Why John McCain
Trust, Judgment and Moderacy
These three things sum up why I will vote for McCain rather than Obama.
The top ten issues which I believe supports these 3 major categories are as follows:
1) McCain will likely appoint judges to the Supreme Court and other circuit courts who will adhere more closely to a stricter interpretation of the constitution and less likely to legislate from the bench as we have seen elsewhere.
2) McCain understands the threat of Islamic terrorism and I believe his plan is not one of appeasement, withdraw and retreat, and his views on how to confront it more closely align with mine.
3) McCain supports a strong military and is not willing to cut spending in this vital area. He understands that military strength is the greatest asset the USA has to combat those who want us dead. You cannot appease, bargain or negotiate with radical terrorists who view us as infidels.
4) McCain believes in smaller government and lower taxes. He believes as I do that lowering corporate taxes is by far the best economic stimulus and job creating program and he does not believe in redistributing the wealth. Our tax system is flawed, but McCain does not believe that taking from the rich and giving to people who pay no taxes is prudent. Giving tax breaks to corporations who already pay huge sums is not "giving them money" as so many on the left like to say. It is allowing these companies to keep more of their earnings which in turns allows them to invest more and create more job opportunities.
5) McCain is a strong pro-life, anti-abortion candidate with a record to prove it; in comparison to Obama who is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to run for the presidency
6) McCain has a very strong record on opposing anti-gun legislation unlike Obama and will represent my views better on this topic
7) McCain will appoint people to the nearly 3000 positions in the government who much more closely line up with the conservative small government approach that I believe in.
8) McCain has much more experience in all foreign policies and he does not believe we ever need permission from United Nations to do whatever is necessary to protect our country or our Allies. He understands the role of the president is first and foremost to protect the country. I am not confident that Obama has this same belief. Obama seems more concerned about how the USA is perceived by other nations and based on his record within his own party, I am really afraid he would sacrifice our safety when difficult decisions arose where he may have to make a unilateral decision not in sync with the United Nations.
9) McCain has shown good judgment in the company he has kept over the years and has not had to continuously make excuses or distance himself from his friends because of their radical statements, ideas, and beliefs. Obama’s choices in these matters worry me greatly and should worry everyone else. People align themselves most commonly with others with similar beliefs and viewpoints. Obama’s choices of friends and colleagues demonstrate his poor judgment. And in addition, Obama has lied about relationships and votes he has made until they were brought to the forefront. I believe McCain is trustworthy and Obama is not.
10) McCain has a record of standing against his own party even when unpopular for what he believes is right. Obama’s record is one of voting along Democratic Party lines with little evidence of ever being able to stand up against his own party. When the topic is really controversial, Obama has a pattern of voting "present". McCain shows leadership whereas Obama shows appeasment and conflict avoidance.
Is McCain perfect; no
Would he have been my first choice; no
But when you functionally have a 2-party system, you have to choose the one that best represents your positions. This year, John McCain best represents my three key issues.
TRUST, JUDGMENT and MODERACY
posted by Anonymous at 5:40 AM
19 Comments:
Just this final comment.
I haven't undertaken an accounting, but given he whole of HB's "informercials" the past few weeks, I'd reckon the score to be 20 anti-Obama for every 1 pro-McCain, which aptly reflects the reasoning (and I use that term loosely) of the Republican campaign in general to date.
Fair enough. That's really all the GOP has had.
HB's sole pro-McCain posting reiterates that HB's criteria for voting "for" have to do entirely with favoring the candidate whose future actions will best favor Christian fundamentalist theocratic extremism. One -- count it -- one of the ten reasons "for" McCain has to do with the economy ... during a national and world financial crisis, and when all sorts of folks are looking for answers to pocketbook issues.
Sadly, this reflects McCain's slanted economic aptitude, too.
To Jake: I spent the weekend posting my reasons for favoring Obama. Today there is an endorsement from "The Economist," which arguably is the leat socialist, atheist and "weak" military newspaper there is, period.
At this point, it doesn't matter, but as promised, I've provided abundant reasons apart from religious identification to make a presidential vote. When it comes to religion, I'm pro-choice. That's what America was intended to be. And, like you, I vote my values.
Now, get out and vote, y'all. It's been fun.
HB,
This is probably the most rational and decent post that you have put out on the Presidential race. My compliments.
