The MSM On John McCain's CampaignHere we go again. Another day, another negative McCain story.
Republican John McCain has been slow to take advantage of his potential head start for the
presidency against Democrats, who are better organized and generate
more excitement among voters.
Hmmm..... anything in there about the divisive race among the Democrats? Not really... they seem to assume Obama is the presumptive nominee despite neither candidate being able to clinch before the convention unless the other drops out.
The private frustration is starting to bleed into public fretting, especially as Democrat Barack Obama this week called together supporters in swing states for meetings about November. In Iowa,
Colorado, Florida and elsewhere, aides and volunteers planned to meet
soon about the fall's election â€” even before Obama has secured the
necessary delegates to be the nominee.
Obama kept his storefront office in downtown Columbus after his
March 4 primary loss and invited backers there Thursday "to discuss our
plans for the coming weeks as we make the transition from the primary
season to the general election campaign," according to the public
Okay, I read that article a couple of times. Maybe I need new glasses. But how is describing that Obama is already organizing at the local level whereas McCain is waiting until at least next month biased?
Posted by: kishnevi at 23 May 2008@11:26:40 (gkwrQ)
(Why on Earth am I defending McCain? Oh yeah, I hate the MSM!
The articledescribes the McCain campaign as slow, dull, unenthusiastic, and underfunded... while contrasting Obama as all positives and as the presumptive nominee.
McCain's campaign would hardly agree with how they are being characterized, and with new McCain stories (usually with a negative slant, granted) in the news every day (such as the speech in Florida that we both posted about), his campaign is clearly more active than they describe in the article.
The whole point is to make it look like McCain has squandered an opportunity to campaign heavily when he is in fact doing so. If he was more focused on the local level (which they admit would be unusual anyway), they would say that he ignored the big picture. Because he is doing the smart and standard campaigning for this stage of the election, they have to criticize him for not doing what nobody would do at this point... focus on local campaigning when he is not in play at the local level right now.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 23 May 2008@12:13:57 (Q5ggV)
What about this (from the article)? "In a lot of the states, we had folks on the ground September of the
year before," said Republican strategist Kevin Madden, who was Bush's
chief spokesman for swing states during 2004. "We did it, literally,
precinct by precinct, and folks were doing it street by street."
Obviously this year is different, but the principle is the same--local organization comes far out, in fact before the national campaign gets into stride.
And in 2004, it was the local organizing that was important, because it was turnout that was important. I know here when I went to vote (Badnarik, virtous libertarian that I are) there was a long line (well, not enormous, but extremely long for that time of the morning), in which almost everyone was voting for Kerry. (This is Broward, and I live in one of the more heavily Democratic parts of Broward, which means lots of Democrats..) I went home figuring that was a very good sign for Kerry. And turnout was big in South Florida. But we learned that night that turnout had been even heavier in North Florida, which is Republican territory, and heavy enough to beat the massive Democratic turnout.
So local organizing is a good thing, and if the Demoncrats are outorganizing the Repugnants locally--well, I guess the Repugnants have only themselves to blame. But I think the point the article makes is legitimate criticism, not a sign of bias.
Posted by: kishnevi at 23 May 2008@18:14:10 (Mcbdi)
I would say that since McCain is already a nominee and Obama isn't, the article trying to give the impression that it's Obama's race to lose is far from legitimate.
McCain's campaign is hardly the disorganized mess that they describe and he does have supporters. He's also been very active, even though most of what gets reported is cast negatively. As I said before, it's going to worsen as the election nears and I'm pointing out the progression. McCain (and most of the down-ticket GOP) is going to get stomped in November and more conservatives and libertarians get disgusted with his positions on the issues they care most about.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 23 May 2008@20:41:43 (Q5ggV)
That's Gonna Leave A Mark
John McCain's chief media consultant has left the campaign because he doesn't want to work against Obama.
Mark McKinnon, the chief media consultant to McCain, wrote in a
campaign memo last year that if Obama won the Democratic nomination, he
would not actively campaign against him. With the results of Tuesday
night's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, Obama claimed he had a
majority of convention delegates.
Even though Obama hasn't been named the nominee, McKinnon decided to leave now anyway... although he promises he's still going to vote for McCain.
He said last year that he didn't want to work against an Obama
candidacy. Electing Obama "would send a great message to the country
and the world," McKinnon said at the time, although he added that he
intended to vote for McCain.
