Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Republicans Are Desperate

If you don't think that Republicans are getting desperate given Obama's rising popularity coupled with McCain's embrace of George W Bush, then here is something to consider.

US Senator Gordon Smith, an anti-Iraq war Republican running for a third term in the liberal state of Oregon, has a new campaign ad out that implies he has the backing of the Democratic White House hopeful.

This ad caused the Obama camp to release a statement in response: Obama spokesman Bill Burton said: "Barack Obama has a long record of bipartisan accomplishment and we appreciate that it is respected by his Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate. But in this race, Oregonians should know that Barack Obama supports (Democratic challenger) Jeff Merkley for Senate. Merkley will help Obama bring about the fundamental change we need in Washington," he said.

Has anybody seen a Democrat in a conservative state trying to couple their fate to McCain?

I thought not.


coreydbarbarian said...

yes. they. are.

(desperate, that is.)
who would've thought they could destroy their brand in "only" 16yrs? old school conservatives don't deserve this, but the neo-cons that took over surely do.

coreydbarbarian said...

speaking of republicans...
here's a typical midwesterner / republican.


Old school conservatives = libertarians.


The Supreme Court has redeemed themselves to some degree. It is now affirmed, we have the individual right to defend ourselves with regulated firearms. Hooorraaaaay!!!!!!

Anony Mouse said...

The GOP and the DNC are both equally desperate. I know I speak to a partisan crowd but the DNC is hoping like hell that Hillary will play the part of loyal Obama supporter. We all know how she really feels but she must still act the part. I hear the GOP being blamed for Obama attacks but they all occurred right in their own party. I get sick of the ridiculous race card be thrown out every time someone criticizes Obama. Even a supporter of a candidate should be willing to scrutinize their own candidate or they are a fool. Obama and McCain both have strengths and weaknesses and the question is which weaknesses are you willing to take a chance on?
They are also hoping like hell that Obama doesn't have any more stupid comments to make or skeletons in his closet. I know butt wipe I'm black so I should back the black man but I have yet to hear any good reasons to support him. This exchange was actually on a radio call in show I personally heard just this past week.

Woman Caller: I support Obama
Host: Ok you have 30s to give me 3 good reasons to support Obama
Woman Caller: (expletives bleeped out)
Host: You can’t speak like that on the air
Woman Caller: OK, he is the democrat candidate, he is ½ black ½ white and he is handsome.

Those are not even good reasons to be my dentist. I don’t want our first partially black president to be the black Jimmy Carter and he looks like a failure looking to happen. Obama is just not ready. The DNC has not put up a good presidential candidate since Clinton.

The GOP is going through a re-identification process just as the DNC has in the last few years and they are losing power. It is a regular occurring event that both parties experience on a regular basis. It is good for the party and it good for America. I see the congress under DNC control and in the end I see McCain as the next president.

csm said...

Stupid anecdotes don't make your point mouse. You want three good reasons, here they are:

1) As president, Barack Obama will implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods.

2) Senator Obama has been a leader in the Senate in pushing for a comprehensive national energy policy and has introduced a number of bills to get us closer to the goal of energy independence. By putting aside partisan battles, he has found common ground on CAFE, renewable fuels, and clean coal.

3) hroughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal. In a politically charged election year, Obama acknowledged that corruption was a problem that plagued both political parties. He subsequently enlisted the help of Republican allies to limit lobbyist influence, shine sunlight into the earmarks process and promote open government.

I could go on...

csm said...

And give me one, just one, example of Obama making a stupid comment.


Gee, where do I start. First, I am on record saying the best thing for this country is a McCain presidency because of the gridlock which would ensue leaving the economic heavy lifting to us, which is where is should be. I cannot in good conscience vote for McCain and I won't but I believe it would be best.

That being said:

Infrastructure spending - fine, this makes sense.

Energy independence - nice sentiment, but I fail to see how the federal government is the best way to find the best solutions as compared to the consumers themselves. Example, ehtanol subsidies which have done nothing to lower gas prices, helped food prices go to extremes never seen before and emits as much CO2 as gasoline. It helps the farmers though and farmers vote.