Not that I agree with most of your conclusions, mind you. I know that's a surprise.(grin)
Mark
How can you trust the judgment of a candidate who selected Gov. Palin as his running mate, reportedly with essentially no vetting? She is the fool who mocked federal spending on fruit fly research, in a major speech on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Palin has more experience than Obama and she is at the #2 slot.
Obama has little to no experience running anything and is at the #1 slot.
I'd seriously re-think that argument.
Obama gets a pass because he is a male. Sad times coming
My initial thought regarding the topic de jour is that ANYONE who would respect, honor and follow the US Constitution would be miles ahead of the current administration, that's for sure. The Bush administration has shamefully tramped over the Constitution like never before to move its own agenda forward, and regardless of one's party preference, its been a shameful time in this regard.
If John McCain wins, I fear he will do so because of Obama’s perceived character as demonstrated by the Republican attacks on his prior associations and as colored by Barack Obama’s color. While I understand the ‘win at all costs’ philosophy in politics, and don’t necessarily fault John McCain for it, I find McCain’s resort to this ‘guilt by association’ philosophy to win the election to be troubling in its hypocrisy. It’s like John McCain supporting torture. After all, it was the ‘guilt by association’ game, and perhaps a great deal more, that very nearly brought John McCain’s political career to its knees during the Savings & Loan crisis and Keating Five investigations of the late 1980’s, a subject that very few electorate will consider when they caste their vote.
Given that the current banking crisis and ‘past association’ game has become the name of the game in this election, why is it that John McCain may be days from being elected President, and yet, McCain’s notorious involvement in the banking crisis of the 80’s, and his close association with Charles Keating, Jr., a convicted banking chairman, gets little note from either the ‘liberal press’ or even Barack Obama? After all, Keating served 4 ½ years in prison after being convicted in both state and federal courts of multiple counts of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy, not a minor thing. Moreover, unlike Obama, McCain was closely associated with Keating while Keating was actively involved in his criminal activities, looting his bank and his investors, and moreover, McCain was accused, along with the rest of the Keating Five, of conspiring to halt a government takeover of Keating’s bank that would have spared 23,000 bank customers of losing their life savings. This was a major scandal about which John McCain, at the very least, exercised very poor judgment, and indeed has admitted doing so. Why has McCain been given a free pass with regard to this scandalous political and economic affair that almost ended his political career, especially when you consider the relevance of the subject (e.g., a deregulatory fervor that caused a massive, cascading S&L collapse in the late 80’s)? Moreover, why is it that John McCain’s known instances of personal ‘affairs’ (e.g., adulteries) have gone unnoted, while in comparison, every past association of Barack Obama’s has been thoroughly scrutinized and referenced ad nasuem?
I think the answer is obvious: because Barack Obama is a black man and John McCain is a War Hero. John McCain knows that, because of Obama’s race, the ‘past association’ game will resonate with the American voter. In comparison, Barack Obama knows that because of McCain’s decorated past, his use of the past association game, or marital infidelity game, against McCain’s War Hero status would likely backfire. Some might say that John McCain’s War Hero status has gotten him more than one pass, and is getting him another one now. However, if Obama could vet John McCain on his past, here is what would be available to him:
The Keating Five
John McCain was a member of what was called “The Keating Five”, who were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators included two (2) esteemed national heroes, John McCain and John Glenn, as well as three (3) other senators, namely, Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini and Donald Riegle.
Charles Keating, Jr. was a wealthy developer and the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory banking investigation in the 80’s. The five (5) senators comprising the Keating Five had each received substantial political contributions from Keating, and moreover, John McCain’s relationship with Keating went beyond political contribution. Keating threw fund raisers for John McCain (sound familiar), flew McCain and his family around the country in his private jets, provided McCain with many private vacations at Keating’s vast, palatial spa in the Bahamas, and even made a “sweet shopping-center investment deal for (John McCain’s) wife, Cindy”, a remarkably brazen conflict of interest that McCain claimed he knew nothing about. (Tom Fitzpatrick, Phoenix New Times, November 29, 1989).
In part, the Keating Five was alleged to have improperly intervened in 1987 to halt a government takeover of Keating’s bank in connection with the regulatory investigation of improprieties. After two (2) years of delay with respect to a governmental takeover, during which Keating and his bank continued to loot the bank’s assets, Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989. As a result, 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, many elderly investors lost their life savings and the federal government lost over $3 billion. Keating served 4 ½ years in prison after being convicted in both state and federal courts of multiple counts of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy.
