So turns out John McCain's friend, "Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber at all...
"Joe the Plumber" isn't really a plumber at all, at least not one I would want fixing a leak in my house. It seems that a basic check of local licensing agencies in Ohio and Michigan show on plumbing licenses for Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, or even a name close to that.
So what does all this mean? The real question here is, if the Toledo Blade could figure this out, why couldn't a man vying to be the most powerful man in the world? Or did he know that he was twisting the facts, and hope he could sneak one by the American people? Either way, not an auspicious start to McCain's home stretch here.
On the way out, no, McCain did not land any body blows in last night's debate, appearing rather condescending and, yes, erratic. There's a long way to go, but it's becoming harder and harder to find the coalition McCain needs to pull this thing out. Disagree? Discuss below, it's Thursday and I'm up for a good fight.
//Edit by Y?- Sleep now and Zuz to cause an anti-matter black-hole in 3..2..1..
Read More......
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
What's Wrong with the Republican Camp
We’re a month out, and while you can’t call it yet, things aren’t looking so hot for John McCain. He was neck-and-neck with Barack Obama until the financial crisis hit, and when that kind of event happens, it pretty much guarantees success for the party not in office. You have to give Senator Obama some credit, but he shares it, at best equally, with the McCain campaign’s long list of failures, poor decisions, and terrible strategy. Don’t get too excited though, my list of what’s wrong with the policies of Barack Obama is much longer, and I still cast my vote for John McCain. But this column isn’t about the campaign.
I’ve worked for the Republican Party. I’ve voted for Republican candidates about 85% of the time. And yet this election makes me feel good about not being a registered Republican. In the spirit of Martin Luther, I want to post a list of the serious problems I’ve seen with Republicans. Don’t worry, I’m not going to pull out 99, but I do want to cover the top 8 (in no particular order).
1. They are out of touch with the next generation of Americans. The next generation of Americans is, by-and-large, out of touch with the reality of the world, but Republicans have reverted to the purist conservative judgment that says the status quo is to be defended at all costs. Change is needed, but in our present day political climate politicians lead from the rear, evidenced by decisions being made after polls mirroring the consensus view of those polls. The change that we need is someone that leads from the front. While Senator Obama is not a frontline leader, that’s no excuse for Republicans to not take the drivers seat of changing the status quo, which obviously needs tweaking.
2. They pick the wrong fights. The Republican base has been for the last 14 years Christians, but it is looking like a significant amount of Christians will be voting for Senator Obama. On the surface this makes no sense. Historically the two most important domestic issues for Christian voters have been abortion and gay marriage, yet Senator Obama is very liberal on both. We are seeing a changing of the guard among the Christian voting bloc, yet the Republicans continue to cling to a dated value set. Say what you will about sticking up for what you think is right, but these issues are not addressed by the federal government – they are largely reverted to the states, and the Republican President and Vice President nominees should not waste their efforts on issues they will likely not address when in office.
3. They give the ten word answer. My least favorite thing, when I writing speeches, is writing the second document with the 10 word answers to each of the target issues the speech addresses so that the speaker can cut to the crux. This is an incredibly complex nation and world, and 10 words do not provide a sufficient answer to any of the issues we face. The idea of having 10 words is that you can address every issue any voter might be concerned with. This is far less convincing and far less comforting than the 100 or 1000 word answers for the 10 most important issues.
4. Ignorance and indifference to the concerns and arguments of the opposition. Chanting “drill baby drill” distorts the virtues of drilling off the shores of America. Senator McCain has always said that he supports offshore drilling as a short-term measure to help us bridge the gap from where we are to the alternative energy future we need, but every time CNN shows footage of a John McCain rally with the crowd chanting “drill baby drill” it gives off the entirely wrong impression, and the opposition latches on to it to swing moderate and undecided voters in their direction. Be smart.
5. They vote for the wrong reasons. I’ve never chosen to not vote for a Democrat because he/she is a Democrat. I actually consulted for one Democratic campaign. Most Republicans vote party line because they like Republicans and hate Democrats. The amount of bad Republican politicians competes with the amount of bad Democratic politicians. When I attended a McCain/Palin rally I was encouraged to wear red to symbolize the desire to keep Missouri a red state. Putting aside the fact that I don’t like wearing red and don’t own a single piece of red clothing, I could care less that Missouri is a red state; I’d rather it be a smart state. The issue of voting is not about voting for a party but rather about voting for the best ideas, be they red, blue, or neon lime.
6. The idea embodied by Sarah Palin. I wrote an article on this blog not too long ago making a case for Sarah Palin, and I stick by the arguments I made. But she would be a less than stellar Vice President, not because of inexperience or policy specifics, but because she represents the idea, the mentality, that embracing the common denominator, the average Joe, is striving for greatness. This is not the mentality that made this country great. More than intelligence and education, we need leaders who allow for possibilities rather than shield us from them.
7. Two decades ago Republicans stood up and told the country that “Democrat” meant soft on crime, soft on the law, soft on education, soft on values, and soft on national security. And instead of standing up to this, the Democrats cowered in the corner and said, “Please, don’t hurt us.” Now, Democrats are saying that “Republican” means stupid, barbaric, and ignorant, and Republicans are running for the same corner of the house. These are salami tactics that should not be used in the first place and responded to with positive reinforcement of ideas and policies.
8. Swinging for the fences. It’s a sign of desperation, and no one sees it the way it’s wanted to be seen.
So there they are, the 8 things I find most discouraging about the Republican Party. In fact, you could remove the party slant and write almost the same article, the same 8 things, about what is wrong with the American political system. That would be even more depressing.
Read More......
I’ve worked for the Republican Party. I’ve voted for Republican candidates about 85% of the time. And yet this election makes me feel good about not being a registered Republican. In the spirit of Martin Luther, I want to post a list of the serious problems I’ve seen with Republicans. Don’t worry, I’m not going to pull out 99, but I do want to cover the top 8 (in no particular order).