When You Look Back At This, You Can Say That This Is Where It Began
The smears from the MSM aren't going to wait forever you know. Since they've collectively decided that Obama has all but secured the nomination, it must be time for the real news to begin.
Presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that
provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were
major campaign donors, according to a USA Today report.
McCain, an Arizona senator, inserted $14.3 million in a 2003 defense
bill to buy land around Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona, in a
provision sought by SunCor Development, the largest of 50 landowners
near the base, the newspaper reported on its Web site Thursday, citing
Misha Clears Up The Confusion
I have been hearing about John McCain's ACU rating, and how it proves his conservative credentials, for months now. Head on over to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler for the explanation of why it doesn't mean squat.
I won't ever vote for John McCain... ever! I don't trust him... not.at.all. Well done Emperor!
Why all the fuss over some Senator from AZ? It's not like he's the Republican nominee for POTUS or anything. If you lived [hold on a minute] ...he's what?! What about the conservatives? Whaddya mean "What conservatives?" That's it?! That's who we're stuck with?!?! *&@&$*! [sorry, about that] Never mind.
Posted by: Paddy O'Furnijur at 14 May 2008@19:44:45 (DyUi6)
He's a liar who should have switched over to the Dems in 2004. I respect his service and sacrifice, but can't stand his politics or arrogance.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 14 May 2008@19:51:40 (Q5ggV)
It's actually a smart strategy on the part of the GOP. Since a Democrat will probably win this year, they've decided to nominate a Democrat for themselves.
I was going to say I'll be voting for the Libertarian candidate this year, like I did in 2004, but there is serious danger the LP will nominate a nut or an ideologue who is so nutty he/she might as well be a nut, in which case I don't know what the hades I'll do. (There is a sizable group in the LP who seem to think that the LP should be the world's only political party for whom an elected candidate is a badge of dishonor.) Not the Constitution Party--too theocratic for me.
BTW, according to the ACU (and Rottweiler's adjustment) the meme that Obama is the most liberal senator is wrong. A rating of 4 may be pretty liberal, but there's a whole bunch of them who rate zero.
Posted by: kishnevi at 14 May 2008@20:58:35 (N1rjO)
At 0.3% of the vote, what does it matter that the LP candidate might be a nut-job? 8% of the population thinks that Elvis is still alive - 3% think if you write him a letter he'll get it. 26 times more people think Elvis is alive than voted LP in the last presidential election. Just think what that voting block could do for the LP! /sarc
Posted by: Paddy O'Furnijur at 14 May 2008@21:09:44 (DyUi6)
If I thought it was GOP strategy I might... nope, I still would have left them. I'm understanding now why so many conservatives call the GOP "the stupid party". As far as Obama's rating goes, I care less about his than I did McCain's. It's the policies I don't like, not somebody else's rating. I trust my own judgment much more than I do theirs.
Saying that nominating McCain was a deliberate strategy is also saying that the GOP is more interested in political strategy than what is good for the country. No matter what their reasoning, be it strategy, backroom deal because it was McCain's "turn", or really believing that he is the best candidate... the GOP no longer represents what I believe in. They're going to get stomped in November on all fronts and deservedly so. Once the Dems have a nominee, they will close ranks with the MSM and you're going to see a half-dozen negative McCain articles every single day until the election.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 14 May 2008@21:17:42 (Q5ggV)
"that the GOP is more interested in political strategy than what is good for the country"
Stashiu, they're a political party. They've always/ been more interested in strategy than the good of the country.
Posted by: kishnevi at 14 May 2008@21:48:01 (N1rjO)
That's pretty cynical my friend, but I won't say you're wrong.
Might be that I just never saw it before. Whether it's true or not, they won't be getting my vote just because they have an (R) next to their name. McCain won't get it no matter what. I am enjoying the Dem meltdown as it is of their own design. The GOP meltdown... feh, I'm completely indifferent to them right now. I'll vote the individual and hope for gridlock for the next four years. Maybe there will be a conservative party by then, because there sure isn't one now.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 14 May 2008@22:08:14 (Q5ggV)
8Once the Dems have a nominee, they will close ranks with the MSM and
you're going to see a half-dozen negative McCain articles every single
day until the election. I had to smile when I came across this post http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/05/cindy_mccains_tax_returns_an_issue_after_all.php Democrat kvetching that the MSM is too soft on McCain.