Education-not in the federal governments jurisdiction and they have done much to fuck things up while their hand is in our pockets. This is a local issue as I have posted before mainly because it is much easier for parents to monitor the situation than to have the feds "middleman" hands in the pot. I fail to see how, unless you are someone who thinks the federal government is always the best solution, the federal government can make this better.

Research and Development- there is a spot for this. The military and space programs do push innovation, but this is where is should stop. The federal government has no business picking winning and losing technologies, the markets do this just fine.

Modernize and simplify the tax codes- besides the fact income taxes are inherently immoral, this is a laudable goal, especially if they replace income taxes with a national sales tax.

National energy policy - this is kinda iffy, a policy is fine, picking winners and losers as mentioned above isn't and it isn't fair. Think of the little guy with a great idea going against the major energy companies with tons of money to shower the ones making the choices. The markets with informed consumers will always make better decisions.

Barack Obama- I believe Barack is a honest person. Any attempt to clean up Washington would be welcome. And I would vote for him if he were more Constitutional in his thinking. A smaller federal government knowing it's Constitutional limits is the path I believe is the one to take. Unfortunately for me, neither candidate feels the same way, though McCain's earmark attitude is generally good.

coreydbarbarian said...

"I would vote for him if he were more Constitutional in his thinking."

just want to take this opportunity to point out that obama used to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

also, barack obama included a chapter on the constitution in his book (the audacity of hope). in it, he says, "if there was one impulse shared by all the Founders, it was a rejection of all forms of absolute authority, whether the king, the theocrat, the general, the oligarch, the dictator, the majority. . . . George Washington declined the crown because of this impulse. . . ."

finally, please allow me share a quote from a washington post piece (by glen johnson) from jan, 2007:

"In 1990, Obama became the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review, a position that usually falls to the student with the sharpest elbows. Obama won by convincing liberals and conservatives alike of the strength of his intellect, the soundness of his judgment and the merit of his vision.

"I can't pretend that I had any idea then that he would be a serious presidential candidate _ that would have been a crazy thing for anyone to project at that stage of a career _ but he was certainly the most all-around impressive student I had seen in decades," said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional scholar at Harvard for whom Obama served as a research assistant.

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled, "The Curvature of Constitutional Space.

i really dig the fact that he not only grasps quantum physics, but he can apply that understanding to constitutional law. but that's just me & my inner geek. the article forgot to mention he graduated magna cum laude from harvard, but maybe they were trying to keep it modest.. ;-D

csm said...

Well, Bawdy, if you eventually decide to vote for Bob Barr you'll have similar problems. How can a libertarian embrace someone who led the charge against same-sex marriage/unions? And Barr is hugely anti-drug, advocating complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. He's not much for freedom of religion either, in Congress, he proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military. These are not constitutional positions.

G said...


Excellent job cutting and pasting from Obama's website.

All I see in Barack Obama is a bunch of empty, election year rhetoric with no substance to back it up. In essence, his political views are reminiscent of Jimmy Carter... but repackaged into a likeable, charismatic speaker. His record tells the story very clearly.

From Wikipedia:
"Based on his years in Congress (i.e. 2005, 2006, and 2007), Senator Obama has a lifetime average conservative rating of 7.67% from the ACU, and a lifetime average liberal rating of 90% from the ADA."

That is definitely not the kind of "change" that I'm looking for.

On the other hand, John McCain is an enigma to a large degree. You don't really know which way he's going to go because there isn't a lot of consistency in the positions he has taken over the years. Add the fact that he just seems to spout off whatever he thinks will bring votes, and we have no idea what kind of president he would be. But his history DOES tell us that he is definitely NOT a conservative at all.

In John McCain, I see a rehash of Bob Dole: Not the best candidate the GOP could provide + weak primary competition + "Let's just let him take his turn."

I couldn't possibly vote for Obama. The only thing that would bring me to vote for McCain would be strictly an "against Obama" vote, dependent upon how much long-term damage I think Obama could do to this country in four years.

This would be an excellent year for a third-party or independent candidate if the system weren't so heavily weighted against them. If they were provided equal access to debates and things like that, we would have a VERY interesting election this year. Alas, we will end up with either a left-wing, party-line Democrat or a somewhat moderate Democrat wearing a GOP uniform.

