Tuesday, November 25, 2008
|
|
The Worst Offense Is No Offense
|
|
Posted by:
Carol Platt Liebau at
10:10 PM
|
Last night, I posted on the terrible impact on the GOP of President Bush's decision not to defend himself against vicious, often untrue criticism.
Tonight, it's John McCain's turn. Here is a story from TIME magazine, detailing all the perfectly legitimate critical ads John McCain could have run against Barack Obama -- and didn't.
I don't fault McCain for the many policy differences I have with him. He's the guy the Republicans chose to run, I'm a Republican, and that's that. What I do fault him for is accepting the nomination and then not using every legitimate means to win.
The ads comparing McCain and Obama, mocking Obama's celebrity and the like were perfectly fair game. So, for that matter, was the one contrasting McCain's term in the Hanoi Hilton with the President-elect's willingness to sit and listen to anti-American vituperation be spouted from the pulpit for twenty years. But McCain took it all off the table, lest he be called a racist. And then, guess what? He was called a racist anyway.
It seems pretty obvious that John McCain was afraid of going down in history as the guy who prevented the first African-American major party nominee from being elected on account of what the Obama-adoring press would have inevitably described as "dirty tricks" (even if they hadn't been). So he pulled his punches and lost.
Well, that's fine for him, not so great for the rest of us. If he had felt that he couldn't -- or wouldn't -- run the most vigorous campaign against Barack Obama that he could, consistent with law and ethics, then he should have said so before he accepted the nomination. It's wrong to ask to go to the playoffs and then decide, in some sense, to forfeit the game (or at least several touchdowns).
McCain's reluctance to impede Obama's progress to The White House probably has a generational aspect -- in some sense, it may well be the result of remembering a time when African Americans were treated shamefully. Note that the 44 year old Sarah Palin -- who was born the year the Civil Rights Act was passed -- didn't feel the need to pull her punches.
And at least that's progress -- because, believe me, Barack Obama is (and was) formidable enough to be fully capable of winning without McCain's self-imposed constraints.
|
|
The tone of your last post was just mean. Though you meant it as a 'dig', I have no problem with showing Aristole to be correct:
"Aristotle says that emotions skew judgement; you've proven him right."
It seems (correct me if I am wrong) that you view that to be a bad thing. I see it as good. Sometimes our judgments need to skewed in able to do the RIGHT thing. |
|
I can see that you haven't thought about human nature all that much. It appears that the word "greed" evokes such a negative image with you that it's inconceivable that it's part of the human condition. Aristotle says that emotions skew judgement; you've proven him right.
As well, you're willfull ignorance of the cause of the financial crisis is revealing. Your last comment suggests to me that you didn't bother to watch the videos which I linked.
Republicans tried to regulate Fannie Mae at least seven times in the last eight years. McCain signed on as a co-sponsor of S190 in 2005. S190 never made it to the floor because of a threatened filibuster by Democrats.
Watch the videos. The Democrats in those videos prove that you are in good company when it comes to exposing the wisdom of Aristotle.
|
|
The current financial crisis is due to greed and deregulation. McCain was part of that deregulation. Democrats and Republican were part of that greed. Greed IS evil. It isn't "just is". It only exists when good people do nothing. (as most everything evil)
|
|
The only blame that can be placed on the GOP is their cowardly fear of being called "racists" if they seek to reign in Fannie Mae. I can't imagine what the socialists would have called Republicans if they'd sought to eliminate the program altogether, which is what I think should be done. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ought never exist in a free society.
Watch both videos in their entirety. The current financial crisis is the failure of socialism...again. Socialists are the greatest profiteers when government wields its iron fist. Raines, Johnson, Gorelick, Mudd gang raped Fannie Mae and walked away with tens of millions. All Democrats.
RE: greed. It isn't "warm and fuzzy" nor is it evil. It just is.
You say you've survived without greed, how? Did you inherit wealth? You got a magic lamp?
Or do you work for your survival? |
|
I never suggested the democrats were innocent in all of this. I AM saying that republicans are as much to blame. And it was John McCain that was the nominee for the party.
check out this video:
http://therealmccain.com/economy
You are right, greed is a human condition. I don't categorize it as the warm and fuzzy you do (frankly, I have been able to feed, clothe and shelter my family without greed).
The bottom line is greed was the motive and deregulation was the opportunity that got us into this financial crisis. Sounds like Keating economics to me. |
|
When was the last time any Republican leader espoused conservatism?
Last time I can think of is about a decade ago when the GOP took the House for the first time in 40 years. That ended as soon as Hastert took the gavel from Gingrich. Now, it is the Democrats whom voters believe to have picked up the conservative torch.