Posted by: kishnevi at 15 May 2008@20:11:32 (ntdZU)
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 15 May 2008@20:16:27 (Q5ggV)
Pretty lame stuff. Cindy McCain isn't the one running and they've always kept their taxes separate, so I would tell them to go pound sand too. Of course, I'd tell the MSM to go pound sand if they asked me the time, so....
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 15 May 2008@20:20:52 (Q5ggV)
The Headline Tells More Of The Story Than It IntendedThis story's headline has the true plan. The story itself is just the cover. I don't want to insult your intelligence, so if you're really wondering what the key word is, mouse over click on the "show" button.
Did I really have to go there? You're going to make me say it? Fine. Race... his whole plan is about race. There, I hope you're happy now.
After one person fell during an event in
Lenoir, Clinton joked: "Somebody faints at nearly every one of these
things now. At my age, I didn't think I could make anybody faint
Ok, those are both pretty funny actually. Is it just me, or do they seem much more relaxed now (link via Insty) that Obama is under fire from so many / other / directions? (nice series from DRJ, that's 3 different links btw... I changed the formatting a bit to make it clearer)
Hillary Clinton -- The New Rocky Balboa (Sort Of)
Hillary says that she's like Rocky because she won't quit.
"Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight,
Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And
neither do the American people," Clinton said in excerpts of prepared
remarks to be given Tuesday to a meeting of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO.
Clinton warned that Democrats won't have an easy time against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain in the general, and implied that her rival for the nomination, Sen Barack Obama of Illinois, may not be up to the task.
"The Republicans aren't going to give up without a fight," Clinton
said. "And no matter how beautiful your rhetoric, the Republicans
aren't going to turn off their attack machine â€” it doesn't have an
"But one thing you know about me is that when I say I'll fight for
you, I'll fight for you," the New York senator said. "I know what it's
like to stumble. I know what it means to get knocked down. But I've
never stayed down, and I never will."
Of course Rocky always fought fair, was kind to everyone outside the ring, upheld family values, understood the importance of religion in guiding moral behavior, never lied, ... sure, she's just like Rocky.
Duties Of Jurors vs Duties Of Voters
In the thread about McCain twice almost switching over to the Democrats, DRJ brought up a great point:
Juries make decisions for all sorts of reasons - some logical,
some cockamamie, and sometimes a little of both. However, in my
experience, they almost always end up doing the right thing even if
it's for the wrong reason. I look at voting the same way.
I spend so much time over at Patterico's because the quality of both the posts and the comments is so high (despite my own sometimes inane contributions). I thought about DRJ's comment for quite a while before responding. Afterwards, I decided that a new thread was probably the best avenue to get further opinions from the (extremely discerning) few people who come here semi-regularly, along with maybe some informed opinions from any casual passersby (hello and welcome). Comments are always welcomed and encouraged.
My own personal impression is that voters don't take the same effort to make a correct decision as jurors. 1) People take a decision more seriously if they are one of twelve peopel deciding the guilt or innocence of a person in front of them than if they are one of several million casting a vote to decide the person who will decide for them for the next x number years what to do about whatever problems that come up, foreseeable or unforeseeable. And note how liable juries in civil trials are to vote their emotions, and not according to the facts. 2) Jurors are at least minimally vetted to get rid of people who decide solely on the basis of race, etc. alone. And when that sort of person does get on the jury, he or she already knows he's not supposed to decide that way. Then there is the quality of information. In a trial, at least one side will be attempting to get the information the jury needs to make a decision in front of the jury. In an election, that is, in our days at least, not the case. In fact, the people who run campaigns seem to go on the theory that the less facts and more emotion they can latch onto, the better.
Also, there is a difference between deciding as a juror and deciding as a voter based on ethnic/religious/gender/party factors: in an election, where information is lacking, they provide a very rough guide to what can be expected of the candidates. For instance, if you are presented with a Democrat and a Republican about whom you know nothing, you can at least make a reasonable guess that the Republican will have more views that accord with yours and make more decisions that would you would agree with, than the Democrat. I'm Jewish. For most of my life, I voted for Jewish candidates in an election where I wasn't familiar with the candidates, not because they were co-religionists of mine, but because I could reasonably guess that, coming from the same general background, they would decide things the way I would decide if I was in that position. And since my political views transformed into libertarian, I've stopped voting for Jewish candidates because I can reasonably assume their opinions are too leftist for my liking.
