The vows taken by Republican John McCain to take the high road in conducting this year's bid for the White House seem to have been cast aside along the way like empty beer bottles. It is sad to see such an honored warrior abandon his ideals. As a senator he did make a difference in cleaning up some aspects of politics in Washington. But now, eight years later, his time is running out for him to be president. His talks do not inspire enthusiasm. Last spring and summer as the presidential campaign went on, the crowds of people who came to hear him speak, dwindled to embarrassing numbers when compared to those who came to hear the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama's new ideas.
McCain had to do something, so he turned to the Rovian campaign dogs that were the authors of George W Bush's winning Swiftboat campaigns. Currently they are producing one political advertisement after another laced with lies and innuendoes to poison the judgement of voters.
Words, no matter how untrue, once they are spoken can't be taken back. You can't unring a bell. Some people still believe that Iraq was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 and will never understand, or accept the truth. Because President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said over and over that the Iraqis were responsible, some people still believe it must be true. After seven years of being told the true story that it was not the Iraqis but Saudi Arabian terrorists from the safe haven of Afghanistan who did it, a great many people won't believe. They don't understand that the Bush administration intended to get control of Iraqi oil. Since the United States has nothing to gain from Afghanistan, except to kill terrorists and those who backed them, the military campaign there has been failing, and the enemy is stronger than ever. But the Bush administration intends to keep concentrating on Iraq and leave the harder problem in Afghanistan for the next administration to solve.
Before the Republican convention this summer, McCain's political rallies were drawing dwindling crowds numbering in the hundreds, as opposed to those of Barack Obama who consistently drew crowds in the thousands. So, he and his advisors changed tactics. As they veered the bus off the main road to take a crooked course up a muddy trail, they pulled out all stops in order to win over the voters. Now it doesn't matter how farfetched or untrue the accusations they throw at Barack Obama, they keep coming up with more outrageous attacks, and John McCain keeps saying he approves them.
To help him, McCain has chosen a pretty woman, Sarah Palin, to be his running mate and his shill, a role she seems to be good at. She took the stage at the Republican convention like a rock star. There she stood in her high heels and short skirt. She is the Governor of the great state of Alaska, former mayor or her hometown, mother of five children, and wife of a blue- collar fisherman, oilfield worker and union member. She wowed ‘em. And she can make a great speech too. In fact she keeps making the same one, with its proven inaccuracies, ever since. She must be made of Teflon - nothing bad seems to stick to her. People believe what they want to believe, and they see her and her family as one of them. They include in her positive assets as vice presidential candidate the fact that she is a fundamentalist Christian who would teach Creationism in schools. She believes like Bush that God speaks to her. They love that she is a mother, she hold babies well, and for experience in foreign affairs, Russia is close to Alaska and she goes through Canada every time she visits the lower forty-eight.
The best thing about her for McCain is that, as long as Palin is on the campaign trail with him, large enthusiastic crowds of people keep coming to see and listen to them. They see Palin as one of them, one of the common people, ready to take over the presidency if McCain life span runs out before his term of office.
But we don't need a common man or woman as president. We need an uncommonly gifted, intelligent, and well-educated person with new, forward-looking ideas to compete in this increasingly globalized world. We need real change in the way business is conducted in Washington and the world, and we won't get it with an old hero, and a pretty mother who knows only how to parrot the party line.
It's sad that Obama's people feel they have to respond to McCain's untruths, but former Democrat candidates tried to ignore those tactics and lost. It's sad that the media sees fit to headline all the unsavory back and forth attacks and responses to scurrilous accusations. It's a sad commentary about American voters that so many read and believe the tabloid-like slander in the political ads being fed to us by McCain and his people. Obama tried to avoid such tactics for the most part, but it looks as if he may veer off the high road too, and the campaign is going to get rougher and tougher the closer we get to Election Day.
Do we really want or need a president who wins by being the best in a contest of mud slinging? It looks like that is what we are going to get.


Comments: 39
Anyone that falls for the liberal republicans in the white house veering toward fascism knows nothing about poitics, economics or foreign policy.
Go back to the books and get an education before you comment.
Which of the candidates is trying to lead a positive campaign? Whether a group technically "reports" to the candidate (as in the candidate's committee) or is a private group supporting them, can the positive ideals of that candidate lead or will the private groups do their own thing?
To date, even if MCain wants to focus on issues, the negativity and character assaination eminating from the campaign is discouraging. The statements that this election is about "personality", not issues, is troubling. Is this leadership?
If Obama's campaign begins down this road, is that leadership?
I wonder what it would take to ditch the swift-boating and have an actual discourse on the issues.