So do we lean toward the "cotton candy" of Obama (tasty platitudes with no real substance or nutritional value... and ultimately unhealthy) or the "mystery meat" of McCain (no idea what's in it, no clue about health, but temporarily filling).

G said...

By the way, I doubt that anyone is desperate right now (other than true conservatives). If memory serves me correctly, Dukakis was ahead by more than 10% in the polls in the summer of 1988... only to get slaughtered in November by Bush/Quayle.

I'm not saying that Obama is in the same situation... just that summer polls mean nothing. In fact, I think Bush/Clinton in 1992 was a similar situation (Bush way ahead in summer, but losing in November).

The real campaign hasn't even started yet.

coreydbarbarian said...

those liberal and conservative 'rankings' are hogwash. all they do is try and water down politics to a binary choice. life isn't binary, people.

interesting how obama's website provides more substance than either g or mouse will admit, whether viewed from his site or this one.

obama ='s carter? wishful, simplistic thinking. and while mccain may end up on the same page as dole in the history books, i don't believe he is nearly as benign as dole was.

ya know, for a while there, i really thought mouse was posting as g. go figure.

G said...

I didn't say Obama=Carter. I said Obama's political views are reminiscent of Carter's.

It should be clear by now that I am a fiscal conservative. So is it a surprise that I think an Obama presidency would be a disaster?

From Obama's website:

- From "Provide a tax cut for working families": "...restore fairness to the tax code..." Translation: make the rich pay more

I don't know about you, but "fair" to me is something more like a flat tax across the board for everyone above a certain income level... say 10% of income for those who earn over $50k (just arbitrary numbers on my part). I don't like the idea of penalizing those who have done well by making them give a higher percentage to the govt.

- "Fight for fair trade": hmmm, not "free" trade, but "fair"... to whom? And the idea of forcing our labor & environmental regulations on other countries is a recipe for higher prices. You can complain all you want about the cost of living going up, but MORE regulation will only cause it to increase more rapidly.

- "Support job creation": "double federal funding..." = Spend

- "Invest in US manufacturing" = Spend

- "Create new job training...": "The Obama plan will increase funding..." = Spend

- "Invest in rural areas" = Spend

- "Raise the minimum wage": Which results in higher operating costs, then passed on to the consumer in higher retail costs.

- "Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures": = Spend (in order to protect people from their own bad financial decisions)

- "Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities": "Obama will double funding..." = Spend

Should I go on? For the most part, his goals are admirable. I just don't believe that his way of getting there (i.e. increased spending) actually works. You can see it under his education policies as well: spend, spend, spend. Energy policy: spend, spend, spend. Healthcare: spend. Combat poverty: spend.

It's an age-old formula for the "liberal" wing of the Democratic party (I hate to use that word because it can mean so many different things, but I assume you all understand). Government knows how to make everything better... so we'll spend lots of money to do so... and then we'll tax the "rich" to pay for it.

I'm sorry, but my view in most areas is that the government is the PROBLEM, not the solution. And I think the founding fathers of this country recognized that. I don't really know what Obama means by a "21st Century economic agenda," but I'd prefer to move more toward an 18th Century one (i.e. Mostly free markets with very limited regulation).

Incidentally (to sort of amalgamate two threads), I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jimmy Carter. He is a good man of strong character who stands firmly by his convictions. And he truly wants to help make America (and the world) a better place. But I strongly disagree with his view of how to get there. And his presidency, while filled with good intentions, was an economic disaster.

And just to make sure everything is clear, I do NOT think that a McCain presidency would be particularly good either. We're stuck with two LOUSY choices from the major parties.


In my defense, corey, I post a big long post and you take one line to play with?

If someone spends their whole life as a Hitler scholar, writes volumes on Hitler, speaks on Hitler and the media considers him/her an expert on Hitler; does that make them a Nazi? No.

You must know by now, I consider the Constitution a "dead" document as they say. In my early years you were either a "strict" Constitutionalist or a "loose" Constitutionalist. I kinda like those terms better(I'd rather be strict than dead), but I realize that is old-fashioned.