1. They are out of touch with the next generation of Americans. The next generation of Americans is, by-and-large, out of touch with the reality of the world, but Republicans have reverted to the purist conservative judgment that says the status quo is to be defended at all costs. Change is needed, but in our present day political climate politicians lead from the rear, evidenced by decisions being made after polls mirroring the consensus view of those polls. The change that we need is someone that leads from the front. While Senator Obama is not a frontline leader, that’s no excuse for Republicans to not take the drivers seat of changing the status quo, which obviously needs tweaking.
2. They pick the wrong fights. The Republican base has been for the last 14 years Christians, but it is looking like a significant amount of Christians will be voting for Senator Obama. On the surface this makes no sense. Historically the two most important domestic issues for Christian voters have been abortion and gay marriage, yet Senator Obama is very liberal on both. We are seeing a changing of the guard among the Christian voting bloc, yet the Republicans continue to cling to a dated value set. Say what you will about sticking up for what you think is right, but these issues are not addressed by the federal government – they are largely reverted to the states, and the Republican President and Vice President nominees should not waste their efforts on issues they will likely not address when in office.
3. They give the ten word answer. My least favorite thing, when I writing speeches, is writing the second document with the 10 word answers to each of the target issues the speech addresses so that the speaker can cut to the crux. This is an incredibly complex nation and world, and 10 words do not provide a sufficient answer to any of the issues we face. The idea of having 10 words is that you can address every issue any voter might be concerned with. This is far less convincing and far less comforting than the 100 or 1000 word answers for the 10 most important issues.
4. Ignorance and indifference to the concerns and arguments of the opposition. Chanting “drill baby drill” distorts the virtues of drilling off the shores of America. Senator McCain has always said that he supports offshore drilling as a short-term measure to help us bridge the gap from where we are to the alternative energy future we need, but every time CNN shows footage of a John McCain rally with the crowd chanting “drill baby drill” it gives off the entirely wrong impression, and the opposition latches on to it to swing moderate and undecided voters in their direction. Be smart.
5. They vote for the wrong reasons. I’ve never chosen to not vote for a Democrat because he/she is a Democrat. I actually consulted for one Democratic campaign. Most Republicans vote party line because they like Republicans and hate Democrats. The amount of bad Republican politicians competes with the amount of bad Democratic politicians. When I attended a McCain/Palin rally I was encouraged to wear red to symbolize the desire to keep Missouri a red state. Putting aside the fact that I don’t like wearing red and don’t own a single piece of red clothing, I could care less that Missouri is a red state; I’d rather it be a smart state. The issue of voting is not about voting for a party but rather about voting for the best ideas, be they red, blue, or neon lime.
6. The idea embodied by Sarah Palin. I wrote an article on this blog not too long ago making a case for Sarah Palin, and I stick by the arguments I made. But she would be a less than stellar Vice President, not because of inexperience or policy specifics, but because she represents the idea, the mentality, that embracing the common denominator, the average Joe, is striving for greatness. This is not the mentality that made this country great. More than intelligence and education, we need leaders who allow for possibilities rather than shield us from them.
7. Two decades ago Republicans stood up and told the country that “Democrat” meant soft on crime, soft on the law, soft on education, soft on values, and soft on national security. And instead of standing up to this, the Democrats cowered in the corner and said, “Please, don’t hurt us.” Now, Democrats are saying that “Republican” means stupid, barbaric, and ignorant, and Republicans are running for the same corner of the house. These are salami tactics that should not be used in the first place and responded to with positive reinforcement of ideas and policies.
8. Swinging for the fences. It’s a sign of desperation, and no one sees it the way it’s wanted to be seen.
So there they are, the 8 things I find most discouraging about the Republican Party. In fact, you could remove the party slant and write almost the same article, the same 8 things, about what is wrong with the American political system. That would be even more depressing.
Read More......
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Pulling Away?
Following last night's debate, an interesting perspective from an unlikely source...
Much of what is being said about last night's presidential debate is pretty standard... they both did well, no one made a big mistake, no one landed the knockout punch, yadda yadda yadda.
But here is a perspective from the Christian Science Monitor, suggesting that McCain is having real trouble gaining traction and exciting voters throughout the Christian conservative base. The problem for McCain is, we are no longer months away from the election, we are weeks and soon days. And as the election inches closer, the story continues to be can John McCain catch up, can he kick-start his campaign, not that he is and that it is working.
I'm a sports fan, so it breaks down easiest for me like this. John McCain needs a game-saving drive, and time is running out to make it happen.
Amen to that.
Read More......
Much of what is being said about last night's presidential debate is pretty standard... they both did well, no one made a big mistake, no one landed the knockout punch, yadda yadda yadda.
But here is a perspective from the Christian Science Monitor, suggesting that McCain is having real trouble gaining traction and exciting voters throughout the Christian conservative base. The problem for McCain is, we are no longer months away from the election, we are weeks and soon days. And as the election inches closer, the story continues to be can John McCain catch up, can he kick-start his campaign, not that he is and that it is working.
I'm a sports fan, so it breaks down easiest for me like this. John McCain needs a game-saving drive, and time is running out to make it happen.
Amen to that.
Read More......
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaigns in Suspended Animation
Like, 5 minutes ago, John McCain announced that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington to work on the economic crisis. He asked that the Friday debates be called off and that Obama suspend his campaign as well. UPDATES BELOW
Update 3
UPDATE 2 "Harry Reid counters McCain's blatant stunt brilliantly"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement that would be unlikely to go out without the Obama campaign's approval, dismisses McCain's suspension:
As of the moment, only CNN seems to be running the story, with Google News not picking it up at all.
UPDATE: McCain's statement read:
There is no doubt that the the crisis facing Wall Street, and by extension the world financial system is fairly grave, but is this a politically motivated move?
As Obama seems to be regaining momentum, is McCain trying to stall it. Is McCain afraid of debating Obama live on TV?
What is going on here?
Read More......
