Dialogue on Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain, Basic Economics, and the Upcoming Election:(With Kevin Tierney)
Kevin's words will be in burgundy font with his sources italicized.Well, it's finally happened. The One has demonstrated that he isn't really "change we can believe in." On second thought, maybe he is. He's worse than the most petty and vile of politicians. Deceitful as Bill Clinton may have been, Clinton never sacrificed his own family to advance his career. (As Obama did when he shamefully threw his infirm grandmother under the bus during the Reverend Wright scandal.) The Clintons certainly never demonstrated their prowess by insulting people with disabilities or those with debilitating injuries, as Obama has just done.Obama stated this week "the gloves are finally coming off" for the 4th time since securing the Democratic nomination. In a recent ad, Mr. Obama mocks GOP presidential candidate John McCain for apparently being computer illiterate. The ad says the following:"He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy, and favors two hundred billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class,"There is also the whole "still doesn't understand the economy" schtick. McCain is no economist but he understands the concept of lower taxes stimulating the economy and higher taxes stifling it. He understands the sort of dynamics that are involved in people's economic behaviour and does not naively presume as Obama and company do that raising taxes will increase revenue. It never does past a very low threshold point because people do not respond to these things statically.
Obama on the other hand when it was pointed out to him that every time the capital gains tax is raised it brings in less revenue still favours doing it on principle because the income disparities "are not right." That is the view of an ideologue and I will take McCain's frank admission that the economics are not his strong suit coupled with his familiarity with the dynamics of how an economy runs over a know-it-all like Obama who presumes to talk out of his ass a lot on a subject to which he is either ignorant or disingenuous about. And considering the Gestapo-like tactics he and his goons are involving themselves in, I do not believe I am obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt on these matters.
Obama is also claiming that McCain's campaign is the "dirtiest in history" which shows how ignorant he is. What about the 1800 election??? The 1828 election??? The 1876 election??? The 1884 election??? The 1912 election??? The 1960 election??? The 1964 election??? The 1980 election??? The 2000 election??? Every one of them an argument can be made was worse than this election and they are not the only ones. But objectively I would say the ones from 1800, 1828, 1840, 1876, 1884, 1912, 1964, and 1980 were worse than this one.
If part of dirtiness is the attempt to steal an election on the part of Democrats then we could throw 2000 and 2004 in there as well particularly the last one. I say particularly the last one cause the same people who bitched about winning the popular vote last time when the total was less than a half million nationwide difference tried to steal Ohio in 2004 despite GWB winning the nationwide popular vote by about three million. Not to mention the silence like whores in church from the Dems viz. what happened in the Washington governors race which was as I called it then "Grand Theft Election."
Heck, I just when writing this response took a minute and made a tab on my weblog on those posts and the others I could find on a quick archive search that discussed the subject of
stolen elections. But that is neither here nor there as their hypocrisy knows no bounds obviously -and not just in that area.
Where do we begin? First off, Obama better hope he gets those young liberal voters. He has certainly now conceded just about every senior citizen. (Not to mention those working class individuals like my father who have never used a computer in their lives, and went on to become region directors of unions.) This in itself makes it a stupid ad. However, as Jonah Goldberg points out, this ad is not only stupid, its downright insulting:"Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "extraordinary." The reason he doesn't send email is that he can't use a keyboard because of the relentless beatings he received from the Viet Cong in service to our country. From the Boston Globe (March 4, 2000):
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. Bob Klaus{1} is right that Obama has most of the under 30 voters but McCain was not going to win that demographic anyway. Though if he can take about 40% instead of the more probable 30% that would basically along with the older contingent and the blue collar worker sorts like my late father who identified himself as a Democrat most of his life{2} despite almost never voting for them.{3} The younger crowd go for the charisma and the rhetorical bs. They also do not vote in large percentages whereas the largest demographic in the country is senior citizens. And if my late father (God rest his soul) was alive, he would be screaming to listen to them insult McCain in that way.
