I was a little worried tonight when I heard this Robocall from my own party:
"Hello, I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capital, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead this country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee."
So I dug around to see what John McCain himself thinks:
"I have to tell you he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States."
... and in the same rally:
"... No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on, on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."
... and in the brief serious moment of his Al Smith roast:
"I don't want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other, but I've had a few glimpses of this man at his best. And I admire his great skill, energy, and determination. It's not for nothing that he's inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond.
"Senator Obama talks about making history and he's made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance.
"I can't wish my opponent luck. But I do wish him well."
Hear, hear. I believe that's who you really are, John McCain, though I mourn the moments of weakness such as when you let your people use Robocalls like the above or when you or Palin follow those scriptwriters. It makes me lose respect for you and my own party. It makes me want to vote all the more for the other guy.
So I'm listening to you, John McCain, in your moments of honesty and honor. And I decry the attempts of losers to manipulate the feeble of mind because they have not been able to win on the merits.
I am not alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
And you don't think the Democrats are doing the same thing? Come on Ken, are the Republicans the only ones doing manipulative things. Can you spell ACORN? Of course the Obama campaign probably only has heard about them on Fox News.
I do believe that, given the opportunity and necessity, there are many depraved individuals in the Democratic party who would stoop to the same lows as some in the Republican party currently are. They have not needed to because they are ahead, so you won't hear me singing their praises, as if the Democratic party is somehow more righteous than the Republicans. Good grief, Hillary tried exactly the same tactics McCain is now and we know what success she had with them.
However, I don't think objectively that we can accuse Obama's campaign--and particularly Obama himself--of coming anywhere close to the underhanded smear campaign currently ramping up in the Republican party. They have mentioned Tony Resko, and I ignore those comments the same way I ignore mention of Ayers and ACORN.
The fact of the matter is, it is the Bush administration's justice department that is in trouble now for firing judges who did not pursue "voter fraud" the way they wanted them to. And it is the Republican administration who today illegally leaked that the justice department is investigating "voter fraud" again in connection with the Democratic party (a very serious illegality that calls into question the integrity of the Bush justice department... again).
In short, this is a pattern of the Republican machine that is already in trouble for its illegality, a standard technique they have used with success in the past and are trying to use again. Even the Bush led Supreme Court struck down their attempt to muck up Ohio's voter lists today.
Given what I consider to be the immense deceit of the Bush administration, Karl Rove, and its justice department, I smell more of the same in McCain and his campaign right now. I've seen longstanding Republicans decry it! Man, John Ashcroft got in trouble with the Bush administration because he wouldn't let them illegally do what they wanted to do.
I'm washing my hands of my own party until it's purged of this Nixon redivivus. The Obama campaign today has filed a brief calling for an independent counsel to investigate whether the Bush administration is illegally interfering with the elections.
I can spell ACORN... and I can smell the movement of 4 or 5% more of the undecideds moving in Obama's direction every time McCain or Palin tries to use it to smear Obama.
So now you are an apologist for Acorn and a defender of the virtuous Democratic Party. Are you really that naive to think that anyone running a national political campaign is not up to any dirty tricks behind the scene to smear or destroy the opposition. If not doing it themselves, unleashing their surrogants to do it for them.
You actually think Obama is so squeaky clean, virtuous and not a part of this kind of politics? Dude, he is a creation and part of the Chicago Political Machine. You can't get anymore corrupt than that in politics.
You need to stick with writing your lofty theological studies. When it comes to politics you sound very naive and an obvious product of the liberal MSM.
No, I am not a product of Rush Limbaugh. I am a creation of Glen Martin over 30 years ago. I guess like all other conservative institutions, there comes a time when it starts getting infiltrated with sympathizers from the left and I see evidence of that now.
Amazing, a United Methodist pastor more conservative than a Wesleyan elder!
By the way, this Christianity Today article indicates that about 30% of younger evangelicals and 25% of older ones are planning to vote for Obama or, on the other side, that 65% of younger evangelicals are voting for McCain and 70% of older ones.
See Craig, I get my information from more than just CNN and MSNBC. In fact, I took the video of McCain's roast of Obama from FOX.
:-)
I myself have not been pleased with either campaign's rhetoric. I am a Republican and the issues of abortion, homosexual relations, and the deficit are preeminent for me personally. We as a country have been on a profligate binge both by government and personally by Americans. We have been greedy. We were told to shop by the current administration and that we could have government services without paying for them. Who will pay for them? The next generations in my extended family. I don't like rough campaigning and believe that Obama and McCain will not call for sacrifice. I am a moderate opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since we borrow(at least partially from abroad) and don't seem to want to pay for them. This is the first war where there were no tax increases and no calls for sacrifice and where we were encouraged to spend(by shopping). I believe that both candidates will cause real harm financially to the United States. However, I will vote for McCain since I believe that divided government is the least worse alternative. I pray for each candidate to truly know Christ and for care for others both by churches and through increased taxes-decreasing taxation on all was a terrible legacy that began with Reagan and has continued with a vengenance with Bush. Pay for government services or cut spending. We now borrow and spend. What a terrible legacy. All of us must stay rooted in Christ and realize that Christ will come in His own time. We must do what we can for others and encourage civility in discourse.