During a Senate Ethics Committee investigation of the Keating Five, John McCain maintained that an accounting firm hired by Keating told him that Lincoln was sound, that he was unaware of the shopping center investment in which his wife and Keating were involved, and that any actions taken by him on Keating’s behalf were consistent with his obligation to his Arizona constituents, as Keating was one of the biggest employers in his State. In 1991, after a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined that three of the Keating Five had acted improperly. Senator McCain (the War Hero) and Senator Glenn (the astronaut) got a pass, but both were roundly criticized for having exercised "poor judgment". Some have speculated that Senators McCain and Glenn received a pass because the Senate, and the Country, did not want to lose its heroes. Moreover, there was also speculation that McCain had gotten off on a technicality, because he was a House of Representatives member during his part of the affair, and the House couldn’t prosecute him because he had moved to the Senate, and the Senate couldn’t prosecute him for his actions in the House.
The Affairs
If Barack Obama could talk about John McCain’s personal history, he’d say that for a guy campaigning on family values, John McCain’s marital past is as ironic as Charles Keating’s founding of several decency organizations in the 1970’s (Keating headed several religious, anti-pornography organizations against, for instance, the owner of Hustler Magazine). When John McCain met his first wife (a swimsuit model), she was reportedly married to McCain’s naval academy classmate (is this true?). After he arguably broke that marriage up and married his naval academy classmate’s former wife, his now wife stuck by him loyally as he went off to war and was a prisoner for 5 ½ years. When he returned to America, he had a series of affairs, by his own admission, and dumped his wife and adopted family for a younger, very rich blonde (e.g., Cindy McCain). This is what I’ve read.
Is McCain’s admitted adulterous history a thing of the past and no longer relevant to the issue of character that he has interjected into the election? An article on the internet reports that in February 2008, the New York Times ran a big article about the unusually close relationship between McCain and a young telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. According to the article, they became so close that his staff, convinced they were having an affair, confronted both McCain and Iseman, telling them to back off. According to the article, it’s a matter of record that he accepted money and favors from her, spent a lot of time for her, and did favors for her telecommunications clients. According to the article, McCain wrote two letters -- from a draft provided by Vicki Iseman -- to the head of the FCC -- which it says was way out of line, since McCain headed the Senate Commerce Committee which controls the FCC. According to the article, McCain’s pressure was so outrageous that, even though McCain was in charge of funding his commission, the FCC commissioner wrote a letter back rebuking him for his interference, at the height of McCain’s "ethics in government" campaign. Again, according to the article, the point is not whether John McCain was sleeping with Iseman, hoping to sleep with her, being subconsciously manipulated by a cute young woman, or even violating ethical rules. Rather, the stated point was that, at 64 years of age, he was still being led by his groin rather than his conscience.
Cindy McCain
If Barack Obama could talk about the woman that McCain chose to marry, as others have talked extensively about the woman that Obama married, they would say that this daughter of a wealthy Budweiser beer distributor became addicted to prescription narcotics and even stole federally controlled drug substances from a medical charity that she ran in the 90’s, that ran her into trouble with the law. Reportedly, a whistleblower from her staff said that John McCain and his senate staffers helped Cindy smuggle her illegal prescription drugs in and out of the Country during overseas trips by getting her a diplomatic passport, which prevented customs officials from searching her bags, despite that she has never been a diplomat to my knowledge. An employee of her charity, Tom Gosinski, filed suit against Cindy McCain, alleging that he was fired from the charity after expressing concerns about her addiction and habit of writing prescriptions in other people's names to get drugs. None of this got much of a report in the ‘liberal media’, at least not now, despite that Cindy McCain faced 20 years in prison for obtaining "a controlled substance by misrepresenting, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge." Arguably as a result of having a very wealthy father, high-priced lawyer and Senator for a husband, she got the lightest possible punishment -- charges were dismissed in return for her entering drug rehabilitation. Arguably, any regular individual who had written fraudulent prescriptions and stolen narcotics from a charity they founded would have received a prison term. Reportedly, her doctor, for one, lost his license and never practiced again.
What is the conclusion?
Do I believe all this crap is truly the difference maker in the election? No. I even think that John McCain could make a fine President if elected. At least, I hope so. But when you consider that an Obama loss will probably be on the issue of character, past association and race (directly or indirectly), I think McCain’s attacks on the issue of character are brazen. Forget about McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five S&L scandal, and forget about his current wife’s drug abuse history. Maybe we should give him kudos for expressing remorse over this past conduct, but ultimately, HB and others, what do you think of a person’s character when you hear that they have been involved in extra-marital affairs?