Update 3
UPDATE 2 "Harry Reid counters McCain's blatant stunt brilliantly"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a statement that would be unlikely to go out without the Obama campaign's approval, dismisses McCain's suspension:
This is a critical time for our country. While I appreciate that both candidates have signaled their willingness to help, Congress and the Administration have a process in place to reach a solution to this unprecedented financial crisis.
I understand that the candidates are putting together a joint statement at Senator Obama's suggestion. But it would not be helpful at this time to have them come back during these negotiations and risk injecting presidential politics into this process or distract important talks about the future of our nation's economy. If that changes, we will call upon them. We need leadership; not a campaign photo op.
If there were ever a time for both candidates to hold a debate before the American people about this serious challenge, it is now.
As of the moment, only CNN seems to be running the story, with Google News not picking it up at all.
UPDATE: McCain's statement read:
Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me. I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem. We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved. I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis. I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so. Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.
There is no doubt that the the crisis facing Wall Street, and by extension the world financial system is fairly grave, but is this a politically motivated move?
As Obama seems to be regaining momentum, is McCain trying to stall it. Is McCain afraid of debating Obama live on TV?
What is going on here?
Read More......
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Why the McCain Campaign Would Love for You to Donate to Planned Parenthood
John McCain would love for you to donate to Planned Parenthood. Well, kind of; only if you’re doing it because you’re a Barak Obama supporter. The scheme going around now of donating and having your thank you card sent to the McCain campaign office is clever, but it’s exactly what the Obama campaign would ask you not to do, if they could do so without opening the Senator up to accusations that he no longer supports Planned Parenthood.
This is a serious campaign, and Senator Obama says he would love to focus on the issues. These kinds of acts of petulance distract from a campaign’s message. Public opinion is a difficult thing to manage; that’s why smart people get paid of lot of money to steer it. Depending on whether the Planned Parenthood scheme takes off, and how big it could become, any or all of the following could take place.
First, it highlights a group of Barak Obama supporters who are acting immaturely in the
Senator’s name and cause. That’s a distraction the Obama campaign would rather not have to address, and the campaign would really rather avoid having to scold another group of supporters – they’ve had to do a lot of that.
Second, the Obama campaign would prefer to be the recipient of the $10 that the scheme recommends people donate. Because the scheme is primarily designed to embarrass John McCain rather than highlight the value of Barak Obama or even Planned Parenthood, the Obama campaign would be a wiser spender of those dollars, and probably use them more effectively to beat the Arizona senator in November.
Third, you’re giving the McCain campaign another tire pressure issue: “Obama would have you believe that money fixes American families, and that a liberal group knows how to run your family better than you do. This is another liberal elitist falsehood. Strong families are those that built on love and values and faith, not abortion clinic propaganda and condoms.” This leads us to:
Forth, talk about energizing the conservative base. While Barak Obama and his folowers may support Planned Parenthood, the voters that Sarah Palin has brought out do not, and the more you bate them, the more fervent they will be, and more enthusiasm will be generated for the Republican ticket. This leads us to:
Fifth, electoral math. Planned Parenthood had to pay $50,000 for violating Minnesota’s parent notification law in 2005. Currently, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain by 4% in that state, this down from 18% in July. A dispute similar to this one is still in process in Indiana, where McCain’s lead has halved in the last month. Not that this sort of thing guarantees a slide for Senator Obama in either of these two states, but they’re both battleground states, and you don’t want to bate the local conservatives.
Again, this scheme would have to get pretty big to be a catalyst to trigger any of these responses. But if even one of them does occur, chances are it will create more trouble than advantage.
Read More......
This is a serious campaign, and Senator Obama says he would love to focus on the issues. These kinds of acts of petulance distract from a campaign’s message. Public opinion is a difficult thing to manage; that’s why smart people get paid of lot of money to steer it. Depending on whether the Planned Parenthood scheme takes off, and how big it could become, any or all of the following could take place.
First, it highlights a group of Barak Obama supporters who are acting immaturely in the
Senator’s name and cause. That’s a distraction the Obama campaign would rather not have to address, and the campaign would really rather avoid having to scold another group of supporters – they’ve had to do a lot of that.
Second, the Obama campaign would prefer to be the recipient of the $10 that the scheme recommends people donate. Because the scheme is primarily designed to embarrass John McCain rather than highlight the value of Barak Obama or even Planned Parenthood, the Obama campaign would be a wiser spender of those dollars, and probably use them more effectively to beat the Arizona senator in November.
Third, you’re giving the McCain campaign another tire pressure issue: “Obama would have you believe that money fixes American families, and that a liberal group knows how to run your family better than you do. This is another liberal elitist falsehood. Strong families are those that built on love and values and faith, not abortion clinic propaganda and condoms.” This leads us to:
Forth, talk about energizing the conservative base. While Barak Obama and his folowers may support Planned Parenthood, the voters that Sarah Palin has brought out do not, and the more you bate them, the more fervent they will be, and more enthusiasm will be generated for the Republican ticket. This leads us to:
Fifth, electoral math. Planned Parenthood had to pay $50,000 for violating Minnesota’s parent notification law in 2005. Currently, Senator Obama leads Senator McCain by 4% in that state, this down from 18% in July. A dispute similar to this one is still in process in Indiana, where McCain’s lead has halved in the last month. Not that this sort of thing guarantees a slide for Senator Obama in either of these two states, but they’re both battleground states, and you don’t want to bate the local conservatives.
Again, this scheme would have to get pretty big to be a catalyst to trigger any of these responses. But if even one of them does occur, chances are it will create more trouble than advantage.
Read More......
A Brilliant Strategy
Looking for a way to tweak the McCain campaign and help out a good cause all at the same time?
There is a deliciously devious movement quickly spreading across the internet to "honor" Sarah Palin's candidacy. Here's the deal.
When you donate to Planned Parenthood, they send you a postcard thanking you for your support. So, the idea is to make a $10 tax deductible donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. Then, when they ask for an address for the donation, put in the McCain campaign headquarters:
McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202
This way, the McCain office will be flooded with hundreds and thousands of donation cards from Planned Parenthood, the very organization that McPalin is so against! And you are helping out a good cause at the same time. What could be better than that?