Posted by: kishnevi at 26 March 2008@10:47:49 (aOQZ3)
I am not as convinced that voters do the right thing more often than not, partly for the reasons that kishnevi gives. But also because sometimes they are not presented with the best options. Let me explain.
Jurors are generally presented with their legal options for verdicts be they criminal or civil (let's ignore the juror propensity to overdo punitives). So they know that the options they're deciding between are constrained by the law and the facts of the case. That gives their decision legitimacy no matter what they choose. You don't often find jurors who have to "hold their nose and vote."
Voters, on the other hand, are often presented with choices that are less than satisfactory. Yes, there is always going to be a "most right" or "least evil" option, but that is small consolation for many people. They may also be aware of candidates or initiatives that didn't make it to the ballot. That changes their behavior and not always for the better. Indifference is a serious problem for voters.
However, the key difference between voters and jurors (and forgive me if someone wrote this in the earlier discussion, I'm just coming in now off of doubleplusundead's link) is that jurors do not have a direct stake in the outcome. In fact, the link between a juror and the outcome of a specific case is intentionally attenuated. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to voters. They often have a personal stake, either because they gave money to a candidate or cause or because a specific candidate or initiative promises to impact their life in a specific way. That does not always lead to smart voting (I'm thinking of single-issue voters as an example).
kishnevi, very good points about the differences between them. I would note that a responsible voter should have more information than just the candidates party affiliation or they're not all that responsible. Getting the information out there reliably is going to be the problem (as you said) because so much dirty campaigning goes on... with and without the campaign's knowledge.
Gabriel, welcome... thanks for coming. If that self-interest predominates in a majority of voters for a particular election, then they will likely win. If it impacts negatively on enough others, they will organize enough to win a majority the next election. You're always going to have disinterested, selfish, and/or ignorant voters (unfortunately) who don't vote responsibly. I agree with DRJ that they're usually a minority though... the others are just too pigheaded to see it my way.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@20:36:31 (tarqT)
It certainly is nice to have someone carefully read and respond to what I said. I'm flattered, Stashiu.
Now that I've gone out on a limb and compared voters with juries, I want to note one difference. Voters have access to all sorts of relevant and decidedly irrelevant information about the people they vote for. If they want, voters can find out about a politician's platform on the issues as well as his or her family, friends, upbringing, church, work, and financial dealings. Voters can gossip about politicians, watch them on TV, read about them in the newspaper, and even talk about them with people who aren't voters.
On the other hand, juries only hear what the court lets them hear and it's never the
"whole picture" because the only evidence they hear is that which is
relevant to the charges that have been filed. Nevertheless, juries still take many different factors into account in making their decisions. In a hypothetical criminal case, jurors listen to the evidence but they also notice the defendant's actions and appearance, his/her attorney's actions and appearance, and even what the defendant's family members are like. Juries notice what the judge does and what the prosecutor does, and they use their common sense.
Now to the meat of the discussion: Unless a juror or a voter is truly and completely biased against a particular race or religion, I think it's extremely rare that s/he bases their decision solely on one issue. In some ways, it's like the internet. I don't know what anyone really looks like or if they are what they seem to be or what they say they are. People don't know if I'm what I appear to be or say I am, either. But as we get to know each other, we can and do make judgments and those judgments are based on a range of factors and not just one thing.
Even in relatively short jury trials, there is a bonding process that also works that way. That's why jury consultants aren't consistently helpful. You may know certain facts about a potential juror's background, but how those facts combine into one person and whether you can successfully use those facts to predict what that person will do is a completely different matter. As individuals, people aren't as predictable as some may think.
Of course, groups of people can be predictable but they have to be large groups of people. For instance, I can generally predict how my fellow Texans will vote and even how certain cities will vote, but they aren't always predictable and on an individual basis they might really surprise me.
Bottom line: I agree with to the extent people vote (as citizens or as jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't. People are much more complicated than that.
Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:00:39 (wE7Og)
Sorry, I omitted a couple of words in my last sentence. It should read:
Bottom line: I agree with your point to the extent people vote (as citizens or
as jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't.
