McCain & Obama: Substance vs Fluff
Dan Balz from WaPo had a Sunday article that makes some sense. Even sound bites or word bites from various pundits seem plausible. The overall theme that McCain and Obama have more to present to the voters is true. But ‘reservations among voters about his (Obama) background and readiness as well as ‘a clear break from the policies of President Bush’ for McCain are not likely to change, as the article states to this point, or up to the election, as this blog proposes.
If one possesses enough intelligence to be concerned about Barack Obama’s background and readiness there is little chance the candidate’s campaign staff can convince such a person to select him in the Presidential election with little more than a couple of months to go. And that same person is probably smart enough to know that no matter who is in the White House next time, completely abandoning anything that could be viewed as Bushesque policies is not likely to occur either, given the other players will still be in Washington. That means the faces may be different but the two parties will still be there.
If the candidates have missing items to present to the voting public, and they do, campaign strategies will not allow much of that in this election as with any other. All the money required to get someone elected is largely spent on ‘message’ that is carefully calculated and managed by people who are supposed to know how to get the job done. Getting their candidate elected is the task. That has little to do with being completely open and honest or using any other common practice considered political suicide. You will continue to get what the campaigns see as necessary to get there candidate elected. You have to do your own vetting to determine which candidate is best. For this blog’s money that would be Senator John McCain. Does he have flaws? Yes. But there are but two choices and McCain is the best choice.
If you thought President Bush was a cowboy, just imagine what an Obama White House would be like. Change for the sake of change and hope as a replacement for any substantive experience, leadership or proven ability is a poor choice for President. Especially when the candidate on the other side of the ballot has all that. Obama’s campaign staff push the ‘celebrity’ image, hope and change which is the tired old mantra of the Dems. There only argument against their opponent is that he is another Bush term. That is what you say when you have no experience with which to counter your opponent’s experience. Vote for McCain.fa
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Race Is In Holding Pattern For Now
But After the Games Come the Conventions
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 10, 2008; A06
August 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
As strongly as I agree with you about The Obamassiah (and I do, perhaps even going further in my *cough* lack of enthusiasm for the buffoon), the substance that Juan Mexicain demonstrates is almost (almost) utterly repugnant to me. If there were a viable third party candidate, I’d vote for him in a flash. All I can hope for is that the nascent repugnicant rebellion in Congress takes hold and those mealy-mouthed repugnicant congresscritters who’ve been as much of the problem as the dhimmicraps have been initiate some substantive change in government.
Because Juan Mexicain is just Billary Clintoon Lite with a patriotic frosting, and no matter how sweet the frosting, the cake’s pure poison (though not the really fast-acting communist-mooselimb sympathizer poison of The Obamassiah… a more slow-acting, “catch ‘em sleeping” socialist-lite, surrender the borders, adopt the dhimmicrappic social policies while pretending conservatism poison *sigh*) Juan Mexicain’s “conservatism” is that described by R.L. Dabney in the 19th century:
*feh* Juan Mexicain’s only useful purpose might be as a placeholder, driving the U.S. toward the precipice of its doom at a stately 55mph instead of the headlong 95mph (or more) desired by The Obamassiah and his ilk. What is needed instead are men of sturdy principle who will essay to turn this country from its rush to self-immolation on the pyre of multiculturalism, “blame America first,” and political laziness and geed. What we get is just more of the same old, same old from both wings of the Uniparty, with minor cosmetic differences presented as “playing to the middle” or “compromise” (as though the compromise of principles were a good thing).
I still, from time to time, militate for amendments to EVERY state’s constitution to include “None of the Above” as a choice for every elective office, and the provision that whenever NOTA receives a plurality of the vote, that ALL other candidates for that position be disqualified and a new ballot issued with new candidates for the position.
I’d probably vote NOTA for a decade or more to attempt cleaning out the political deadwood.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I can think of no candidate in my lifetime that was not flawed. It has always been a matter of picking the least damaging possibility. I was not completely sold on President Reagan, although, not unlike other Presidents, he did some amazing things. But he was not error free either.
That it is not uncommon for humans to remark on the sad state of the species, perhaps it is unfair to think we could choose leaders from some special pool of flawless or near flawless candidates
Two things on McCain I can state. His support of amnesty and statement of doing what he thinks is right for the country he loves regardless of public opinion. While this is a republic and not a true democracy, office holders are not obligated to do the public\’s bidding. We choose them to represent us as they see fit. Therefore the two items just mentioned are cause for concern. Whether or not a viable third party candidate (or 4th or 5th) would solve this problem is anyone\’s guess. But I suspect we would then only have more choices from which to pick the least damaging candidate.
Since my first choice, Mitt Romney, did not succeed and is not likely to accept VP if offered for hopes of running again in 2012, McCain is who I must support. And I hope Congress and public pressure can minimize or eliminate any poor choices he would make.
I am not concerned about his likely choices on national security including defense, foreign policy or even his stated weakness on economic matters. Social issues may be another matter. The public can influence government action when moved to do so. Again I refer to the public response to last year\’s amnesty attempt with the fool\’s caveat that it may have been political theatre banking on failure in the Senate. As ordinary citizens we need to become as shrewd as lobbyists on getting what we want without the massive funding.