I received an invitation to join the "John McCain 4 President" Gather group. Initially, I checked off the box saying "No Thanks" and ignored the invite. After all, I didn't support Senator McCain, I wasn't going to vote for him as far as I knew, and planned to work as hard as possible to see the Democrat, Senator Barack Obama, elected President.
So why did I change my mind?
It isn't because I believe I shall change anyone's mind in the McCain camp. I do not fool myself. I don't want to be a spoiler in their own neocon party as they all sit around agreeing with each other. Perhaps because it is better for America that we all learn to discuss our differences and seek always to understand the other side.
My daughter is often perplexed at why I would listen to "The Factor" with Bill O'Reilly. I don't agree with him on 90% of the issues. I sometimes even yell at the television as if he could hear my retorts.
But I find it important to listen to what the most diametrically different people with ideas far from my own are saying. I do want to understand what they are thinking. I am willing to challenge my own ideas with a different thought.
Usually my ideas remain. My philosophy clarified, my thinking a bit more coherent when I have given myself the opportunity to listen to an opposing thought.
So why don't I believe that Senator McCain should be President?
As I have written in other entries, I believe that Americans are a bit naive when we are led to think that elections are about individuals only. This election has been reduced to one between Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama. But the greater issue is the effect of the election on thousands of other individuals. People who will fill appointed positions, whether they be in the State Department, the National Security Agency, or the Supreme Court itself.
And I believe that the Republicans have really fouled things up in Washington. No not Congress which is nominally controlled by the Democrats currently yet stymied by the 60 vote requirement to override filibusters that are limiting any legislative effort by the Democrats. But government itself.
I don't believe that government is evil. I do not believe that we need to starve the beast.
Taxes aren't evil.
They are the necessary cost of getting things done. We are after all a nation of government for the people, by the people and of the peopole. Our government is us.
And the people we have elected have failed us.
They failed us on 9/11. The President had a memo on his desk warning of 'Osama Bin Laden intends to attack America.' If it were a Democrat in office, the Republicans would have tarred and feathered the President that was on duty when this happened.
Instead they spun the whole thing and he became a hero.
Then they used 9/11 as an excuse to 'finish the job' in Iraq. WMD's were invented as the rationale. And a pre-emptive war was started on false premises.
These are all impeachable activities. But the Democrats didn't have the vote and didn't want to expend the 'political capital' to advance the issue.
Republicans failed us with their failure to use FISA Courts for search warrants. Searches and activity that might have been necessary, but Republicans didn't have any time for Courts to 'ask permission'. They advanced the cause of the "unitary executive" and said the President as "commander in chief" could do pretty much as he pleased because we were 'at war'. In an Orwellian war against 'terror', a war that couldn't have any end because the utilization of terror would never have an end. A war as successfully concluded as the 'war on poverty'.
Americans were frightened by the very leaders they elected to defend the Constitution, and gave up their rights without a fight.
And Abu Ghraib was no isolated incident.
Waterboarding and torture was twisted around with Orwellian double-speak into "aggressive interrogation". If the President said we didn't torture it must be so.
Katrina showed the failure of Republicans to appoint qualified people to positions.
The Justice Department scandal showed how the Republicans had used the highest office in the land as an extension of the RNC. And the millions of White House emails were run through the RNC and they just simply disappeared.
Scientists were censored from talking about Polar Bears because this might cause problems. And lawyers in the highest level of this Administration were caught rewriting global warming reports to make them seem somehow less certain of the harm threatened by pollution to our very existence. And the same lawyer gets a job at Exxon Mobil when this is discovered.
I have little respect for Senator McCain who was trashed in South Carolina in an earlier primary by a Rovian campaign that whispered about his black daugher in a push poll that smeared him. Then he embraces the very man who led that campaign that destroyed his reputation and denied him the opportunity to be his party's nominee.
And now, with these vacuous attacks on Senator Obama, about him somehow being less of a statesman because he can speak, less of a leader because he has charisma and can stir the imagination of people around the world. The vacuous attacks and distortions of his political plans in a vicious negative attack.
So no I cannot support Senator McCain. A man who doesn't even know how to use the internet or check his email. Is he really ready to lead?
A man who has had multiple Melanoma cancers removed from his body, a cancer tha can kill and recur in a vicious manner. Is his health up to the challenge?