Maybe Barack Obama is the ‘flaming liberal’ he is said to be, and maybe being a ‘flaming liberal’ will be bad for this Country. I know one thing. Having a ‘flaming conservative’ in the White House over the past eight (8) years has not been particularly good for this Country. And I believe another. Barack Obama’s character appears every bit as good, or bad, as John McCain’s.
I think we should all say a special prayer that race does not affect this race. Ultimately, it’s about being different. I fundamentally believe that ‘all men are created equal’, that we should strive to resist the temptation, in all things, to view those that are different as somehow lesser. What a novel idea. If Barack Obama loses this election because he is an African American, what does that say about our Country? Is not this notion of equality at the foundation for which we stand?
Truth is, if anybody deserves to be labeled superior in this race for the Presidency, it is probably Barack Obama. Without a doubt, the spotlight on John McCain arose from his status as the child and grandchild of two (2) United States Navy Admirals, in combination with his imprisonment in Vietnam, which gave him a War Hero shield of invincibility. But before returning a national hero from Vietnam, it is my understanding that he was an underachiever at the Naval Academy, a heavy partier and labeled as reckless as a Navy pilot, and after returning home, he was by his own admission an adulterer.
In contrast to John McCain’s undoubted ‘royalty’ treatment as the son and grandson of two (2) United States Admirals, Barack Obama had no father for all practical purposes. Far from ‘royalty’ status, Barack was the product of an interracial marriage between two (2) young college students, and subsequently, the product of a broken home and minimal financial means in his upbringing. Though his mother was undoubtedly a major positive influence in his life, his grandparents helped raise him too, and his mother died young. Despite these minimalistic circumstances, Barack Obama graduated from an esteemed college, Columbia University, in 1983, and after working for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in poor Chicago neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment, he attended and graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude in 1991, where he was the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review. In an article written by Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard, a well known Republican partisan, he suggests that Barack was unusually well liked and admired at Harvard, and no one to my knowledge has suggested otherwise.
While attending class, Barack met and married his current and only wife. Notably, unlike John McCain, there is not the slightest hint that Barack has been anything but an ideal husband and father and role-model of family values.
In summary, we have two (2) Presidential candidates with remarkably different backgrounds. Arguably, John McCain was ‘handed’ his fame, his celebrity and his wealth. While I hate to say ‘handed’ when you consider the torture he endured as a prisoner of war, you ultimately don’t earn your status as a prisoner of war (again I hate to frame it in those words), or as the offspring of national heroes, or as a wealthy person when marrying into great wealth. It is something that happened to John McCain, though it likely made him stronger. And arguably, much of the fame, celebrity and wealth that catapulted John McCain into the national spotlight and launched his political career were handed to John McCain. When you consider the unearned factors that fueled John McCain’s rise, in spite of 1) his early underachievement at the Naval Academy; 2) his early uninspired naval service before becoming a prisoner of war; and 3) his youthful marital indiscretions, it’s a familiar political story on the Washington scene. Indeed, our current President wasn’t exactly an early achiever in most respects despite being born into ‘royalty’. And if Hillary Clinton had obtained the nomination, we might be saying much of the same (e.g., wife of a President who achieves political office as a result).
In contrast, the foundation of Barack Obama’s celebrity and fame, despite tremendous obstacles, was entirely earned. He was an unparalleled, world class academic overachiever. He achieved an early level of status, celebrity and wealth from his quite impressive academic achievements, in combination with his community service exploits, in combination with his literary authorships. Despite the grueling routine that must have been required in his accomplishments, he has been by all accounts an ideal husband and father as well.
When you consider the remarkably underprivileged childhood of Barack Obama against John McCain’s royalty status as the offspring of two (2) United States Admirals and after returning to a heroes’ welcome from Vietnam, calling Barack Obama an ‘elitist’ seems strange. If Barack Obama gives off an air of elitism, it’s probably because he earned every bit of it. Yet, I think the air that may come from Barack Obama springs from the fact that he is a considered, analytical intellectual and scholar.
In the United States, a significant common complaint among the electorate is that only the privileged few have any real opportunity to achieve the highest office. Barack Obama was never one of the privileged few. Now our Country has the opportunity to resolve that complaint. We have the opportunity to elect a person to the highest office who, though short on political experience and privileged beginnings, ranks among the top in this nation with a rare combination of intellect, charisma, and overachievement, in spite of all the odds. It is for these reasons that I will caste my vote for Obama.
