Afghanistan?
The answer, sad to say, is no. He's supported the clearly failed Bush policy right down the line.
He supported the "surge" and is pinning all his bluster on the fact that that supposedly succeeded, though obviously the situation is still a horrid mess.
The fact remains that if you stop and think, there's really not much basis to qualify McCain as some foreign policy genious at all.
They just keep telling you he is, and you swallow it.
McCain was dead wrong about Iraq, Obama was dead right.
Even the Bush administration has now implemented several of the measures that Obama has been calling for and saying he'd do for many months now, including direct diplomacy with our enemies, and a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
So you're going to go with McCain on foreign policy judgement?
OK. If that's what you want you want to believe.
What's Obama going to do in his terrible lack of experience? Keep us in Iraq indefinitely? Start another war with Iran?
Just how dangerous would it be with Obama at the helm? Are you afraid of less war, rather than rightfully being opposed to MORE war that is crippling our economy and society and dragging our good name through the mud?
You're more afraid of peace and prosperity than you are of contiual death and destruction and trillions of dollars (borrowed from China) squandered on more military blunders under McCain?
Explain to me just how Obama could do worse than McCain. Why have they gotten you scared of man with a clearly intelligent and sane vision for our future?
Or are you still thinking out of fear instead of clear headed reality?
Because trust me, we don't have to continue the disasterous path of Bush in order to remain "safe".
I think it's clear that if you wipe aside all the bullshit and fear tactics, that Obama as a man, has the intelligence, experience, wisdom, maturity, and vision to be a far better leader than John McCain.
But you make your choice your own way.
Post a Comment
<< Home