You'd have better luck tying Republicans to conservatives over at Daily Kos, WaPo, NYT, or MSNBC. |
|
Food and shelter isn't a want, it is a need. Overcoming food and shelter equals death by starvation or death by exposure.
A starving man will risk his life to keep from starving to death. Self-preservation = greed.
Also, don't confound society with government, and don't confound conservatism with anarchy. |
|
If McCain had only...we would have won.
You guys just don't get it. Try as you may to convince yourselves that it was the messenger at fault, the central problem is the conservative message that government is the problem. In times of crisis, it is to the government that the public looks to for solutions. |
|
You are half right. Greed is certainly human nature but it is not universal. Some people succumb to it, some people control it, and some people overcome it completely.
I also would not call greed the driving force behind wanting food, shelter, and clothing. There is a difference between greed for power, money, and luxury and the desire for the things you absolutely need to survive.
Killing is "natural" in the animal kingdom and even in human society yet we make laws against it. Why do we do that if killing is natural? I don't think government has anything to do with what is natural or unnatural. An entirely socialist society would not work just as an entirely capitalist society would not work. We need elements of both to survive. The key to all life is balance.
Luckily, nobody is proposing an entirely socialist society so it's a moot point to bring up socialism anyway. You're confusing total socialism with Obama's, and many many Americans, desire to make sure people have adequate food, shelter, health care, and educational opportunities. You take what he says and only see it in extreme terms. The world is not black and white. |
|
Greed is a human condition. It keeps food in one's mouth, clothes on one's back, and a roof over one's head.
Socialism is unnatural as it must be forced by the coercive hand of government. |
|
"If Obama had an R next to his name, chances are he would have had Republican views on things and we've seen what Republicans can do to a country when there are no checks on their power."
Wrong. Obama could have been true to himself and run as the radical leftist he is rather than who Axelrod protrayed him to be, but had he put an "R" behind his name no liberal would have voted for him.
The GOP brand is tarnished among libs for the usual reasons, but the GOP is also despised by conservatives because they spent money like Democrats, they increased the size of the Fed govt, and they tried to cram amnesty down our throats. GOP fundraising reflected this prior to '06, then really took a hit after the amnesty fiasco. The base was never behind McCain or the GOP.
"there must be an awful lot of socialists in the country if everyone who voted for him is a socialist."
I was refering to Jane specifically. There are actually four types of BO voters: socialists, blacks, the ignorant, and the stupid. Oftentimes they overlap, sometimes they are mutually exclusive. |
|
Nice try. Save it for HuffPo where they might believe it.
Here's the genesis of the financial collapse,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64
Here's the coverup,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8&feature=related |
|
Read your Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. The only thing that differentiates government from any other institution in a free society is the legitimate ability to coerce compliance. There is an inverse relationship between government control and individual liberty. This is the case even in a "democratic" form of govt (See Fed. 10, "violence of faction" = "mob rule). The Constitution and the Bill of Rights established a government while at the same time maximizing individual liberty.
Socialism is anathema to minimalist government and individual liberty. Therefore socialism is anathema to the promise of America. To put it more bluntly, those who look to the coercive power of government to solve every perceived societal ill, ie. socialists, DO hate America.
Also, Black Liberation Theology is racist. Not only overtly racist against whites, but more insidiously: against blacks by perpetuating a plantation mentality.
PS: I'll bet 99% of your messiah's voters have never heard of Tony Rezko, 99% couldn't pick out Ayres in a police line-up, 99% don't know that Fannie Mae's gang rapists are The One's advisors, 99.7% have never heard of Frank Marshall Davis, 90% don't know about BO's defense of killing babies born alive despite abortion attempts,...
The media, from news outlets to sitcoms, were completely in the tank for BO. Face it, no Republican could have the background and "experience" of your race-hustling messiah and still be considered a viable candidate...ever. Heck, if a Republican had written a book like Dreams From My Father, s/he'd not even qualify for dog catcher. |
|
If Obama had an R next to his name, chances are he would have had Republican views on things and we've seen what Republicans can do to a country when there are no checks on their power. We not only voted for Obama, we voted against Republican ideology. It's so easy to narrow things down and say that we all voted for Obama because there was a D next to his name but that's a pretty naive line of thinking. I could just as easily say the same thing about you and it would most likely be incorrect. If you're posting on here, you're probably paying attention to what's going on in the country and your vote was based on your opinions of the positions of the candidates on the issues.
