It’s Time for Action

May 10th, 2008 by Dave

Posted in Election 2008-President, McCain

30 Responses to “It’s Time for Action”

on 11 May 2008 at 8:35 am1Brian

Guys I come from a republican family. I am begging you all, you may not want to hear this, NOT to support John McCain. His policy positions are simply too hardcore to the big government right. Like me all the folks at CATO have been depressed about this.
on 11 May 2008 at 8:43 am2Patrick Varine

You know, it’s kind of tough to watch McCain just lie to all of these people in the promo, especially when you consider that he has been quoted as having been “very honored” to receive the endorsement of Christian mega-pastor John Hagee, who has been quoted as saying Katrina was both “a cursing and a blessing,” since it “washed out the sins of New Orleans.”

And yet I don’t seem to notice anyone on Fox News going all “Reverend Wright” on McCain’s ass… curious…
on 11 May 2008 at 9:27 am3Hube

Don’t worry Patrick — they’re doing it over at MSDNC.
on 11 May 2008 at 9:34 am4Don

Barf . . why did you pick this?
on 11 May 2008 at 12:31 pm5Patrick Varine

Fair enough — my general assessment of the Three Candidates Standing is this (and I admit, I cribbed it from a friend, but he nailed it right on the head): with Clinton, you know what you’re getting (not great, all kinds of ill ties through Bill)… with McCain, you know what you’re getting (also, not great, lots of ill ties from when he jumped off the Straight-Talk Express and onto the G-Dub Bandwagon; frankly I don’t understand why more of the GOP doesn’t look at McCain the same way they looked at Kerry: a waffler who’s trying to appease everyone)… Obama is the only candidate that leaves you thinking there may be a chance for SOME change… is there a 95 percent chance he’ll end up just like the rest of them? Yes. But can he lead the country better than G-Dub? I think so. I’ll take that plus the 5 percent chance that he may offer a serious chance for change.
on 11 May 2008 at 6:29 pm6John Feroce

Brian says “Guys I come from a republican family. I am begging you all, you may not want to hear this, NOT to support John McCain.”

So is Obama the solution to all your big government concerns Brian?
on 11 May 2008 at 6:54 pm7Brian

No, neither is McCain. There is just about no one out there who is close to my ideal of a limited constitutional government except George Phillies, little known libertarian candidate.
on 11 May 2008 at 8:15 pm8John Feroce

“No, neither is McCain. There is just about no one out there who is close to my ideal of a limited constitutional government except George Phillies, little known libertarian candidate.”

Okay, I’ll play for a couple of minutes.

Since either Obama or McCain is going to be elected the next President of the United States of America, which of these two candidates will most likely support “Big Government” solutions?

Logic please Brian. Logic. You don’t protest something by making things worse.

Are you better off today than you were in November of 2006? Let’s vote Democrats in to take over Congress and go from bad to worse. That made sense! Come on, use your head.

You have a “do ABSOLUTELY nothing Congress!”, potentially a bigger spender than the current occupant of the oval office in Obama, and your solution is to vote Obama in? not to mention the President directly impacts the third branch by his nominees to the Supreme Court.

Protest, but don’t abort completely.

McCain is the best of the rest, period!
on 11 May 2008 at 8:51 pm9Brian

John-

Logic: McCain has a staff that are military Keynesians- that means they will grow the military and neglect the civilian infrastructure and he thinks we do not have “enough American casualties” so they will go up; Obama is Keynesian who will grow the civil government and build stuff here and employ people in non-military professions and still expand the military by 30% on a guns a butter platform.

I think we need a different type of economic platform that will protect the liberty of the people and that causes deflation with value instead of hyperinflation with no value- I do not want to take a wheelbarrow of currency out for bread. That is the trend that will destory the currency or the middle class or both.

And it will occur no matter who is in office unless they change the economic structure and foreign policy…which one of these two candidates do you trust more on this issue?
on 11 May 2008 at 10:08 pm10Perry Hood

John and Brian, what’s wrong with this?

“Restore Fiscal Discipline to Washington

* Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.
* Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
* Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.
* Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient: Obama will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid. Obama will also increase the efficiency of government programs through better use of technology, stronger management that demands accountability and by leveraging the government’s high-volume purchasing power to get lower prices.
* End Wasteful Government Spending: Obama will stop funding wasteful, obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense. Obama has called for an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, as well as the elimination of subsidies to the private student loan industry which has repeatedly used unethical business practices. Obama will also tackle wasteful spending in the Medicare program.”
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

John, you continue with your habit of setting up straw men with your assumptions, then attacking. That’s not convincing!