People are much more complicated than that.
Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:03:47 (wE7Og)
I said my piece on what motivates people. Now I want to address your remaining points.
Maybe I've been a lawyer too long or I've tried one too many cases before a jury, but I what I learned from those experiences is that you have to live with the results, whatever they are. (That's probably why my approach is more pragmatic than ideological.) In other words, if you win a jury trial or a political vote, don't worry if some jurors or voters decided in your favor for the wrong reasons. Here's why:
One of the beauties of 6 or 12-member juries and also of mass voting is that the system doesn't require perfection. If all trials were decided by a judge, it would really matter if the judge was biased or corrupt. Multi-person juries makes it much harder for bias or corruption to taint the process. Yes, it's true one juror might base his or her decision on a questionable or even discriminatory reason, but the chances that all of them will is remote in today's system. I think the same is true of voting. Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.
When it comes down to it, I think your post is about deciding at what point the perfect is the enemy of the good. For a lot of people, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are so imperfect that they don't want to participate. For others, one or other of these candidates is good enough, while still other people think a specific candidate is perfect. Overall, I think it balances out.
Finally, FWIW, I don't believe in the theory that the pendulum has to swing far to the left in order for another Reagan to appear. A Reagan-like candidate doesn't happen because people suddenly decide they want a conservative. Good conservative candidates have to be developed. The GOP needs more grassroots work to bring candidates into the field, the cream will rise to the top, and the voters will respond.
I think the same is true of voting. Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.
I also think this is usually true in large-scale elections.
Everyone has made excellent points and I think the voter vs juror analogy works well for certain points but breaks down in others as kishnevi and Gabriel noted. I appreciate the feedback.
Like DRJ, I don't think it's true the country has to swing far left to get a Reagan... I just hope it's true in this case. I'm certain a lot of conservatives are going to be pretty disappointed with the next administration and hope there are some who will step up because of it. I'll admit that I'm not one of them because I don't want to be a public figure. Nor do I have the patience needed to be a good politician (if that's not an oxymoron these days).
Thanks again everyone, sorry the response took so long. I'm staying with my Dad who just had surgery, my wife and I just had our 23rd wedding anniversary (same day as Dad's surgery), and my youngest daughter's birthday is today... so it's been busy here.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 28 March 2008@14:28:25 (tarqT)
A surgery, anniversary and birthday all at once is quite a handful. I hope everything went well for your Dad and best wishes to your family.
Posted by: DRJ at 29 March 2008@21:07:45 (wE7Og)
Thank you. I'm staying with Mom & Dad because it's too hard for Mom to take care of him. Fortunately, we only live a few blocks away (planned that way, we bought them a house here and moved them close). I'll be here full-time at least a week, then come by daily for a month or so to help out during the day. This is his second major surgery since November, but I expect he'll do well from this point.
Nice to be retired and able to spend the time. My wife and kids come over often, so everybody's pretty happy with the arrangements.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 29 March 2008@21:21:45 (tarqT)
McCain Almost Switched Parties... Twice
Depending on who is telling the story, either McCain sought invitations to switch or was approached about switching over to the Democrats.
Still, Democrats were stunned one
Saturday in late March when, by their account, John Weaver, Mr. McCainâ€™s
longtime political strategist, reached out to Thomas J. Downey, a former
Democratic congressman from Long Island who had become a lobbyist with powerful
connections on Capitol Hill. In Mr. Downeyâ€™s telling, Mr. Weaver posed a
question to him over lunch that left him stunned.
â€œHe says, â€˜John McCain is
wondering why nobodyâ€™s ever approached him about switching parties, or becoming
an independent and allying himself with the Democrats,â€™ â€ Mr. Downey said in a
recent interview. â€œMy reaction was, â€˜When I leave this lunch, your boss will be
called by anybody you want him to be called by in the United States Senate.â€™ â€
I've long said that McCain would be more honest to change parties and it would improve the quality of both.