To donate, click here and then go to donate and honorary gifts
Read More......
There is a deliciously devious movement quickly spreading across the internet to "honor" Sarah Palin's candidacy. Here's the deal.
When you donate to Planned Parenthood, they send you a postcard thanking you for your support. So, the idea is to make a $10 tax deductible donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin's name. Then, when they ask for an address for the donation, put in the McCain campaign headquarters:
McCain for President
1235 S. Clark Street
1st Floor
Arlington , VA 22202
This way, the McCain office will be flooded with hundreds and thousands of donation cards from Planned Parenthood, the very organization that McPalin is so against! And you are helping out a good cause at the same time. What could be better than that?
To donate, click here and then go to donate and honorary gifts
Read More......
Friday, September 12, 2008
Now that the Conventions are over, let's discuss some substance
I want discuss neo conservatism because Senator Obama is desperately trying to tie Senator McCain to President Bush, who is often called a neo conservative, and his policies. Senator Obama’s arguments fail because of the fact that that Senator McCain is, and has been, a true neo conservative, while the President has made only partial efforts.
Douglas Murray, one of the world’s most promising minds, has said that a neo conservative looks at the world with a blend of idealism and realism; that they look at the world as it is but act in the world to make it as they would like it to be. This is different from a conservative who likely will cling to the status quo, which they see as irrevocable, and different from liberals who see the world as they want it to be, and then act on the basis that it is that way.
President Bush can harbor neo conservative ideals, though in practice he is not always neo conservative. His wishy-washy neo conservative record is illuminated in his dealings with Iran and Russia. You see neo conservative twitches that are fatally not allowed to manifest themselves in action. This practice sends all kinds of wrong signals, creating terrible results, and through that creation misrepresents and undermines the reputation and capabilities of neo conservative policy.
What this distinction sets us up for is a debate on the virtues of neo conservatism and liberalism, stemming from the public’s misunderstanding that America’s policies over the last 8 years have been neo conservative in nature and practice, which they most definitely have not been.
Neo conservatives have goals for our country and the world, and these goals are scantly different, in details only, from that of the liberals: security, equal opportunity, a strong economy, heath care for all, and religious and personal freedom, to name a few. Policies may differ, such as the debate over affirmative action, but make no mistake: both sides want a system that gives anyone who desires an education an unbiased path to achieve it. Demonize as you may wish, but per capita conservatives (to include neo conservatives) give more money and volunteer more time via private charity than liberal demographics to support such “racist” and “exclusionist” issues as food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and inner-city education programs. This takes much more true, pure concern and effort than stumping on increased government programming and shows actual willingness to actively participate whereas liberals tend to support increased spending on government programming, often times sourced from increased taxes collected mainly from other people, which is a solution that requires little effort from them.
Motivations, likewise, do not differ in any significant way. Two examples: 1. Security: a homeland where people feel safe going about their daily lives, and 2. Equal opportunity: from birth, everyone should have the opportunity to achieve the heights that they dream of, meaning the foundation of a k-12 education, the ability to apply for college, and subject to job hiring processes based on merit and aptitude, and all this free of racial, gender, ethnic, religious, etc, bias.
Take the issue of health care. Both sides would prefer a situation where everyone has health insurance. Liberals project this vision on the world and come away with the attitude that because it is desired, it is only a matter of enacting government policies to make it happen – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy doomed to failure. The liberal plan outlines a high-risk “all” strategy that, should it fail, delivers a corpse of the current program. Neo conservatives take this goal, look at the country, see its budget deficits, its incredibly complicated health care systems and laws, its high costs of providing good care, the dearth of trained nurses and doctors, and realize that government-provided health care at this time simply cannot be, for better or worse, and they develop realistic alternatives that help immediately and lay the foundation for a more comprehensive program when circumstances permit. Neo conservatism delivers a partial solution with a potential for more, far better than the inevitable nothing delivered by an idealized and unrealistic universal proposal.
When Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Ranch asked Senator Obama about his position on abortion, the Senator responded:
“I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.”
This is no doubt a liberal position, and that is not a judgment in itself. This author is pro-choice, and is happy the Senator is as well. Nonetheless, his point here is not wholly reflective of reality. A good number of women get abortions precisely because they do not have the support systems in place – they do not have pastors, spouses, a doctor, or a family. To say women considering an abortion consult these sources that comprise sound personal support structures is to selectively choose a self-serving sample set comprised of the ideals that embody the Senator’s hope that “women [do not] make these decisions casually” rather than a representative set including the substantial group of those who do not inhabit his world.
Let’s compare responses on whether we should give teachers performance-based pay from Senators Obama and McCain:
Senator Obama:
“I've said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers…teachers are underpaid, so we need to pay them all more, but -- and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence.”
Senator McCain:
“Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work.”
Senator Obama’s answer focuses on pay raises for all, and bigger raises for those that perform at an “excellent” level. This presupposes that all teachers are good teachers, or without so much as a mention dismisses bad teachers as insignificant to the problem, or both. Conversely, while Senator McCain agrees that performance-based pay for teachers is a good thing, he also points out that an integral systemic problem is bad teachers, a perspective reflective of reality, thus producing a solution based on reality with a more systemic focus.
The opposite of neo conservatism is relativism. Relativism is the idea that one thing is relative to and dependant upon other things. This thought leads to statements like “one culture cannot be judged by the standards of another.” Relativism accepts ideas like hate crime designation; neo conservatism rejects them. Relativism is to Senator Obama what neo conservatism is to Senator McCain: embraced. Let us examine a situation that hits the Jewish home: the Arab-Israel conflict.