If Obama had a "new idea," he wouldn't have a problem with another "new candidate." The only difference is that he's a new face on old liberal policies, and she's a new face on old conservative policies. Let's see who wins!
Hope all's well with you and yours.
Loved the heading for your article! And your statement "It is sad to see such an honored warrior abandon his ideals." expresses my feelings on this to a T! I've always respected McCain and have been shocked at the changes he has incorporated in his ideals, in order to get the nomination and now to get elected.
Which Party Is Better for Stocks?
by Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D.
Posted on Friday, August 29, 2008, 12:00AM
I would venture to say that most investors, especially those with substantial portfolios, are Republicans. After all, the GOP is the party that champions free markets, capital accumulation, and low taxes, principles that appeal to wealthy investors.
And historically, the initial reaction of the market to a Republican presidential victory confirms this thesis. During the last 120 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7% on the day following a Republican victory in the presidential elections while it has fallen 0.5% the day after a Democrat captured the White House
However, a closer look tells a far different story. Over that same 120 year period, the average annual stock market return has totaled only 8.25% under Republican rule, while it has returned 10.85% with Democrats in power.
Over the past 60 years, this trend has been more pronounced. The Democrats have held the presidency only 41% of that time, but under their rule the average annual return has been 15.26%, more than six percentage points higher than the 9.01% return under Republicans.
Good and Bad Presidencies
Returns during the last two administrations support these conclusions. The return on the market under the Clinton administration (1992-2000) was 19% per year, the highest of any president since Calvin Coolidge led the country in the mid 1920s.
On the contrary, the real return so far under G.W. Bush has been a measly 0.22%, and an even worse minus 2.69% return once inflation is subtracted. This return is the second worst of the postwar period, exceeded only by the negative 7% real return under the Nixon administration. In fact the Nixon and Bush Republican administrations were the only two periods since The Great Depression when shareholders suffered after-inflation losses in the stock market.
The worst real stock returns over the last 120 years were suffered under Hoover, who captured the White House on November 6, 1928. That was not a propitious time to start investing in stocks. Less than a year later, the Great Stock Crash overwhelmed equities and the subsequent bear market eventually drove down stock prices a record 89%. Investors who bought stock when Hoover was elected lost more than 20% per year before he was voted out of office in November 1932.
The stock market under Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, who was much despised by Republicans and other free-marketers during his record 13-year hold on the presidency, actually did well. Stocks experienced real returns of nearly 9% a year from 1932 to 1945, considerably above the 6.5% average real returns on the market. Returns under Roosevelt were good since he became president when stock prices were low and the US was wrapping up its victory in World War II when Roosevelt suddenly died.
Gridlock Is Good
But who controls the presidency is not the only influence on stock returns. Congress also turns out to be very important. And despite all the hand-wringing about Congressional gridlock, the market does best when Congress is controlled by a different party than the presidency.
Here are the facts. Since 1948, stock returns have averaged 13.89% when there has been a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. But returns have been a whopping 22.4% when there has been a Democratic president and the opposition Republicans have controlled the Congress.
The same phenomenon occurs when the Republicans have occupied the White House. Returns have averaged only 9.77% when the Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency. But these returns were boosted to 10.76% when the opposition Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate and a robust 16% when Congress was split between the Democrats and Republicans.
This means that the margin by which stock returns under Democratic presidents beat the returns under Republicans is cut in half when the same party controls both Congress and the White House.
Lessons for the Upcoming Elections
Since Congress is certain to stay Democratic after this November's election, it might be good for the stock market to have a Republican president. Keeping a check on a free-spending Congress is in investors' interests.
But remember, elections are far from the only factor influencing stock returns. The 2000-2002 bear market that followed the technology bubble would have been equally disastrous even if Al Gore received a few more votes in Florida and had been selected president in November 2000. And Hoover's fate was sealed once the market hit speculative highs in 1929.
So don't time the market to the elections. Studies have shown that buying stocks when prices are reasonable, as they are now, will be a long-run winning strategy no matter who is elected president.
http://finance.yahoo.com/print/expert/article/futureinvest/104492
Kathy N. I do not know why you think this post is a joke or why you almost feel sorry for Ms. Ruth MacGill. She is one of the best writers here on Gather. You will not find one grammatical or misspelled word in any of her very articulate and informative articles or posts. She's been around for seven decades so she has seen many Presidents. She's the wife of a military man and is well-travelled. In addition, she's one of the most well-read women I know and her intelligence speaks for itself. What are your qualifications for any sort of pity whatsoever for a strong, independent woman who lives alone, makes do with what she has and who has openly and honestly helped as many folks as she can. Read her articles and then come back and tell me what your qualifications are in any arena for your statement. Salud
One of the things I love about you is that you do follow your heart.