So to rephrase my offensive statement, I wish Mr. Obama were more of a "strict" Constitutionalist.


You are correct that Mr. Barr has held those beliefs you have outlined. I believe it is also true that Mr. Barr has reversed those views, some may say "flip-flopped, and throughout my posting history which you have witnessed, I have never attacked someone for seeing the light.

csm said...

Less "saw the light"...

More "changed positions to become more politically palatable"...

coreydbarbarian said...

thank you for clarifying your position(s). i am sorry if i misrepresented your words.
my original political position was fiscal conservative, social liberal. that's why i found libertarianism so appealing.
but i have drifted somewhat from my original fiscal opinions in my "old" age. for me, corporate greed has grown into a bigger threat than gov't spending.

i will dwell on all this tonight at the factory, and tomorrow, while driving the delivery route.
thank you, sincerely, for offering substance instead of the snarkiness that i (prolly) deserved.

and bawdy,
glad to see i was playing with your comment. hope i didn't ruffle your feathers TOO much. ;)

i AM impressed by obama's rhetorical and management style(s) and his grasp of law (and physics), though. just sayin'.

coreydbarbarian said...

oops, that should have read:
"glad to see that you realized i was playing with your comment."

Anony Mouse said...

CSM posts from the Obama webpage as reasons to vote for him? At least give credit next time. I guess you couldn't come up with your own?

Not "I could go on" but you mean "they could go on" at the Obama campaign CSM and they do.

Those who will not honestly scrutinize their candidate are fools. You should not need to visit the propaganda to find why you support your candidate. Their record and their past actions are great indicators.


...more politically palatable to the Libertarian Party. Agreed, he would not have gotten the nomination if he still believed as he did, but you have to admit you are not inside the head of Mr. Barr and in consequence do not know the real motivations of Mr. Barr. He just might have seen the light.

Just as you believe Mr. Obama has the right intentions without really knowing if he does, I am in the same situation with Mr. Barr. But I would also venture a guess that I am more skeptical of Mr. Barr than you are of Mr. Obama. I don't believe I have definitively stated I am voting for Mr. Barr. I am still in the investigative phase.

csm said...

Understood, but Obama is not on record as dramatically changing several of his previously deeply held positions. That immediately makes me more skeptical of someone. Especially when it is done around election time and immediately in advance of switching parties (albeit not a major switch for Barr as he did have several libertarian stances already).

coreydbarbarian said...

remember thomas sowell? he just showed up in my inbox.

da link

is this guy is any indication, some republicans are quite desperate.

coreydbarbarian said...

if this guy, if this guy.
not is this guy.
why don't i preview anymore??

csm said...

You make my point for me mouse. Your ridiculous anecdote about a single person who could not convey why they supported Obama was just that - ridiculous, and exposed an uninformed voter. There are many on both sides. All it takes to be informed is a click or two... or a phone call... or a trip to the library... or... Your point, which was probably to try to say that Obama has no positions or ideas, was proven wrong, wrong, wrong with a simple click - and it took less time than it took to write this comment.



I had a friend of mine send me this exact column from Sowell. I'll tell you the same thing I told him. I used to have some respect for him(Sowell)but this article has finished it for me. Anyone with his intelligence and sources should know that Iran(Shia) will not give Al Qaeda(Sunni) a nuclear device. You are right the desperation is there.

What I have been hearing is that Iran is in desperate straits themselves. This is a country rich with oil and they still have to import 40% of their gasoline requirements because of a lack of refining capability. Inflation is hitting Iran hard like many other countries. This county also is in the midst of elections(2009) as contentious as ours, between conservatives(Rafsanjani)and the ultra-conservatives(Ahmadinijad). They are still in talks with us over Iraq, but because of their political tug-o-war and deep introspection they are unable to make external decisions. Plus Syria, their one true ally, has started extensive negotiations with Israel, peace negotiations, which will, if successful, disenfranchise Iran and Hezbollah. Syria is interested in taking over Lebanon, it's financial cash cow, and Israel is interested in getting the last border state into a peace agreement. Don't be surprised if this goes through that the Israelis give up the Golan Heights. What all this will do is isolate Iran, and in effect Hezbollah. There have been reports from Canada and the US of Hezbollah agents monitoring sensitive targets, schools and such, in our two countries but at this point it could just be psychological warfare. The possibility that Iran would try to attack us just before the elections is not out of the realm though. It is not like they haven't tried before(Carter vs Reagan and the mid terms in 2006)Add it all up and you have a desperate Iran trying to stay in the poker game with us. And desperate countries do desperate things, but if this is the stuff(isolated attacks) which will make this country implode and start speaking Farsi then we weren't what we thought we were anyway, the only superpower in the world.

