Sunday, October 12, 2008

Forum

This is not a postmortem, because, as Jules Crittenden has written, “The tea-leaf readers still haven’t polled the one person in America who knows which way this thing is really going. You know her. We all know her. Gore and Kerry sure do. She’s the fat lady. The one who, contrary to some reports, doesn’t warble till Election Day.” But I would be interested in hearing readers’ views on What’s Gone Wrong with the McCain Campaign, or whether McCain could really have been expected to come up with anything to clear the enormously high hurdles that have been presented this election year.

1) I think McCain could have run against Obama and won. I even believe that McCain could have run against Obama and the media and won. But having to run against Obama, the media, widespread voter fraud AND an economic crisis, after 8 years of an increasingly unpopular Republican administration around which public frustration has tended to coalesce (rightly or wrongly) may prove to be too much in the end. What could McCain have done differently? What, if anything, can he do now?

2) McCain is being criticized by many people for not attacking Obama’s many dubious past associations until too late in the day. I think it’s clear that McCain is not personally comfortable with partisan attacks, however legitimate they may be - and I think it’s perfectly legitimate to question why Obama, who could have chosen from among many people to work with over the years, almost always chose to ally himself with radicals (Ayers), racist demagogues (Wright) and crooks (Rezko). Is McCain truly making a mistake by not hitting Obama harder, or is he correct in his (apparent) assumption that this strategy will not work to win over undecideds?

3) Whether or not throwing the spotlight on Obama’s old cronies is useful, I believe McCain absolutely has to outline a positive vision of what he plans to do when he becomes President. Advocating low taxes and private sector solutions is great, and I believe he said something at one rally about a top-to-bottom review of all federal government agencies in order to determine which ones to cut back and/or scrap (he certainly ought to give this more air play). On foreign policy, I believe he’s been pretty articulate. What else do you think he should address?

4) There has been a lot of debate in blogdom about whether or not this is “the most important election in our lifetime”, whether this is a “transformative election”, etc. I tend to think it is not as important as the last one. In 2004, our efforts in Iraq had bogged down, we were almost two years away from the surge, and a Kerry victory promised to mean a premature withdrawal of our forces and a military and foreign policy disaster. Bush’s victory ultimately made the surge possible, led to the destruction of Al Qaeda as a significant military enterprise, and provided the breathing room necessary to give the Iraqis a chance to get their political house in order. An Obama victory could still do harm in Iraq, but a Democratic victory four years ago would, in my opinion, have been devastating.

Nonetheless, if Obama wins, there is obviously cause for concern. Do you think the greatest danger lies in his ignorance of a sound military and foreign policy vision, or in the possible threat to domestic freedoms by virtue of the Democrats’ increasingly cynical disregard for freedom of speech, and their open support for voter fraud? Or is the biggest danger going to be the usual Democratic tendency toward idiotic fiscal policy and unsustainable entitlements programs?

11 comments:

Boy on a bike said...

Obama is not a big danger, unless he finds a way around the checks and balances built into the system. The founding fathers developed those checks and balances to stop a band of nutcakes from totally ruining the country. They knew this day would come.

Paco said...

"They knew this day would come." How wonderfully well put!

SwampWoman said...

I'm very concerned about the "carbon tax" being institutionalized by Democrats and further hampering our economy.

There is still a WOT ongoing that Obama's stated goal is to hamper.

Anonymous said...

Two words:
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Well two names. And an and in there as well.

Ok Two Names: Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barack Obama.

Oh, and SCOTUS.

Ok. Three names and an acronym.

Kevin B

Anonymous said...

Paco:

I don't think McCain could have done much more, given all the angst (real or imagined) hanging around the country. He may be uncomfortable with partisan attacks, but is that better or worse than sending troops into battle, where they can die or be crippled? Being a leader means having to grab the turd, with or without gloves. The person who forgets that basic axiom will fail. But he must do so understanding that being constantly negative is as bad as being "respectful".

That said, I firmly believe in opening closets when and where possible. Obama's associations speak poorly of his character and ambition.

I don't view this election as the most important or transformative in our lifetime. Frankly, I believe that the Presidential elections peaked when Reagan won re-election. One could argue Truman's victory over Dewey as the true peak, but I digress.