Sorry to hijack your blog, HB. After months of reading and rolling my eyes, I need to speak up, if just once on this topic.
My offer for a post election beer on Wednesday still stands...winner buys?
Lawguy, you left out the part about Obama not believing in the "correct" God.
Dear Anonymous of 8:48 AM: Obama has a lot of experience running a presidential campaign, a large and complex organization. His leadership style has proved to be steady and deliberate, in contrast to the erratic McCain campaign. And the problem with Palin isn't lack of experience: it's that she's ignorant.
anon 8:48,
Ms Palin has not spend that last few years studying and thinking about the whole of the USA and the world. She, at best, has been concerned with one state. She is obviously ignorant of national and world issues. Notice that I used "ignorant", not stupid. Give her a couple of years(or more)on the national stage and then we can make a judgement.
Obama has managed a campaign for the highest office. That is executive experience. Would I like to see Obama have more experience. To steal a phrase, "You betcha". But to say that she has more experience is so far from reality...
NAC,
I've tried not to judge you on your comments, but after today, the bigotry you maintain is quite evident.
I don't think if HB chose to post 2 pages on the economy that you would still have not accused him of voting only because of Christian fundamentalism
There is very little in this post with religious tones yet you dismiss the entire post and make that statement.
I think you need to seriously look at yourself in the mirror and acknowledge the bigotry that spews from your rhetoric
Anonymous, all of it comes down to the tag line:
It's not bigotry if we do it.
The overwhelming gist of HB's reasons for a McCain presidency has to do with the "values" platform, which ultimately rests on a religious interpretation.
I'm not a bigot because I've never advocated policies that might impair a religious person's ability to observe his or her religion.
The only way such fairness works is if we avoid religious extremism (the oft-cited Islamic model will suffice as an example). HB's reasons reek of apocalyptic fundamentalism, Christian-style, and as such, that's sliding down the slippery slope toward the Muslim model.
But that's okay, because it's our religion? I think not.
The American ideal is secular, because a secular ideal allows all religions to flourish sans interference while permitting non-believers the same level playing field. That's been my view throughout my adult life. "God" has been on every side of every war for as long as humans have existed, and that's ludicrous.
Allow all the Gods to exist in a truly free marketplace. Is that American enough for you? You can buy whichever ones you want ... or none at all.
You've voted your conscience, and I'll vote mine. I've heard something about this being an American ideal, too, but sometimes I wonder if it can co-exist with the urge to proselytize.
To Lawguy,
Here is the key difference. We have a track record, voting record, and a remourseful attitude along with apologies from McCain for his indiscretions.
We have no such thing from Obama and Obama's indiscretions, choices of friends and inability to admit mistakes is as recent as this past month.
Your argument doesn't hold water.
Obama is very scary as we really know very little about him and what we do know is radical. From his left wing liberal voting record to his choice of radical friends.
Speaking of radical friends, I understand that McCain gathered the endorsement of James Dobson, is supported by Grover Norquist, and once had Perrier with the Chilean dictator Pinochet.
Radicals all ... or is it that "they're not radicals if they're my friends"?.
Anon of 1:36 PM — You speak of "liberal left-wing" as if it were a bad thing. <grin> Actually, Obama isn't that scary. He's been endorsed by Warren Buffet.
To Lawguy:
Regarding the Keating Scandal:
You are not correct on the Keating subject being ignored. The press was all over it for about three or four days, coincidentally one day after the Obama campaign said they were going to bring it up.
What hasn't been brought up in the "Mainstream", is the Democratic link to the current crisis through its pushing (in fact creating) the sub-prime mortgage market and then the Democrats voting down any attempt to regulate it.
I won't pretend to know the whole story of the current financial crisis, but there sure seems to be a simple connect-the-dots picture that could be drawn from Affordable Housing to SubPrime Lending to Carter to Clinton to FNMA to House & Senate Democrats et al. And, then who in Congress was the second leading recipient of FNMA cash? Senator Obama.
And the question is: Why is this not being investigated by the main stream media?
At 8:24, we have NAC: "Just this final comment."
Then, more NAC at 9:01, 10:06, and 1:58.
Nothing against NAC, but that made me laugh.
No offense taken.
The devil made me do it ...
Is "moderacy" a word?
Brandon...
Isnt that kind of like "Strategery"?
Nothing moderate about a 835 billion bailout. This is like picking the best turd out of a cow pasture, they all stink.
Post a Comment
<< Home