But Republicans ridicule Obama because he is 'too fit' or 'too thin'. Yet Obama is healthy and young. McCain is old and debilitated.
I honor Senator McCain for his time he served his nation and the suffering he withstood as POW. But please tell me why I shouldn't believe that his problem with anger, his shortened fuse, is not due to an undiagnosed, or at least a yet to be revealed problem with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
To spend five years being abused, tortured to the point of attempting suicide, surviving by withdrawing into a fantasy world. I can appreciate what he has given to this nation. But are we really prepared to have this man with his finger on the 'button' that can lead us into a nuclear conflagration?
So I have come to join this group for Senator McCain. I know you all are well-intended. Senator McCain may even be our next President. And if so, I shall be the first to congratulate you.
But meanwhile, I shall still hope and pray that America will find the wisdom to give Barack Obama, the first African-American to seek the highest office, the chance to prove that the American Dream is still alive. That government isn't evil. That there is more to governing than reducing or eliminating taxes.
That we have things to do in America. Roads and railways to be built, diseases to be cured, ignorance to be addressed, and peace with our fellow citizens to pursue.
No this is about much more than two men with first names John and Barack. Our very survival may well be at risk in this election.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28
Very well put, RF.
I've been opposed to John McCain for President since the primaries began; but I never could have explained why as well as you.
I hope your commentary enlightens and influences our friends who presently support John McCain.
Good for you. That's exactly what I do. I watch news shows from all kinds of sources, and read different newspapers. And I make up my own mind about what I believe.
You and I differ in our politics, but we agree on checking out both sides.
I had this discussion with my grandchildren last night: "No this is about much more than two men with first names John and Barack. Our very survival may well be at risk in this election." It was most interesting, since they range in age from five to ten, and had almost as much relevant input as they did questions. As a result of that conversation, the one going into second grade sat down at the computer to start writing her first "non-fiction" book, which she said will be political but must still be illustrated because children like to see pictures in their books.
I'm happy to see you approaching the adult version of this important topic ;-)
You are an examplar to me for the way political debate should be conducted in this country. Respectful of all sides, making your stand and supporting your position with reasoned arguments. Very well done!
Our system of government is adversarial, and as such we require a debate (i.e. argument) between opposing camps, not as enemies but as partners advocating from different perspectives, as counter-intuitive as that may seem, this is how it should be done in this country.
The Rovian tactics, as you have written, is to attack the strengths of the challenger. In Obama's case this is his eloquence, popularity, relative youth and health. Go figure. Why would we NOT want to elect an eloquent, popular, young and healthy person to our highest office?
I do hope that this strategy which has worked so well for the Republicans in the past will no longer be effective as the electorate on both sides have seen the consequences of such bad politics.
I appreciate the tone of your discourse, free from the unnecessary "McSame" and "Obamanation" word play that contributes nothing to a productive political discourse.
Turn back the clock and let’s rotate to another part of the globe. A political party was perceived as “corrupt.” The people wanted change. They vote for the opposition in order to kick that corrupt party in the bottom. That opposition party was Hamas.
Now it can certainly be argued that the Democratic Party is no Hamas, but the point remains. We can go into a good discussion on the past but we can’t change the past. The question is clearly about the future. Yes it is a question of more than just two individuals, but at a certain level it is less than a question of just two individuals. One also has to factor in the congress and the courts into the equation.
Bottom line: don’t let the “hate” blind you to the question of whom or which party philosophy is right for the next four to eight years ahead for our country. Yes you might still vote for Obama afterwards but at least you will know what you are getting yourself into. (In as much as that is humanly possible.)
"But I find it important to listen to what the most diametrically different people with ideas far from my own are saying. I do want to understand what they are thinking. I am willing to challenge my own ideas with a different thought. "
When was the last time the Bush Administration actually considered - or listened to - an opposing view?
Geez, nothing like insulting a large portion of Gather here, as well as a lot of active "old people" in the country, LOL.
Just what should be the age limit to run for office.....? Just wondering... ;-)
In today's demanding political environment, should we be electing 71 almost 72 year olds to be President?
There are those who age gracefully, keep up with modern culture and technology, and others who would be lost if they had to play a DVD. Let alone a cell phone.
Senator McCain suffers from melanoma, which I assume is something most of us do not have to deal with. He is elderly and has failed to keep up with the modern times. It is very revealing when he indicated that he doesn't know how "to Google" or to use email.