Mr. McCain, who has rarely spoken
publicly of his talks with Mr. Kerry, said last month that he had dismissed the
vice-presidential offer out of hand. â€œHe is, as he describes himself, a liberal
Democrat,â€ Mr. McCain said of Mr. Kerry when he was asked about the episode by a
participant at a public forum in Atlanta. â€œI am a conservative Republican. So
when I was approached, when we had that conversation back in 2004, thatâ€™s why I
never even considered such a thing.â€
Yeah, and I'm an X-man. He's not a conservative, he's not a Republican except in name only, and nobody has multiple talks about something they're not even considering. That John McCain can't be trusted on this type of thing has been demonstrated time and time again. The only thing I trust him completely about is for him to do what he wants... no matter how it impacts others.
Ugh. No matter what, I'm going to hate our next president.
That's so depressing.
Posted by: S. Weasel at 24 March 2008@09:19:58 (rasT+)
The election isn't over... we still have Nader, right? /sarc
Seriously though, although it's probably around 99.9% sure to be one of these three, we still have both conventions to go. If one or both become brokered, things could get even more interesting.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@09:26:00 (Q5ggV)
Sudden nightmare vision as I read this. IIRC, the Republican convention is after the Democratic convention. This is the nightmare; Obama is nominated. McCain offers the VP slot to Hillary. (Saving grace: I think she wouldn't take it. She has no wish to be anybody's second fiddle.) More nightmarish, but less likely because I think Obama will be nominated: Clinton is nominated, and McCain offers the VP slot to Obama. And Obama just might take it. All three of them can wrap this poison up in nice sounding justifications.
Does that sound possible to you?
Posted by: kishnevi at 24 March 2008@18:03:42 (aOQZ3)
I think Hillary will take the nomination and don't think John McCain would offer Obama anything. If Obama does take the nomination, McCain might consider offering Hillary the VP slot because they're buds and she would bring in votes he wouldn't otherwise get. Most people who support Hillary are not going to vote Obama... they'll vote Independent (Nader) or McCain.
The Dems are too polarized right now and the leadership knows it. Hillary will pursue a "scorched-Earth" policy and completely split the party to punish it for abandoning her. The Dem leadership will test her and she'll convince them that she's willing to go all the way. Look for Hillary to get the nod and Obama to strongly endorse her to keep the party together. Obama will be promised the next shot after Hillary (whether he gets it is another story, the Dems aren't very good at keeping those kinds of promises... hence the problems they're having now).
The sad thing is, Hillary will beat McCain in November after Obama swings his supporters over to her because then the MSM will have the clear choice they're looking for and every story/poll/editorial will be slanted for Hillary and against McCain. They've mostly held off on McCain so far because any weakness they attack is shared by one or both of the Dem candidates. When it gets down to one Dem, they'll focus on the McCain faults where the Dem looks strong (or at least neutral).
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@19:05:21 (Q5ggV)
I don't blame anyone for being disillusioned with McCain or for refusing to vote for him. That said, McCain isn't that much different than Bush. I think McCain will be as strong as Bush on the military and the war on terror, and I have about as much confidence in McCain on judicial appointments as I did on Bush before he was elected. Bush's appointments ended up well but there was that problem with Miers ...
Finally, Bush often talked the conservative talk but most of what he did was talk, not act. He rarely used his veto except on war-related matters. His position on illegal immigration is much like McCain's. Who knows what McCain will do on taxes but, frankly, who knew what Bush would do either?
Frankly, I'm not happy with everything Bush did but I'll probably never be happy with everything an elected official does. But I know I'd be more happy with someone like Bush than I would be with Clinton or Obama.
Posted by: DRJ at 24 March 2008@22:50:57 (wE7Og)
Hi DRJ, I agree that McCain is similar to Bush in a lot of policy areas... I don't think he holds a candle to him in honesty though. That said, I don't have a problem with anyone willing to vote for McCain, or any other candidate for that matter, as long as they're voting their convictions. (short rant here)I disagree with people who vote for someone;
1. out of party loyalty when that person doesn't reflect your beliefs, 2. because of their race (or against another person's race), 3. because of their gender (or against another person's gender), 4. anything resembling 2. or 3. that doesn't have anything to do with their political positions or character.
If the Democrats have a spiritual and intellectual awakening and start representing conservative ideals, I'll join the Democratic Party. If the Republicans have a spiritual and intellectual re-awakening, I'll rejoin the Republican Party. Right now, neither major party represents my ideals so I'll be an Independent. I'd rather have a much smaller voice in support of what I believe than help represent something I don't believe in. It's about being right, not about being in office. (/rant)
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 24 March 2008@23:05:19 (Q5ggV)
In theory, I agree with everything in your last comment. In practice, however, my opinion is colored (no pun intended) by my experience with juries.