McCain is a war hero. PERIOD. That war wounds prevent him due to injuries from doing some things all that well is a given but to mock that is disgusting. I have to say though that his love of Ted Williams tells me something because 'ol Ted was a pretty interesting personality and I can see shades of the Williams persona in McCain. (Both the good and the bad.) I recommend you all read Leigh Montville's
fascinating biography of Ted Williams if you really want to see the complexities of the man and get an insight into one of McCain's self-admitted influences.{4}
As Goldberg points out in his Corner post, perhaps we should condemn the governor of New York since he doesn't know how to drive, since transportation is important to the economy. Oh wait, Governor Patterson is blind. Perhaps we should have condemned FDR because the man couldn't walk beyond a few steps, because being mobile is certainly required to be a president. Oh wait, FDR was paralyzed.Indeed. And when it comes to "dirty campaigning" how about condemning Grover Cleveland for
having an affair which resulted in a child? That was a major media sensation back in 1884 when he ran for the first of his two non-consecutive terms.{5} The illegitimate child issue was huge in 1884 as was the 1828 election where the issue of
President Jackson's wife was huge. More could be noted but just those two alone trump anything we are seeing this year. Oh and for what it is worth, I do not recall McCain or Obama's campaign basically saying that their opponent deserved to be in the lowest pit of hell as this famous 1840 campaign ditty opposing President Van Buren did:
Who never did a noble deed?
Who of the people took no heed?
Who is the worst of tyrant's breed?
Van Buren!
Who like the wily serpent clings,
Who like the poisonous adder stings,
Who is more base than basest Kings?
Van Buren!
Who would his friend, his country sell,
do other deeds too base to tell,
deserves the lowest place in Hell?
Van Buren!But then again, Obama has gotten a lot of easier to verify facts wrong so why should we expect him to get the harder stuff correct???
There are two explanations for this fact. The first is that he legitimately did not know that McCain, due to his injuries in service of his country, was prevented from these things. A little while ago Obama claimed that the fact he ran such a great campaign proves he has more experience than VP nominee Sarah Palin, and was proof he is ready for President. You don't hear much about that argument in the past week, and this is more evidence why you don't. It's obvious his campaign is not as strong as he thinks it is. As Mark Hemmingway so eloquently put it, Obama can send an email, but apparently can't do a quick search on Google.And when the msm is emphasizing how "even" this race is, that is another clue that the Dems are behind because if the situation was reversed and Obama led by 3-5 points among all voters (and 10-12 points among likely voters), they would present it as if he was "pulling away from Sen. McCain in this race" or some equivalent.
Second, Obama knew about this, but just didn't care. Then he becomes worse than even the most vile of politicians. John McCain's injuries in the service of his country are something to be praised, just as are the injuries of all veterans. Not mocked! I'll refrain from saying it is this option. If this is the case, then it says something very troubling about the kind of person Obama is, and suggests something that is beyond despicable about his nature.Agreed.
So we are left with just being flat out stupid. That's a harsh statement, but its true. Would he like to condemn my good friend John who just came back from Iraq? John can't lift that much because of injuries he sustained fighting for this country. Would Obama like to call him less a man because he cannot lift heavy objects?Well said Kev.
Notes:{1} One of those on the thread.
(Last name omitted barring permission from him to note it here.){2} His father was a Republican who only voted for one Democrat that I am aware of (Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 over Pres. Eisenhower). My father identified with President John F. Kennedy and was looking forward to voting for him in 1964 (his first presidential voting election) which never happened.
{3} His first presidential election was 1964 (for Goldwater) When I asked him about it, he only remembered voting against Johnson due to what he learned about the man when doing long haul trucking through Texas in the early sixties. In fact, except for the Nixon elections and 1992, my union man father voted for Republican candidates for president.
{4} Montville later authored a
similarly solid biography on Babe Ruth which is also well worth reading but I digress.
{5} He lost in a re-election bid in the electoral college despite winning the popular vote in 1888 and then defeated President Benjamin Harrison in the 1892 contest four years after that.
Labels: Dialogues, MSM/Media, Pol/Elect/Sociopol/Geopol, Pres. Clinton, Pres. FDR, Pres. Ike, Pres. JFK, Pres. LBJ, Reason/Logic/Ethics, Sarah Palin, Sports, Stolen Elections