Relativists argue that Islamic extremists such as Hamas aim to hurt Israel because Palestinians are, as claimed, forced into poverty (among other reasons) by Israel. It is not difficult to illuminate upon the ignorance of this claim. One is more likely to become an Islamic extremist if one is educated or middle or upper class. Harvard and RAND, hardly bastions of Israel support, conducted a review of all terror attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2005 and concluded that educated and wealthy Muslims were responsible for the most devastating attacks, largely more successful in their attacks than uneducated and poor actors, and targeted for recruitment because of their higher likelihood for acting smart, leading to maximum terror while not getting caught. Omar Sheikh, the man responsible for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, was a middle-to-upper class citizen of London and a graduate of one of the world’s most prestigious universities, LSE. Nearly everywhere, the planners and executers of terror are educated, not poor, and often times privileged members of both their world (like the law school graduate Hanadi Jaradat of Palestine) and ours’ (Mahmoud Abbas got his graduate degree in Moscow). To say that these actions are motivated by poverty and lack of opportunity is to project an ideological version of truth as actual truth, to see the world as it is wanted to be seen, to see the world as a relativist and liberal.
Why would some idealize the world, distorting reality? Certainly this is not the goal of the liberals. It is due to an overwhelming sense that it is not right to criticize one side when you yourself have committed wrongs, that rights and wrongs are relative. When relativism reaches the end game, this moral equation leads to exclusion of guilt and implicit support of evil. In the aftermath of the July 7 Tube bombings, the relativist mayor of London entertained Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is well known as one of the greatest inspirations to jihadists and suicide bombers. Relativism allows for groups that threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do act, and threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do not act, because in some way we have generated a source of their hatred, as if it is supposedly avoidable and excuses their actions and our tolerance of them (not only is our freedom, our fair treatment of women, our secular institutions and governments, our freedom of the press, and our freedom of speech unavoidable, but they are desirable and should never be compromised because people hate us).
When one receives threats over inaction, and from the same people receives threats over action, it would be illogical to entertain these people’s opinions. Yet that is the liberal policy, because no one’s voice should be discounted. We’ve heard Senator Obama reiterate this in as many words throughout his campaign. Neo conservatism has none of this. The realization that people who hold double standards are not reliable partners is extremely clear to neo conservatives, yet it eludes liberals. The realization that goals are often not achievable in their entirety is evident to neo conservatives, and that this has implications, is not seen by liberals. And what’s more, the idea that a goal is achievable simply because of its virtuosity is a far from a satisfactory reason for putting its solution in motion, though that never seems to stop liberals.
Goals and aspirations are fundamentally necessary for good leadership. I have no reason to doubt Senator Obama’s intentions are well placed, and I take him as a patriot. Yet to believe in his policies, to see them not only as plausible but as preferable, is to see the world through a relativist eye; that is, to allow oneself to fall into dementia. Neo conservatism is the tool box with which to properly address our world’s decrepit state, and Senator McCain gets this. It provides a clear vision of the world as it is, with no revisions or alterations, and in so doing establishes the accurate baseline on which to respond. It guides us to solutions that provide the best odds of working. The world is not as a liberal paints it, but as a neo conservative sees it. You cannot achieve your goals if you do not know where you are starting from.
Read More......
Douglas Murray, one of the world’s most promising minds, has said that a neo conservative looks at the world with a blend of idealism and realism; that they look at the world as it is but act in the world to make it as they would like it to be. This is different from a conservative who likely will cling to the status quo, which they see as irrevocable, and different from liberals who see the world as they want it to be, and then act on the basis that it is that way.
President Bush can harbor neo conservative ideals, though in practice he is not always neo conservative. His wishy-washy neo conservative record is illuminated in his dealings with Iran and Russia. You see neo conservative twitches that are fatally not allowed to manifest themselves in action. This practice sends all kinds of wrong signals, creating terrible results, and through that creation misrepresents and undermines the reputation and capabilities of neo conservative policy.
What this distinction sets us up for is a debate on the virtues of neo conservatism and liberalism, stemming from the public’s misunderstanding that America’s policies over the last 8 years have been neo conservative in nature and practice, which they most definitely have not been.
Neo conservatives have goals for our country and the world, and these goals are scantly different, in details only, from that of the liberals: security, equal opportunity, a strong economy, heath care for all, and religious and personal freedom, to name a few. Policies may differ, such as the debate over affirmative action, but make no mistake: both sides want a system that gives anyone who desires an education an unbiased path to achieve it. Demonize as you may wish, but per capita conservatives (to include neo conservatives) give more money and volunteer more time via private charity than liberal demographics to support such “racist” and “exclusionist” issues as food, clothing, and shelter for the poor and inner-city education programs. This takes much more true, pure concern and effort than stumping on increased government programming and shows actual willingness to actively participate whereas liberals tend to support increased spending on government programming, often times sourced from increased taxes collected mainly from other people, which is a solution that requires little effort from them.
Motivations, likewise, do not differ in any significant way. Two examples: 1. Security: a homeland where people feel safe going about their daily lives, and 2. Equal opportunity: from birth, everyone should have the opportunity to achieve the heights that they dream of, meaning the foundation of a k-12 education, the ability to apply for college, and subject to job hiring processes based on merit and aptitude, and all this free of racial, gender, ethnic, religious, etc, bias.
Take the issue of health care. Both sides would prefer a situation where everyone has health insurance. Liberals project this vision on the world and come away with the attitude that because it is desired, it is only a matter of enacting government policies to make it happen – a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy doomed to failure. The liberal plan outlines a high-risk “all” strategy that, should it fail, delivers a corpse of the current program. Neo conservatives take this goal, look at the country, see its budget deficits, its incredibly complicated health care systems and laws, its high costs of providing good care, the dearth of trained nurses and doctors, and realize that government-provided health care at this time simply cannot be, for better or worse, and they develop realistic alternatives that help immediately and lay the foundation for a more comprehensive program when circumstances permit. Neo conservatism delivers a partial solution with a potential for more, far better than the inevitable nothing delivered by an idealized and unrealistic universal proposal.
When Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Ranch asked Senator Obama about his position on abortion, the Senator responded:
“I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members.”