These are things we all consider contemporary.
I love many of my elderly and even debilitated friends. But that doesn't mean I should choose them to lead our nation when we have a young, vigorous, and dynamic candidate as the other choice.
Please excuse me if I have insulted anyone here. That certainly wasn't my goal.
Insofar as the age limit....that is a very good question.
The mandatory retirement age for Pilots is 65.
In Lancaster Pennsylvania, the mandatory retirement age for firefighters is 60.
In Australia, the mandatory retirement age is 70 for judges.
Pope Paul VI introduced a mandatory age of 70 for priests and 75 for Bishops.
So while I do not feel that age should necessarily be held against an individual, unless he demonstrates problems related to his age, we have a choice in America, electing a 71 year old or a 47 year old to the most challenging and demanding job on this planet.
I hope that answers your question.
Actually, that's not quite true, and it could be dangerous if we base future decisions on this as an oversimplification. The people did not vote for Hamas entirely, or even largely, to punish the corrupt party in power (though clearly it was corrupt). They voted for Hamas because Hamas had provided both safety and social services to the people. They provided roads and food and supported schools, etc. They provided the basic day to day needs of the people. And of course, they provided what many felt was a rightful duty to fight the Israelis (though certainly not everyone felt that way). Meanwhile the "Authority" simply lined its own pockets, stashed cash in Paris, and actually stood in the way of finding a solution by accomplishing nothing and being unhelpful in every way. So the people didn't simply "vote for the other guy and accidentally got Hamas," they voted specifically for Hamas because Hamas was providing the infrastructure the people in power were not providing.
Of course, when you say Hamas you need to qualify what "branch" of Hamas to which you refer. Like Sinn Fein and the IRA, they have a "armed" branch and a "political" branch, that depending on who you ask are either closely or loosely knit. Like Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq, these groups often play both sides of the game.
obama is an empty suit liar
That is what is called an "ad hominem" attack.
"
Main Entry:
1ad ho·mi·nem Listen to the pronunciation of 1ad hominem
Pronunciation:
\(?)ad-?hä-m?-?nem, -n?m\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
New Latin, literally, to the person
Date:
1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"
It is an entertaining response but rather devoid of content.
There is virtually nothing that conservatives have brought this nation that has benefitted the whole of the country, and they most certainly have nothing to offer at this point. They are an entirely bankrupt, criminal organization at this point.
"They vote for the opposition in order to kick that corrupt party in the bottom. That opposition party was Hamas."
This wasn't why Hamas won. The reason Hamas won was because, while the prior leadership was ignoring the needs and plight of the masses, Hamas was providing food, shelter, and medicine to those most in need. They are a populist movement amongst those that they represent.
Whenever I'm in America and traveling in a rental car, some of my US friend wonder why on Earth I'd tune in Rush Limbaugh at times, and listen to his insane ranting.
I say for two reasons. It is really great entertainment into banal nonsense of the highest order, since it makes me burst into laughter over absolutely hysterical stupidity. But also because it gives me great insight into how people's minds can be so easily led into hells that rival some of Dante's.
I am trying to follow your thoughts. Obama "just too much of a global thinker". What does that mean? Are you trying to imply that Obama will more or less 'sell us out'?
Just wondering what is behind your assertion.
Also thanks for not calling me names. So many people on this site feel they should call people ignorte who dont see things their way poltically. I must say I disagree with you, but I respect you.
No problem. There is far too much name-calling and disrespect out here. I also respect your opinions.
The problem is probably ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we cannot pretend that we are an island unto all of the other nations of the world. When Obama gave his speech in Berlin, he wasn't campaigning for any German votes. Instead, he was reassuring the world that the America that they had known in the past was on the way back.
America hasn't usually been the place to start a war. Perhaps a nation like Russia might invade a neighboring country. But not America.
America hasn't usually been the place to tolerate torture and extraordinary rendition.
We are a nation of laws. Even the President needs to follow the law.
Not so recently. FISA courts and Habeus Corpus be damned.
So when Obama spoke, he demonstrated that as President he had the ability to connect well with people around the globe. Somehow Republicans think that is a liability.
It is a wonderful asset.
This is not about Obama being a "celebrity". Rather, it is about a politician who speaks a universal language of hope, understanding, and compassion.
Nothing really to ridicule unless you are running the John McCain campaign.