Anony Mouse said...

"Your ridiculous anecdote about a single person who could not convey why they supported Obama was just that"

Did I state only one person? No I only provided one example. CSM in the black community people in masses are voting for Obama because he is black and handsome. So is Denzel and many in my own family. They don't even realize he is 1/2 white. But I'm still asking and waiting for the first legitimate reason.

McCain is not my first choice but I can provide three good reasons with no problem. Those who make the statement Obama has not flip-flopped on anything are willing blind. They all do.

coreydbarbarian said...

i suspect that "in the black community people in masses are voting for Obama because he is black and handsome..."and because he posesses the 6 traits that make for a good leader: vision, charisma, pragmatism, consensus building, credibility, and luck.

because of that, i also suspect "They don't even.. mind ..he is 1/2 white."


A little change of topic; I read this today and wanted to share...

"Politicians' Power Dwarfs the Rich

by Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and author of Crisis of Abundance: Rethinking How We Pay for Health Care.

Added to on June 24, 2008

This article appeared in the Orange County Register on June 22, 2008.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton called for a Cabinet-level poverty czar."

-The New York Times, April 5, 2008

"Former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton earned a combined $109 million between 2000 and 2007... . In 2007 alone, former President Clinton earned more than $10 million in speaking fees."

-The New York Times, April 4, 2008

I think of myself as wealthy and successful. For about 15 years, I earned a good salary. Then, I started an Internet business, which I was fortunate enough to sell in 1999, before the Internet bubble popped. I think of myself as basically retired, although I teach as a volunteer at a local high school.

But Bill Clinton made more than twice as much in one year as I made my entire life. To me, that seems excessive. I do not understand how somebody could be driven to keep making money once you already have so much. I don't understand what drives superstar entertainers, CEOs, investment bankers and others to earn their exorbitant incomes.

As smart as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are, they cannot figure out how to spend all their money.

But the point of this essay is not to berate rich people. Instead of harping about American excess in terms of incomes, I want to focus on American excess in terms of political power. As unseemly as it is for America's wealthiest people to strive for more money, America's political class is far worse. They have a ridiculous excess of power, and yet they only want more.

Montgomery County, Md., has an annual budget of $3.8 billion. This sum is under the control of a County Council with nine members. On an average per-politician basis, each County Council member controls just over $400 million a year in spending.

To put an annual spending figure of $400 million in perspective, consider this: if you had $8 billion in assets and earned 5 percent per year on those assets, that would give you $400 million in annual income. And few Americans have that much. The world's wealthiest person is Warren Buffett, with $62 billion (admittedly he has often been able to earn more than 5 percent per year from investments). Bill Gates has $58 billion. Fewer than 40 Americans have more than $8 billion in assets, and their names are largely familiar to us – the Waltons of Wal-Mart, Sergie Brin and Larry Page of Google, and so on.

Can you name the members of the County Council in Montgomery County, Md.? I can't name very many of them, and I live there. Still, getting elected to the County Council in Montgomery County, which is pretty far down the ladder in terms of political power in the United States, enables you to control more annual spending than the wealth of Donald Trump or Steve Jobs.

(Editor's note: Orange County has a budget of roughly $6 billion, overseen by five county supervisors – or $1.2 billion in spending per supervisor. Los Angeles County's 2007-08 budget is about $21 billion, overseen by five supervisors – or more than $4 billion per supervisor.)

At the federal level, the budget is $3 trillion. If you divide that by 535 (the number of senators and representatives), then, on average, each legislator controls over $5 billion in spending per year. That is more than even the world's richest person could spend annually.

At this point, you may be thinking that this is not a valid comparison. It is misleading to compare legislative budgets with the wealth of Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, because legislators are spending money on all of us. They are not spending money on themselves.