But I guess it's easier to just make the argument that all Obama voters are mindless because it makes arguing for a failed ideology that much easier.
And gee, there must be an awful lot of socialists in the country if everyone who voted for him is a socialist. I guess that would make socialism the majority view. I had no idea I was a socialist but thanks for clearing that up for me. See you at the commune! |
|
Hey Plumber....would your criminal prosecution include McCain?
“I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.” [CNN, 7/13/03] - McCain
Since, in his own words, he relied heavily on Phil Gramm for economic advice...The same Phil Gramm that wrote the Gramm-Bliley bill, which deregulated the banking industry and laid the groundwork for the current financial industry crisis, would he too be part of that criminal prosecution?
I don't think Sarah would be too happy about 'no criminal investigation' unless they were.
Nice try. Greed thrives in deregulation. |
|
You didn't vote against McCain/Palin, you voted for Obama. You're a socialist, he's a socialist. In fact, you've never voted for a Republican in your life. If your messiah had an (R) behind his name, you'd have likened him to Uncle Tom and Hitler all rolled up in one.
Your comments are better suited for Kos or HuffPo. |
|
"They weren't used, and now we have an America-hating racist for president."
Sigh. You act like every sermon ever given by Wright was about hating America. Have you actually listened to any of them other than the snippets played by anti-Obama media people? Do you have any idea how many sermons he has given over the many years that he was a pastor at the church? His sermons were never about hating America and saying that Obama hates America is really just plain absurd. |
|
What things did McCain not run that he should have that weren't small potato's like the constant spattering of Ayers, Wright, and Rezko? He tried consistently to paint Obama as a socialist who was going to raise all our taxes. That message was well heard all over the place, liberal Obama loving media be damned, and it didn't work. He repeatedly, along with most Republican mouthpieces, brought up the spectre of past associations with Ayers, Rezko, and Wright and once again, liberal Obama loving media be damned, it didn't work. He very visibly declared that ACORN was destroying the fabric of our democracy, along with Republican mouthpieces, and yet again, it didn't work. None of those stories were unavailable or not reported on. I saw numerous stories about all of them. Sean Hannity's show became nothing more than him repeating those names everyday as often as possible. In fact, he still is because someone forgot to tell him that the election already happened and a majority of Americans didn't feel those were worthy enough reasons not to vote for Obama. Of course, Sean Hannity is what I like to call, a Republikook.
It's fair to say the media, excluding FOXnews and conservative talk radio who did the same thing for McCain, tilted towards Obama. But it's absolutely absurd to think that people were not aware of the issue's brought up by McCain as reasons not to vote for Obama. The problem was, the things he did bring up were stupid. He tried winning the election based on the GOP strategy of character assassination. It worked for Bush both times but people finally caught on. |
|
I voted for Obama because
1. McCain was the Nom. Why have D-lite when you can have the real thing?
2. Palin. No way was I voting for someone so dumb and so in the back pocket of the religious right. |
|
If you listened to any of the debates, you will know that McCain's problem wasn't that he wasn't
mean enough against the leftist illuminati. He could have done it differently (as he could have done a lot of things) and much more effectively. |
|
The media was so "in the tank" for the Oblabama that nothing, nothing would have changed their coverage. Which is why the media contintues to lose money and downsize, and is now considered by all people to be the "old media". Sort of comical now that many in the media are saying.."boy, the media really leans to the left". Its like an alcoholic saying....."man..look at all those alcoholics!"
The questions that McCain should have raised were and are legitimate questions. Past Associations, Past Actions, Past Votes. All Fair Game. BUT......those questions would have never been portrayed by the Old Media as "legitimate". Those questions would have been presented by the Old Media as "dirty attacks".
So in 2008.....any attack on the big D'oh! was a dirty trick.
Any attack on McCain and Palin was premised as "investigative reporting"
Unfortunately this election, |
|
You forgot one thing for to be thankful: no criminal prosecutions for those responsibe for the current financial crisis,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8&feature=related
|
|
McCain was a terrible candidate who did not present himself well, was not articulate, looked old and out of touch compared to the opponent.
When he restricted the criticism of Obama his candidacy was doomed. Palin added a greatly needed spark but then he restricted her as well.
I worry about how we Conservatives will regain our oomph. We need young vibrant candidates who present themselves and their ideals excellently.
Of our past candidates only Reagan did a great job of presenting himself and his ideas well. Both Bush's were good, honest men but lacked communication skills.Dole was a younger McCain!
Nixon had good ideas but his dark side overtook him and Watergate doomed him.
We need to begin now preparing for the opportunity true Conservatism presents in 2010 and beyond.