This is no doubt a liberal position, and that is not a judgment in itself. This author is pro-choice, and is happy the Senator is as well. Nonetheless, his point here is not wholly reflective of reality. A good number of women get abortions precisely because they do not have the support systems in place – they do not have pastors, spouses, a doctor, or a family. To say women considering an abortion consult these sources that comprise sound personal support structures is to selectively choose a self-serving sample set comprised of the ideals that embody the Senator’s hope that “women [do not] make these decisions casually” rather than a representative set including the substantial group of those who do not inhabit his world.
Let’s compare responses on whether we should give teachers performance-based pay from Senators Obama and McCain:
Senator Obama:
“I've said this publicly, that we should set up a system of performance pay for teachers…teachers are underpaid, so we need to pay them all more, but -- and create a higher baseline, but then we should also reward excellence.”
Senator McCain:
“Yes, yes, and find bad teachers another line of work.”
Senator Obama’s answer focuses on pay raises for all, and bigger raises for those that perform at an “excellent” level. This presupposes that all teachers are good teachers, or without so much as a mention dismisses bad teachers as insignificant to the problem, or both. Conversely, while Senator McCain agrees that performance-based pay for teachers is a good thing, he also points out that an integral systemic problem is bad teachers, a perspective reflective of reality, thus producing a solution based on reality with a more systemic focus.
The opposite of neo conservatism is relativism. Relativism is the idea that one thing is relative to and dependant upon other things. This thought leads to statements like “one culture cannot be judged by the standards of another.” Relativism accepts ideas like hate crime designation; neo conservatism rejects them. Relativism is to Senator Obama what neo conservatism is to Senator McCain: embraced. Let us examine a situation that hits the Jewish home: the Arab-Israel conflict.
Relativists argue that Islamic extremists such as Hamas aim to hurt Israel because Palestinians are, as claimed, forced into poverty (among other reasons) by Israel. It is not difficult to illuminate upon the ignorance of this claim. One is more likely to become an Islamic extremist if one is educated or middle or upper class. Harvard and RAND, hardly bastions of Israel support, conducted a review of all terror attacks in Israel between 2000 and 2005 and concluded that educated and wealthy Muslims were responsible for the most devastating attacks, largely more successful in their attacks than uneducated and poor actors, and targeted for recruitment because of their higher likelihood for acting smart, leading to maximum terror while not getting caught. Omar Sheikh, the man responsible for the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, was a middle-to-upper class citizen of London and a graduate of one of the world’s most prestigious universities, LSE. Nearly everywhere, the planners and executers of terror are educated, not poor, and often times privileged members of both their world (like the law school graduate Hanadi Jaradat of Palestine) and ours’ (Mahmoud Abbas got his graduate degree in Moscow). To say that these actions are motivated by poverty and lack of opportunity is to project an ideological version of truth as actual truth, to see the world as it is wanted to be seen, to see the world as a relativist and liberal.
Why would some idealize the world, distorting reality? Certainly this is not the goal of the liberals. It is due to an overwhelming sense that it is not right to criticize one side when you yourself have committed wrongs, that rights and wrongs are relative. When relativism reaches the end game, this moral equation leads to exclusion of guilt and implicit support of evil. In the aftermath of the July 7 Tube bombings, the relativist mayor of London entertained Sheik Yusef al-Qaradawi, who is well known as one of the greatest inspirations to jihadists and suicide bombers. Relativism allows for groups that threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do act, and threaten to murder, torture, and destroy us if we do not act, because in some way we have generated a source of their hatred, as if it is supposedly avoidable and excuses their actions and our tolerance of them (not only is our freedom, our fair treatment of women, our secular institutions and governments, our freedom of the press, and our freedom of speech unavoidable, but they are desirable and should never be compromised because people hate us).
When one receives threats over inaction, and from the same people receives threats over action, it would be illogical to entertain these people’s opinions. Yet that is the liberal policy, because no one’s voice should be discounted. We’ve heard Senator Obama reiterate this in as many words throughout his campaign. Neo conservatism has none of this. The realization that people who hold double standards are not reliable partners is extremely clear to neo conservatives, yet it eludes liberals. The realization that goals are often not achievable in their entirety is evident to neo conservatives, and that this has implications, is not seen by liberals. And what’s more, the idea that a goal is achievable simply because of its virtuosity is a far from a satisfactory reason for putting its solution in motion, though that never seems to stop liberals.
Goals and aspirations are fundamentally necessary for good leadership. I have no reason to doubt Senator Obama’s intentions are well placed, and I take him as a patriot. Yet to believe in his policies, to see them not only as plausible but as preferable, is to see the world through a relativist eye; that is, to allow oneself to fall into dementia. Neo conservatism is the tool box with which to properly address our world’s decrepit state, and Senator McCain gets this. It provides a clear vision of the world as it is, with no revisions or alterations, and in so doing establishes the accurate baseline on which to respond. It guides us to solutions that provide the best odds of working. The world is not as a liberal paints it, but as a neo conservative sees it. You cannot achieve your goals if you do not know where you are starting from.
Read More......
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
A Live Mic Can Be A Dangerous Thing
Check out what Republican strategists say when they think the mic is off... Turns out we're not the only ones skeptical of the Palin pick for VP...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php
Read More......
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php
Read More......
Friday, August 29, 2008
Experience? Shmexperience!
In a surprising moved aimed at hooking disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign has tabbed Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate...
Surprised? Me too. Sure, Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) is a woman and she is supposedly a populist Republican (???) but she also has served less than two years as the governor of Alaska, making her roughly as qualified as the mayor of Baltimore (~650,000 people, give or take a grizzly bear or two)
What do you think, is this a good move? Has McCain lost all ability to attack Obama on issues of experience? (I say he has). Is this a sign that the McCain campaign is panicking, a radical effort to shake things up and change course before it is too late? Or will Sarah Palin signal a "game changing choice" as Karl Rove suggests, the first ever populist, reform minded beauty queen in the history of the Republican Party? Leave your comments here. One thing is for certain, we are in for a wild ride.