But America's wealthiest people do not spend their money on themselves, either. They could not possibly do so. As smart as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are, they cannot figure out how to spend all their money. They will end up giving most of it away.

What the superwealthy have that the merely wealthy do not have is more financial power. When it comes to deciding which causes are going to receive money, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have more power than other people.

Which is exactly the power that politicians have.

Thus, the comparison between legislators and the superrich is actually quite apt. Both are able to exert an unusually large level of control over which causes receive money. Financially, wealthy people and politicians have the same type of power. The difference is that politicians have much, much more of it, by orders of magnitude.

The monetary comparisons only scratch the surface of the inequality and excesses of political power in the United States. Bill Gates might be said to control as much money as a member of the County Council where I live. But he does not have the power to, say, tell the people of the county where they can and cannot smoke, or to tell local businesses what wages they must pay their workers, or to decide whether a local concert venue will be devoted to folk music or to rock.

Wealthy people do not control the curriculum in our children's schools. Politicians do. Wealthy people do not set licensing requirements for everything from doctors to interior designers to hair stylists to manicurists. Politicians do.

Inequality and excess political power is getting worse at a faster rate than inequality and excess in monetary income. As I pointed out in an essay, "We need 250 states," political power is far more concentrated and insulated from the voters than was the case 200 years ago.

I feel awkward and defensive when the subject of economic inequality comes up. The fact is that I cannot say that I feel comfortable with the levels of inequality and excess that exist in our society.

However, I am loathe to call inequality a problem that requires a government solution. I do not see how it solves the problem to take power away from wealthy people who have a lot of it in order to increase the power of politicians who have far more of it.

What the American people really should feel awkward and defensive about is the level of inequality and excess of political power. Instead of asking ourselves what we can do about Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, we should be asking ourselves about what we can do about the Clintons and the Eliot Spitzers. Those who want more and more power should be our biggest concern."

This is the aspect of political power being concentrated in Washington that scares me the most. And I guess this is also going on in the states too. This is why we as citizens need to keep the eagle-eye on these people(government in general).

coreydbarbarian said...

ya know bawdy, that article does give me a different perspective on their financial power.

also, can you imagine 250 states? i haven't put a lot of thought into the idea, but my first impression is, "yeah, that might be better!"

Thomas said...

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober — if not grim — assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world — Iran — is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran’s nuclear bomb will be the terrorists’ nuclear bomb — and they can make 9/11 look like child’s play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand — however outrageous those demands might be — or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden’s threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s — and our “leaders”and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the “leaders”and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today’s presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear — or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West’s lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West’s industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure — at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.



Thanks for nothing thomas, ya wannabe!

coreydbarbarian said...

well said, bawdy!

but "thomas" did serve a function here. he proved that some republicans are not only desperate, they are dense, and lack any sense of irony. further, he proves just how easily swayed they are by fearmongering.

damned authoritarian followers, always moved by fear or hate.
(is there an emoticon for rolling your eyes?)

coreydbarbarian said...

further proof of republican desperation here
causes of said desperation here.

csm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
csm said...

I can't figure out whether or not that "Write in GWB" site is serious or trying to be humorous... I really can't...

coreydbarbarian said...

me neither. their bumper stickers are humorous (3rd try's a charm, etc.), but they play it straight all the way. if they are serious, they make it way too easy...

Anony Mouse said...

Damn Thomas, I see why you are not wanted here. Great analysis. I almost missed it.

csm said...

@@ <-- emoticon for rolling your eyes

coreydbarbarian said...

the same column has been discussed off & on in this thread for 5 days now, and da mouse almost missed it.

go figure.

here ya go, mousey. knock yourself out. just don't fool yourself and believe that our "thomas" is really thomas sowell.

coreydbarbarian said...

@@ --> now i know. and knowing is half the battle. yo joe!

sorry. i had to do that.

coreydbarbarian said...

when y'all wackaloons are done drooling over sowell look at this.

not so scary now, huh?

csm said...

How dare you try to humanize the enemy!


George Bush may have been God's Candidate all these years but it is now obvious God has never read our Constitution.