J F Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton all presented themselves excellently and became well-liked buy the people.
If we are to return in 2010 we Conservatives had better take a good look at potential candidates and demand that they uphold Conservative Principles, are articulate and pleasant. We can no longer make excuses for verbal blunders while our opponents present candidates who only have the ability to present themselves well and have few ideas themselves. |
|
Barack Obama will be our 44th president. John McCain will not.
Joe Biden will be our next vice president. Sarah Palin will not.
This will be George W. Bush's last Thanksgiving as president
Dick Cheney will leave Washington 100% disgraced
-
Howard Dean's vision
Those Democrats in Congress who fight for us
Purple states
Michelle Obama's class
Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart, Colbert
Senators-elect Mark Warner, Mark Begich, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Udall, Kay Hagan, Jeff Merkley, Mark Udall and, hopefully, Al Franken and Jim Martin
Ted Stevens in leg irons
The new Democratic Congressmembers who aren’t blue dogs
The ongoing Republican implosion
That our next president will speak in complete sentences
NASA devices that turn urine into single malt scotch
-
That I'm not traveling for Thanksgiving
Righty blogs, an endless source of amusement (bless their hearts)
-
Evolution
Universal health care
Electric cars
Bullet trains
Public works projects
Stem cell research
The expectation that habeas corpus will be reinstated
"Yes We Can"
-
AIG and Citigroup (Just kidding)
Our soldiers over here and over there
The coming repeal of 'Don’t Ask, Don't Tell'
The possible repeal of Proposition 8
Not hearing "My friends" or "Maverick" anymore.
The wondrous healing powers of Unity 08
That magic moment at 6am when the rum crosses the blood-brain barrier
Have a safe and happy Turkey Day tomorrow. |
|
Re: populism
Actually, Bush II suffered the same problem as his dad: not populist enough. McCain similarly is an out-of-touch elitist who had to hide behind a plumber (and Palin's skirt) just to keep the election close.
From my POV, conservatism IS populist.
|
|
Carol forgot Fannie Mae. A ripe, low-hanging plumb that could have won the election for McCain had he used it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8&feature=related
OMT, "negative" campaign ads (aka: telling the truth about Democrats) are not intended to win votes, they are intended to depress turnout. They are effective when used. They weren't used, and now we have an America-hating racist for president. |
|
|
I don't think more 'attack' ads would have won the election for McCain. Most people got really tired of them from both sides. Sort of tuned them out. This was shown in the debates. Every time either candidate started to go negative towards the others, the viewer responses went down. The answer is not more attack ads, the answer is none at all. I think it would not only be more refreshing, but more informative if candidates were NOT allowed to even mention the opposition. Just state THEIR OWN position on issues. I don't want to hear THEIR take on the other guy, I want to know their take on THEMSELVES. |
|
|
Amnesty is coming back, with McCain leading the charge for Obama. McCain either knows he lost because of amnesty and this is payback or he's still clueless that the citizens do not wish to abandon the rule of law and American sovereignty. |
|
"He's the guy the Republicans chose to run, I'm a Republican, and that's that."
No, that isn't "that". You should have held to your guns like the rest of us real conservatives did. There was NO WAY McShame was going to win. Why cover for the D-lite candidate at all? I left the republican party long ago, during Shamnesty. You know why? Because "that" isnt good enough. |
|
We fight for what we know has value. It is difficult to observe one that we respect take blows and not return them immediately.
This generational reluctance of McCain to call Obama out on his associations may also have have included the outcome of his POW experience and his prior training as a Naval Officer.
In the service one develops the ability to compete without haranguing the challenger. You out do them.
A POW also comes home with all the introspection time that their captivity has imposed. It may be that following his captivity, Sen. McCain believes one takes the high road above all.
For us, it was painful to view the lost opportunities to keelhaul Sen. Obama that went the way of Sen. McCain's manners.
When Fred Cherry, another Vietnam POW veteran, returned home to find his accumulated pay squandered by a dissolute and long gone spouse, he was asked if the Government that had not protected his pay would be doing the right thing now upon his return.
Col. Cherry responded with a smile and said, "I believe they will."
Col. Cherry many years later when speaking of his captivity and how it had shaped his world view stated he had, “learned to take nothing for granted and give everyone an honest shake.”
We cannot under analyze the impact of the POW incarceration on the development of an American Military Officer.
No rancor, no recriminations. The Officer had made his way home.
|
|
referring to the term "white guilt"......
it was prevalent amongst older white voters.....
the young white voters just thought they were voting on "American Idol 2008"...... |
|
|
|