P.S. St. Louis is in for a treat when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin meet in the Vice-Presidential debate here in October. Early word is that Palin's after-party will be held at Morgan Street and the Big Bang, in order to fit in with her age group (Oh it is so much fun to be able to make experience jokes aimed at the McCain ticket!)
Read More......
Surprised? Me too. Sure, Palin (pronounced PAY-lin) is a woman and she is supposedly a populist Republican (???) but she also has served less than two years as the governor of Alaska, making her roughly as qualified as the mayor of Baltimore (~650,000 people, give or take a grizzly bear or two)
What do you think, is this a good move? Has McCain lost all ability to attack Obama on issues of experience? (I say he has). Is this a sign that the McCain campaign is panicking, a radical effort to shake things up and change course before it is too late? Or will Sarah Palin signal a "game changing choice" as Karl Rove suggests, the first ever populist, reform minded beauty queen in the history of the Republican Party? Leave your comments here. One thing is for certain, we are in for a wild ride.
P.S. St. Louis is in for a treat when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin meet in the Vice-Presidential debate here in October. Early word is that Palin's after-party will be held at Morgan Street and the Big Bang, in order to fit in with her age group (Oh it is so much fun to be able to make experience jokes aimed at the McCain ticket!)
Read More......
Masterpiece?
People are calling Barack Obama's acceptance speech last night a political masterpiece, with one commentator likening it to a symphony...
Sometimes, there is so much hype and so much anticipation, that one can't help but disappoint. Unless, of course, your name is Barack Obama. Sure, the campaigns will get bogged back down in minutiae and silly media creations, but for one night at least we saw how great Barack Obama really can be.
NEWSFLASH: Sources are reporting that a private plane flew into Ohio, sight of today's McCain VP roll-out, late last night from Alaska, home to Alaska Governor and VP hopeful Sarah Palin. Who you ask? More to follow....
Read More......
Sometimes, there is so much hype and so much anticipation, that one can't help but disappoint. Unless, of course, your name is Barack Obama. Sure, the campaigns will get bogged back down in minutiae and silly media creations, but for one night at least we saw how great Barack Obama really can be.
NEWSFLASH: Sources are reporting that a private plane flew into Ohio, sight of today's McCain VP roll-out, late last night from Alaska, home to Alaska Governor and VP hopeful Sarah Palin. Who you ask? More to follow....
Read More......
Friday, June 6, 2008
Obama Mania
So Barack Obama is the “presumptive nominee for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America” aka John McCain’s other half in the royal rumble to fill W’s not so gigantic shoes. Everywhere in the Jewish community, Obama has been embraced with open arms as the nation’s savior, the man who has suffered just like us and understands our plight… the man who will talk the Iranians into submission… the man who will create a two state solution and be back on Air Force One in time for the complementary peanuts and feature film…
Not so fast. For there is another side to the Jewish community’s response to Obama, and this one paints a picture that is not so rosy. Barack Obama: the man with the Muslim sounding name… the man who is hiding his true allegiance to the Palestinians… the man who will empower the Iranians and sacrifice the one true democracy in the Middle East for an afternoon of golf with his Muslim friends…
It is clear that the Jewish community is quite conflicted over what to think of the latest craze to sweep the nation. Different than many disagreements within the faith, however, the answer here can not be live and let live. When electing the leader of the free world, it’s good for everyone to be on the same page. So let’s break it down…
Before we do though, a word about myself, so that everything is on the table and you know just where I am coming from. I am probably like a lot of you who are reading this: A young Jewish professional trying to make his way in the not so vast, sprawling metropolis that is St. Louis. I have recently returned to St. Louis after a brief stint in the Northeast working on a campaign for one of Obama’s early rivals for the Democratic nomination. I am writing to share my thoughts on a variety of issues, sure, but most of all I want to see St. Louis live up to its potential, and I want to see us take it there, be that through intelligent conversation, hitting up the various cultural and entertainment venues in the city, or general debauchery. Yes, that’s right, there is room for all three.
But back to the issue at hand: Just what is the Jewish community to make of Barack Obama?
First, one ground rule, from my political experience. Do not judge someone simply on what YOU think their beliefs are. When it comes to a choice as important as we have in this election, let the candidates and those who are working for them do their jobs. They are there to inform you of what they think, so listen. Why that matters here is that too many people in the Jewish community seem to have written Obama off without a second glance. “His name’s Barack? He was born a Muslim? He wants to negotiate with our enemies in the Middle East? Screw him, I’m voting for McCain, at least he’ll nuke Tehran before giving up Israel”
This is the mindset taken on by a segment of the Jewish population towards Obama, and it is one that I admittedly did try on for size. If something is as popular in the mainstream as Obama, there has to be something for Jews to fear, right?
At the same time, however, there is the first group I mentioned, the group who sees him as a savior, not just for Israel, but the world. Now this is probably going a little too far. Remember the men who have come before who have not been able to make a dent in the peace process: John F. Kennedy,George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton all nice, personable people by many accounts, who got nowhere near the goal of peace.
Before fleshing out my opinion though, a word on these two camps. In one corner, you have the serial deniers, those who insist Obama is bad for Israel, despite the evidence to the contrary. More or less, this will be your older generations, those who have become more cynical and hardened with time. In the other corner, you have your optimists, the younger generations, the same ones you could hear chanting even a year ago from Iowa to New Hampshire, “Obama, 08, be a part of something great!” These young Jews are flocking to Obama like the rest of their generation. So are the young Jews overlooking Obama’s stance on Israel because they are so caught up in his aura, or are the older Jews ignoring the facts right in front of them?