John C. Gardner
Onalaska Wisconsin
I like what you say John about a divided government. I am hoping that the Democrats will not have a 60 seat majority in the Senate.
Ken.So Martin was wrong and you are right because you are more enlilghtened? That is a matter of opinion!
Here is it as simple as I can put it. You claim to be moderate, yet you support the most liberal member of the US Senate for president. Yea, McCain says he is a nice guy, he probably is. But he is also a socialist idealogue and that is not the change America needs to deal with the mess we are in. Your support of him kind of shoots down your "moderate" claims.
I am not a McCain partisan, I consider him a moderate. He will continue the policies of Bush I agree. We have 2 choices this year, bad and worse. I guess I will have to vote for bad and you will roll the dice and vote for worse.
I think this conversation is interesting, because politics is driven by ideology, and so is our worldview...no matter if it is labelled "bibilical" or not! All of us have to gauge the Scriptures by outside sources, UNLESS we want to hide our heads in the sand and think that there is something magical about the "book" (books)...
I just find that it is important to recognize that ideologies are just that and not demonize the other person on the other side...but so often the extremes of both sides demonize because they feel so convince that their side is right and all is lost unless their side wins...This is why I think it would be healthy for our political system to have a good dose of competition from a third (or fourth) party! But, that is not probable, as the ideologues are the ones that finance the parties money bags, which unfortunately have become "big business" in marketing schemes. Therefore, we see the demogoging of the "other side"...
I would be delighted to have a serious third party option, as I won't become a Democrat and am really irritated with my own party right now. But Craig wouldn't join my third party, nor would you (I'd call my third party the "Social Contract Party"). So we don't have a clear ideological third with enough power to make a go of it.
So, is you third party like the Communitarian approach, as you say that it is like a social contract party...?
The Democratic social gospel aspect, with the Republican individual free market choice?
Basically, in my mind it is a lot like the Constitution :-)
We who live here make a contract with each other, where each is free to pursue his or her own pursuits without hindrance from the government unless the exercise of our freedom impinges on the freedoms of others. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, it takes a lot of governance for that to happen, including government moderation of the economic system. We want as little government as possible, but the function of government is to police the contract, including the police and justice system that make sure the contract is kept on a local level.
Further, everyone here is a part of the contract and so the poor have to be addressed for the good of the whole as well as for their own good. This is not a matter of a handout or some redistribution of resources. It is a matter of empowerment for the good of everyone, including the poor themselves.
This approach gets to the root of the design of the American system and makes fall by the wayside some of the ideological tangents like "deregulation is always better" and "redistribution is fairness." Neither of these ideas follow from the fundamental social contract.
Love the idea about a social contract. Individual liberty is an ideal we can try to preserve, but it's extremely individualistic of us to assume our actions only or even mostly affect ourselves in isolation from community, ecology, etc. This is the libertarian ideology I was brainwashed with in IWU economics classes, which is why I voted Badnarik in 2004. Great in theory...
Emerging voters are still in formation. Don't give up Craig, there's always 2012 :) Our politics are swinging as wildly as the Dow.
One way to make third parties viable is to change the voting system. Under the current system in most places, many people don't vote for third parties because it would be wasted vote, and it's a wasted vote because people don't vote for third parties. But under approval voting things are different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
Imagine back in 2000 that you wanted to vote for Nader but settled for Gore. Or for some strange reason you liked Pat Buchanan but voted for Bush instead. Now, consider how things might be different if you could vote for Nader AND for Gore.. Or Buchanan AND Bush Get it? You vote for all the candidates that you like. Whoever gets the most votes wins, and the totals would add up to more than 100%. This method also eliminates the need for runoff elections.
Are you a Libertarian this year but strongly prefer McCain to Obama? No problem; vote for Barr and McCain.
Surely there would be a lot more support for alternate parties this way and they would become stronger, get more attention, and then more support. It would be better for the voters because each of the two main parties would have to do more than just badmouth the other. It would force them to convince people to vote FOR them instead of just vote AGAINST the only real challenger. Just like in the marketplace, more choice means more competition.
Maybe such a system would give rise to a true centrist party in the USA. So what do you say? Do you want to start a movement?
Sounds interesting... put me on your mailing list :-)
Post a Comment