The choice you made to abandon your beloved Republican party must have been hard, but you knew that it was no longer your beloved Republican party.
McCain sure isn't Ike.
This whole thing truly scares me.
I really wish we had good candidates on BOTH sides. I'm for Obama and I'm hoping that he can withstand the pressure he'll get from the dark side. He has strong people supporting him, but I'm concerned about the non-performing dems in the house and senate. Where are they? What are they doing? I am certain that our country will pull out of the mess Dubya gave us. I just think it's going to take a longer time than anyone expects.
Blessings, Dear Ruth. Thanks for being a thinking, savy lady.
Wilka
Wilma - Thank you so much for sharing that great article written by Jeremy Siegal Phd. It was very educational.
Crap is crap, no matter whether dressed up in the pathology of God-made-me-see-it Bush Crusades, ACT: 21st century, or the the equally pathological God-made-me-see-it anti-Crusades of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both need to be flushed down the toilet.
We can't do a whole lot about who the Revolutionary Guard selects as Iran's president, but we sure can do something about how pathological the next 4 years are going to be for America, and since America is so powerful, the world.
Now, McCain, after dispising the way Bush handled the attack on Iraq, McCain seems bent on assuming Bush's mantle as a wartime president. How long do these rash people think the country can put out $10 billion a month and still pay for our needs at home? In the end, it doesn't matter if we win or lose in Iraq, WE CAN'T AFFORD to be at war all the time. And yet Palin said yesterday that "perhaps" we would have to go to war with Russia. Unbelievable!
His father was I believe a four star admiral during that war, and had it not been for his son's hair-raising, self-centered antics in all sorts of ways as a hot shot jet pilot back then, McCain ought to have advanced almost instantly up the ranks of the Navy. He put his fellow servicemen in great danger due to all that. Yes, he was shot down and spent haqrrowing years as a POW, but I believe much of what he believes he did while in that horrific situation to be suited for a work of fiction.
When he finally stepped off the plane to America soil in 1973, when I, as a Dane, was studying, of all things, US Constitutional Law, my heart went completely out to him and his family, and the US armed forces. I only occasionally followed his career here in Denmark and while working for some decades in the US, including a few years as associate editor for a newspaper by Washington DC, I actually sometimes thought well of some of his bucking of the Republican agendas, only to quickly get disappointed when it turned into his own narcissistic agenda.
Palin?
Big time distraction
I am more invested in this election that I even was, back in the 70's when I briefly considered a political career to advance what I was learning in college about environmental science. This time around it is because I care too much about too many people and their children, most of them who live in America, but really the whole world. I am more than furious this morning, when waking up and turning on the local BBC channel in Copenhagen and heard about the crumbling of the biggest rocks in American banking having now taken the US (and the world by extension) to the brink of the worst banking disaster in America since the Great Depression.
McCain talked about the dominoes effect of Communist Asia back in another generation. If we allow this man to become president due to family feud Palin plastic, then we'll finally on this planet understand what a dominoes effect is all about.
Ruth, I apologize deeply for the emotionally charged content of my comment here within your very compassionate and soul-filled article... I hope you can forgive me for that, since I honestly echo your heart.
That was an interesting set of statistics on the congress, president and stocks! Thanks.
We do not live in a black and white, simple world, divided into "the US" and "everybody else," a world where we can solve a problem in Afghanistan by invading Iraq and then declaring "Mission Accomplished." In the short period of eight years, we have seen this oversimplified world view push the US from a nation of peace and prosperity into a position where the unimaginable has happened, and our place as the greatest nation in the world is threatened--and I felt that way *before* the market meltdown.
I think that Senator McCain is an honorable man and a reasonable one, and although I am a liberal I have always respected him. However, I think Senator McCain also held this same black and white worldview, one where he genuinely believed that the US could invade Iraq and be greeted as liberators.
In today's increasingly global, and nuanced world, we desperately need a brilliant man as President; a brilliant man with a background that lets him consider problems from many different points of view. Senator Obama is such a man; someone who was raised on food stamps and who rose--purely on on his own merits--to Harvard Law and far beyond. Whatever else you say about Obama, he *is* uncommonly gifted--just Senator McCain is courageous.
I do not agree with all of Obama's social and economic policies (I happen to be farther left). Nonetheless, I respect Obama's intelligence and trust his judgment to lead the United States out of the mess we are in.
I live an a solidly blue state where my vote does not matter much.
Nonetheless, I and nearly all of my friends, plan to pull the lever for Barack Obama in November.
Mariana - I just read all the comments here again and I see I failed to thank you for all your generous comments. I just wish I really deserved your praise. Think of me the next time you hear your local zydeco musicians. I love them.