Juries make decisions for all sorts of reasons - some logical, some cockamamie, and sometimes a little of both. However, in my experience, they almost always end up doing the right thing even if it's for the wrong reason. I look at voting the same way.
Posted by: DRJ at 25 March 2008@23:22:36 (wE7Og)
I don't disagree with anything you're saying and believe it's completely compatible with what I said above. Juries are presented with both physical and circumstantial evidence which they combine with their own experience and knowledge to render a verdict. Voters are presented with both a candidate's record and their campaign platform which they combine with their own experience and knowledge to decide their vote.
I would have a problem with any juror who rendered their verdict based solely on the defendant's nationality, race, gender, etc... anything beyond the physical and circumstantial evidence and their understanding of the law. I expect the same from a voter.
You are absolutely correct that juries do the right thing more often than not. They are also cautioned prior to deliberating that a responsible juror renders their verdict in good faith, not based on any preconceived stereotype of the defendant. Shouldn't voters receive the same caution? That's the point of my rant above. If someone honestly believes that voting for McCain is the best use of their franchise, they have my unreserved support. If they're voting for him because he's the "only white guy running", they deserve nothing but contempt.
I don't like crossover voting to influence another party's candidate, nor do I like party-line votes just because "I'm a Democrat/Republican", so I don't do it. If somebody else chooses to, that's their choice. I'm just throwing out my reasons for being against it for whatever worth they believe my opinion holds. Barring some kind of brokered convention miracle, I am not going to like whoever wins in November. Tough cookies for me, but I'll be fine... the military lived on cookie crumbs during Clinton's administration and survived.
Despite what people say about McCain now, our military is going to be getting some more crumbs even if he's elected. That will be the "bipartisan" bone he throws to try and placate the Dems. I don't think we'll have a chance to see if that's correct though, because once the Dems decide a nominee, we're going to see a media blitz against McCain that makes Bush Derangement Syndrome seem mild. We've got at least four years of "Socialist Lite" coming and I'm hoping that the phrase "It took a Carter to give us a Reagan" has some truth to it.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@00:36:35 (Q5ggV)
Sites are added to the Moronosphere and Gerbil Nation blogrolls by request. I got everyone on there who was there when they were made, so email me if you know of a new addition. Some of these are on the main blogroll as well and will remain duplicated.
The main blogroll is at my own discretion. I gratefully accept suggestions by email, but I don't do blogroll exchanges. If a site is there, it's because I personally recommend it. If it's one that is not updated often, check out the archives and you'll probably see why it's there. I will rarely remove a site from the main blogroll once it's there.
I would say that since McCain is already a nominee and Obama isn't, the article trying to give the i... entry
What about this (from the article)? "In a lot of the states, we had folks on the ground September of... entry
(Why on Earth am I defending McCain? Oh yeah, I hate the MSM! :) ) The articledescribes the McCai... entry
Okay, I read that article a couple of times. Maybe I need new glasses. But how is describing that... entry
-I won't work aginst Obama, but I will still vote for McCain?
Duplicity at it's finest! entry
Pretty lame stuff. Cindy McCain isn't the one running and they've always kept their taxes separate,... entry
Comments are not moderated and users are not registered. This means that I have little to no control over who posts a comment or the content of that comment. Therefore, comments other than my own do not reflect any viewpoint of mine, no matter how long it appears as I will likely remove comments that cross the line of decency. If a comment is removed, a notation that the comment was there will be inserted. Any questions or concerns about posts, comments, copyright, or other issues may be addressed by emailing me at "stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com" replacing the AT with @ and DOT with a period. If that's too complicated, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet without supervision. Just sayin'
If you have suggestions for the blog, put them in a comment to the original welcome post, a comment to any other post, or email me at the contact below. Be well.
I am a Psychiatric Nurse who retired from the Army after 24 years total service. I started out as a Private E-1, made Sergeant E-5 in 23 months, then went to nursing school and ROTC to get commissioned. I am interested in politics where I lean heavily conservative, movies, music, and books. Hopefully you will enjoy what you see and come back often.
Stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com
(Replace the "AT" with "@" and the "DOT" with ".")