Election Day 2008

Monday, 3 November 2008 00:09 by The Lunatic

* * *

I'm writing the first entry to my new blog on the day before the Presidential Election, 2008.  Whew, what a mess!

As you'll find within these pages, I have absolutely NO allegiance to either political party - but I share the nation's disgust with the mess that the Republican Party has made of things. On a personal level, I could never vote for John McCain - he is a whiney little weasel, and his whole demeanor is not what I would expect from a seasoned politician and presidential candidate.  His whole "let me tell you something my friends" shtick makes me feel like I'm listening to a used car salesman. I went in to the campaign season with an open mind, but I was REALLY turned off by McCain during the first debate. First off, when backed into a corner with a very logical and well presented argument, he always came back with a very condescending response - trying to make it look like it was Obama who didn't understand the issue.  Obviously, logic and reason don't matter much to him. I found it very insulting.

But the real capper was one sentence during the debate.  When talking about budget issues, McCain said something to the effect of "I will cut anything that is not defense or entitlement related."

WRONG ANSWER!  If you add up defense, entitlements, and interest payments on the debt (which obviously is going to go up), you are already well over 80% of the budget!  This means he could cut EVERYTHING else - education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, NASA - and still not make the budget targets.  Not even close. The two things that need to be cut dramatically are entitlements and defense - and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut. I'll go into detail on these in another post.

Ok then - how about that Sarah Palin?  The only good thing about Sarah Palin is that she has given the world's comedians their best material since Dan Quayle.  First off, the entire state of Alaska has a population about the size of Austin Texas.  Think about this - it's not a very good testament to the scope of her experience.  And to top it off, she really hasn't been on the job very long.  Secondly, she has abused every slightest bit of power that has been given to her.  She does not have any moral or ethical fiber.  Everything from billing the state for "travel" days when she was at home, to lying about her support of "the bridge to nowhere" project, to the whole troopergate fiasco.  Sure, you expect the media to dig up every bit of dirt during a campaign like this, no matter how small. But it all points to an appalling pattern, namely abuse of power and a lack of ethics.  Just because no one is monitoring your expense account doesn't mean you are free to pad your expenses - especially in a public office.  And finally, her blathering during the vice-presidential debate about expanding the role of the Vice President's office.  Ok, so she's never read the constitution, not many Americans have - but Joe Biden showed GREAT restraint in his reply.  He could have embarrassed her pretty badly with her obvious lack of knowledge about the job she is applying for.

No matter, it looks like it's going to be an Obama landslide. It's going to be an interesting day tomorrow. My projection is that Obama will take 350 electoral votes.

* * *

Categories:   Politics
Actions:   E-mail | Permalink | Comments (3) | Comment RSSRSS comment feed

Comments (3) -

May 31. 2009 09:38

ironically john mccain was a moderate republican of the very kind that left leaning people constantly claim they wish the gop would run. history shows, however, that moderate republicans lose elections more often than not. for whatever reasons, they not only don't inspire right-leaning folk to come out and vote for them, other "moderate" republicans seem to be more willing to publicly endorse the *democrat* over them. despite the common meme in the media claiming the opposite, fire-breathing right-wing republicans who are conservative both socially and culturally win elections more frequently than centrists.

in this past election barack obama had the intangibles and mccain had the tangibles.

obama was glamorous glib young black hip tall sexy ivy-league-pedigreed and used lofty ethereal rhetoric about "hope and change" which meant nothing of itself but also meant anything the hearer wished (excellent politics, of course). he had no substantive leadership experience *of any kind* (in fact he had the least leadership experience of all 4 people on both tickets *including sarah palin* to be truthful), he had only the briefest voting record in his time as a state and federal legislator and about half of that was merely voting "present". he had a decades long deeply personal relationship with an unrepentantly anti-american and racist "pastor" whom he considered to be his "spiritual mentor".(!) he launched his political career in the home of an (to this very day) unrepentant domestic terrorist. whole years of his life are unaccounted for, including a mysterious college trip to pakistan. there is even a question about whether he was born an american citizen and thus is not eligible to be president. we were so breathlessly swept away with in the cult of personality of barack obama that we overlooked a truckload of questionable shit about this man to get him elected!

john mccain is a war hero who was tortured while held as a prisoner of war. he has a decades long career in public service during which time he often stood up to powerful interests in his own party for principle's sake (indeed that is why he is called a "maverick"). he has been a budget hawk for years. he has a long record of bipartisanship. he worked in the bipartisan "gang of 14" to prevent the then majority gop from removing the filibuster to speed up the confirmation process of judicial nominees. he worked with democrat russell feingold to pass the bipartisan campaign reform act. ironically in his tangibles john mccain *actually was* the candidate of sensible reform and bipartisanship that obama always (and only) talked about and never was and still isnt. unfortunately mccain was old crotchety uncool unsexy unglib and republican at a time when republican support was at a low ebb nationally due to a dramatic economic dip and an unpopular war.

mesmerized by a man's charisma (aka voting for the person), we chose style over substance this past election, hoping naively that obama would be something very different than what he stated quite explicitly that he would be. the republic will of course survive and this too shall pass. but during the i-told-you-so moments i experience, i always try to help people remember to consider a candidate's *position and record* (not the insubtantive possible smoke and mirrors of their words only) as priority #1 when they vote. that reduces the beauty pageant element in an election.


May 31. 2009 09:57

quote 1): "But the real capper was one sentence during the debate.  When talking about budget issues, McCain said something to the effect of 'I will cut anything that is not defense or entitlement related'... WRONG ANSWER! The two things that need to be cut dramatically are entitlements and defense - and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut."

quote #2: "[Sarah Palin] has abused every slightest bit of power that has been given to her.  She does not have any moral or ethical fiber."

there is an old saying something to the effect of "when you like someone, he could spill his whole bowl of soup in your lap and you just laugh. when you dont like someone, even the way he holds his spoon is offensive".

the logic of quote #1 is that:
* since mccain isn't cutting the budget deeply enough
* since the #1 priority is that spending be cut "DRAMATICALLY"
* since sarah palin was very fiscally responsible as both mayor and governor in alaska
* since bush's greatest liability was his excessive spending, and we were supposedly fed up with it
* since obama advocated over $1 trillion in new spending during the campaign (and now that he is in office its up to 10 trillion)

then of course OBAMA is the right choice!

the political calculus displayed in this is so curious (to be charitable) it genuinely fascinates me from a purely anthropological standpoint!

but more importantly, why should anyone who cares about fiscal responsibility even bother seeking public office if this will be the reward for their efforts?


June 3. 2009 04:42

I am still 100% convinced that McCain/Palin were both wholly ill-suited for the jobs as President and Vice President, no matter who they were up against. As a comparison, yes, Obama was by far the proper choice. Could McCain have won if he were up against someone less appealing than Obama?  Probably not.  It wouldn't have been as big of a landslide, but I still don't think he would have won against the Al Gore of 2000 or the John Kerry of 2004. The man has serious anger issues, does not present himself well, does not understand the issues, and he could not - no matter what he did - distance himself from the previous 8 years of the worst administration in U.S. history.

Regarding the financial mess we're in - remember that none of it is Obama's fault, but he has to clean it up. I'd like to say that it was Bush's fault, but the forces that put us into this situation were well underway even before Clinton. And as much as I really HATE the bailouts, government takeovers, loans, and exhorbitant amount of debt we're racking up, I don't see a viable alternative at this point.  We're going to be paying for this mess for fifty years, if the country can survive the next ten without a major depression that would make people think the 1930's were a walk in the park.

The Lunatic

Add comment