The answer lies somewhere in the middle, and I will let Obama begin to tell the story himself. In a speech to the Jewish community in Florida, he reminded us all of the origins of his name Barack. It comes from the Hebrew, Baruch, meaning Blessed. Good start. Plus, Obama has committed time and again throughout his campaign to defend Israel to the best of his ability. Now, some critics suggest this language means he would not go far enough with the use of force. However, we have seen that movie before. Brute force, while allowing Israel to survive, has not gotten us any closer to the ultimate goal of peace. Sure, Obama must convince us all that he will be willing to use the force necessary to defend Israel. But he has already told us that he not only appreciates Israel’s strategic significance, but its spiritual and historical significance as well. If you listen, you will hear that this is not a man looking to make any changes in the status quo, at least on this issue.
The place he is different, and this doesn’t just apply to this issue, is at the margin. The man has done a good job, and forced the nation to associate his name with HOPE. And that’s what an Obama presidency will be all about. The hope that things can be different. Will he strike peace in the Middle East? I don’t know, and frankly I myself am a little skeptical about the Obama hope mantra. But one things is for certain: the man is willing to try.
So all you conspiracy theorists, come out of the basement and put away your canned goods. President Obama will not spell the end of the Jewish state as we know it. Or let me put that another way: If we are lucky, if what we hope he is he really is, then maybe, just maybe, he might. The end of the horror and terror that we know, and the beginning of an era of peace and hope.
So give him a chance, Jews of America and the world. When it comes right down to it, both McCain and Obama will defend and protect Israel. But there is only one who will do so while also looking towards peace. And besides, McCain has another 100 years in Iraq to deal with anyway, isn’t that right, Mr. Very Very Conservative Hiding in a Moderate’s Clothing? But that’s another story for another day. Read More......
Not so fast. For there is another side to the Jewish community’s response to Obama, and this one paints a picture that is not so rosy. Barack Obama: the man with the Muslim sounding name… the man who is hiding his true allegiance to the Palestinians… the man who will empower the Iranians and sacrifice the one true democracy in the Middle East for an afternoon of golf with his Muslim friends…
It is clear that the Jewish community is quite conflicted over what to think of the latest craze to sweep the nation. Different than many disagreements within the faith, however, the answer here can not be live and let live. When electing the leader of the free world, it’s good for everyone to be on the same page. So let’s break it down…
Before we do though, a word about myself, so that everything is on the table and you know just where I am coming from. I am probably like a lot of you who are reading this: A young Jewish professional trying to make his way in the not so vast, sprawling metropolis that is St. Louis. I have recently returned to St. Louis after a brief stint in the Northeast working on a campaign for one of Obama’s early rivals for the Democratic nomination. I am writing to share my thoughts on a variety of issues, sure, but most of all I want to see St. Louis live up to its potential, and I want to see us take it there, be that through intelligent conversation, hitting up the various cultural and entertainment venues in the city, or general debauchery. Yes, that’s right, there is room for all three.
But back to the issue at hand: Just what is the Jewish community to make of Barack Obama?
First, one ground rule, from my political experience. Do not judge someone simply on what YOU think their beliefs are. When it comes to a choice as important as we have in this election, let the candidates and those who are working for them do their jobs. They are there to inform you of what they think, so listen. Why that matters here is that too many people in the Jewish community seem to have written Obama off without a second glance. “His name’s Barack? He was born a Muslim? He wants to negotiate with our enemies in the Middle East? Screw him, I’m voting for McCain, at least he’ll nuke Tehran before giving up Israel”
This is the mindset taken on by a segment of the Jewish population towards Obama, and it is one that I admittedly did try on for size. If something is as popular in the mainstream as Obama, there has to be something for Jews to fear, right?
At the same time, however, there is the first group I mentioned, the group who sees him as a savior, not just for Israel, but the world. Now this is probably going a little too far. Remember the men who have come before who have not been able to make a dent in the peace process: John F. Kennedy,George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton all nice, personable people by many accounts, who got nowhere near the goal of peace.
Before fleshing out my opinion though, a word on these two camps. In one corner, you have the serial deniers, those who insist Obama is bad for Israel, despite the evidence to the contrary. More or less, this will be your older generations, those who have become more cynical and hardened with time. In the other corner, you have your optimists, the younger generations, the same ones you could hear chanting even a year ago from Iowa to New Hampshire, “Obama, 08, be a part of something great!” These young Jews are flocking to Obama like the rest of their generation. So are the young Jews overlooking Obama’s stance on Israel because they are so caught up in his aura, or are the older Jews ignoring the facts right in front of them?
The answer lies somewhere in the middle, and I will let Obama begin to tell the story himself. In a speech to the Jewish community in Florida, he reminded us all of the origins of his name Barack. It comes from the Hebrew, Baruch, meaning Blessed. Good start. Plus, Obama has committed time and again throughout his campaign to defend Israel to the best of his ability. Now, some critics suggest this language means he would not go far enough with the use of force. However, we have seen that movie before. Brute force, while allowing Israel to survive, has not gotten us any closer to the ultimate goal of peace. Sure, Obama must convince us all that he will be willing to use the force necessary to defend Israel. But he has already told us that he not only appreciates Israel’s strategic significance, but its spiritual and historical significance as well. If you listen, you will hear that this is not a man looking to make any changes in the status quo, at least on this issue.
The place he is different, and this doesn’t just apply to this issue, is at the margin. The man has done a good job, and forced the nation to associate his name with HOPE. And that’s what an Obama presidency will be all about. The hope that things can be different. Will he strike peace in the Middle East? I don’t know, and frankly I myself am a little skeptical about the Obama hope mantra. But one things is for certain: the man is willing to try.
So all you conspiracy theorists, come out of the basement and put away your canned goods. President Obama will not spell the end of the Jewish state as we know it. Or let me put that another way: If we are lucky, if what we hope he is he really is, then maybe, just maybe, he might. The end of the horror and terror that we know, and the beginning of an era of peace and hope.
So give him a chance, Jews of America and the world. When it comes right down to it, both McCain and Obama will defend and protect Israel. But there is only one who will do so while also looking towards peace. And besides, McCain has another 100 years in Iraq to deal with anyway, isn’t that right, Mr. Very Very Conservative Hiding in a Moderate’s Clothing? But that’s another story for another day. Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