Everything since then has gone downhill: quality of candidates, mud slinging, dirty tricks, political corruption, MSM bias, you name it. This election is merely an continuation of the downhill slide.

I believe that the better question is, "When do we hit bottom, and work our way back uphill?"

I believe we are very nearly into the trough. If Obama loses, we may have a shot at getting out of this mess.

If Obama wins, the battle to recover from these crazy years begins. There is no certainty that we will recover. We could stay in the trough like a lot of other nations (e.g., Zimbabwe).

Either way, it'll take some sterling leadership, something that is sorely lacking within the GOP and Dhimmicratic Party right now. There are hopefuls on the horizon: Steele, Jindal, Palin, to name a few. The Dhimmicrats, very few. I can't think of any off hand, alas.

$pecific problem$? More of the $ame, only wor$e. That'$ the problem with bread and circu$e$, y'know. The masses always want more.

Paco said...

RJ: Amen, brother! I haven't felt truly pumped about voting for a presidential candidate since 1984; seems like ever since I've mostly been voting against the other guy.

Anonymous said...

I regard the Ubermessiah as a shoo-in.

Here in Ottawa, Canada, I was speaking with a work colleague, who also happened to be a brit, about the election.

He was astonished that I thought the Ubermessiah elected POTUS would be bad. to quote:

"Wot, the first black american president?"

Arguments such as:

"He's a socialist"
"He hates America"
"He is not black, he is Kenyan"
"The very fact that you mention his skin colour is indicative of the racist nature of this presidential bid"

There is no stopping the Ubermessiah messianic cult.

He will be president ONE TERM ONLY!

And then Sarah Palin will be the first female POTUS, and order will be restored.

Anonymous said...

Paco, "W" was a disappointment to conservatives because he wasn't, economically. He was, surprisingly, non US conservative in his Bush doctrine, for which I applaud him.

You are now going to have a massive, hard left, democratic government in all houses and appartments. I hope the US constitution is stronger.

The Right Wing attack must be based upon energy, home grown, here, now!!!

The left has an irrational hatred of cheep energy.

Anonymous said...

I was at university after 1990, and leftism was dead dead dead. Remaining leftists were forced to rejig their ideas for the free market.

I thought the reaction to 9/11 would mop up remaining pockets of extremism and lead to the West uniting to create a new Pax Romana/Americana. I knew it would take time, many years, but would be possible if we all joined a united effort toward the common goal. We could have done it. In 2003 the Muslim world and much of the non-West were behaving like they were ready to submit, as when a teacher enters a rowdy class and slams a ruler on a desk and there's sudden silence (Gaddafi surrendered for example).

I never expected the rise of dissent which has occurred in the West the last 7 years. The rise of the psychopathic so-called Left and the brainwashed masses who support them.

I guess we will struggle on. Maybe there are positives in this dissent, like a madman routine which keeps the bad guys guessing. But it's not my idea of rational rule, for what that's worth, maybe I never had a clue.

McCain, Isn't he a bit like Eisenhower - too nice to be a politician? Choosing Sarah was a master stroke worthy of a great General, though. I'm with RJ, he's done his best, all things considered.

Anonymous said...

WC: "I hope the US constitution is stronger."

So do I!

Bruce: "McCain, Isn't he a bit like Eisenhower - too nice to be a politician?"

He has his moments, but, yeah, he needs to get blunt. You can respect an opponent even whilst whuppin' his a$$.

Anonymous said...

This is the most worrying election I have watched. When McCain won the primaries, I was pleased it wasn't some hopeless newbie nowhere man, and there were several of them; but I have to say that Rudi may have been more the man for these times.
If the voters elect Obama it will be partly due to a superficiality in the process, and partly due to partisanship in the media. But the largest part will be that of the white-anting or dementing of the once-proud Democrat Party, which is no longer that of the era pre 1968 wherein most of its true heroes strode.
The alliance of the Newly-Dem-entered and the MSM is looking like a winner, unless some middle-American groundswell appears at ten minutes to the hour, like James Stewart's resue of the bank in "It's A Wonderful Life" and brings sense to the voters.