Now of course Obama when President will have to deliver, which of course remains to be seen. Let us see how he handles himself against McCain on these fiscal issues. I ask you this: Has McCain said how he is going to pay for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts favoring the wealthy which he has decided to support after he voted against them to begin with?
on 12 May 2008 at 7:09 am11Brian

Perry,
Nothing at all is wrong with that.
on 12 May 2008 at 7:14 am12Brian

“I hate gooks…I’ll hate them until the day I die.”- John McCain will not get my vote even he was running for dog catcher.
on 12 May 2008 at 7:20 am13FrankKnotts

Brian I too am a Republican that continues to wait for Sen. Mc Cain to say or do something that makes me more comfortable voting for him. But this sort of catering , pandering message only troubles me more.

I prefer a message that is drected at all Americans, not just a select voting block that he feels he needs to win . And instead of pointing out our past mistakes tell me what he plans to do to make the country better than its ever been.

The real problem for him is that of his history. We are being asked to forget all that he has done and been in favor of , and now believe that a light suddenly went on and he found his coat of conservatism.

Maybe if he would have the guts to while still in the Senate and running for the office of President , he would put forht and push through with all of this goodwill he has built with the Democrats , some truly conservative legislation, like tougher immigration laws or making the tax cuts permanent , and spend some of that political capital that he has banked over the years from working , oh so , oh so closely with the Democrats.
on 12 May 2008 at 7:28 am14Dave

“* Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.”

Perry — Words v. deeds. Obama secured a $1 million earmark for his wife’s employer, and she then got a raise.
on 12 May 2008 at 8:30 am15Don

Here we go with “limited government” again. Stick a fork in this obsolete concept. Why wish for something that you cannot explain and that will never be?
on 12 May 2008 at 11:12 am16FrankKnotts

Let us not forget that limited govrnment means more than just cutting spending . It also means less government regs on industries so that they can move forward and be successful. If you want to know why our energy industries are in such a state , you need only look to all of the over regulation .
on 12 May 2008 at 11:22 am17noman

If you want to know why our energy industries are in such a state , you need only look to all of the over regulation .

*head explodes*
on 12 May 2008 at 12:27 pm18Al Mascitti

“If you want to know why our energy industries are in such a state , you need only look to all of the over regulation .”

Our oil companies are making record profits. WFT are you talking about?
on 12 May 2008 at 1:05 pm19Perry Hood

“Our oil companies are making record profits.”

Not only that, they are being subsidized!

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/subsidizing-big-oil.html

Will we ever know what was transacted in the secret meeting that Cheney had with the oil company moguls?

This is just one more item that needs to be changed.

Dave: “Obama secured a $1 million earmark for his wife’s employer, and she then got a raise.”

Were the two events connected? What was the nature of the earmark? Would she have gotten the raise anyway? I think we need more information than this, Dave, in order to make a judgment.

Dave: “Obama secured a $1 million earmark for his wife’s employer, and she then got a raise.”

Which is why I said: “Now of course Obama when President will have to deliver, which of course remains to be seen.”

Using his rhetorical skills and leadership ability, I say Obama has a better chance of delivering than either Hillary or McCain. Look at how well his campaign has been run compared to the other two!

How do you like this for a comprehensive energy plan?
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

Like I’ve been saying, this Obama is very special indeed. Come join in!!!
on 12 May 2008 at 1:08 pm20Perry Hood

My second quote from Dave was not supposed to be a duplicate of the first, rather it was supposed to be this: “Perry — Words v. deeds.”
on 12 May 2008 at 3:30 pm21DavidAnderson

You have a problem with recognizing sin, Patrick? Any good Christian would hope that a tragedy like Katrina leads to repentance. Saying that good can come out of the tragedy of Katrina is nothing to be ashamed of. I am not so optimistic. I think your whining shows that people will do what they want no matter what. That is the real tragedy.

The message of the gospel has long been foolishness to those who don’t believe. What else is new? It has nothing to do with whether to vote for someone as President. Hagee undermined evangelicals by not endorsing Huck after being supportive previously. Texas was close enough that a united evangelical front could have given it to Governor Huckabee. Hagee gave the race to McCain. It should be the social conservatives upset, not the liberals.
I guess Alex Baldwin endorsing one of the Democrats should subject them to asking whether or not they believe his daughter is a lousy pig. That would be stupid. Candidates have to assemble a coalition consisting of a majority of the people. Only losers try to do so by subtraction. To have a winning coalition in a nation as diverse as ours, you have to respect people with whom you may disagree in one or more areas enough to join with them for the common good. Anything less is saying to one group of people that you are less worthy than any other group of Americans. That sounds divisive and an affront to our multi-cultural society..

Pastor Hagee is a good man. This attack on him is weird. All he did is say that he is going to vote for one guy over another. What that has to do with John McCain is beyond any reason. John McCain didn’t change any positions. In fact, John McCain’s immigration position likely won him the endorsement. You want to know what John McCain thinks about New Orleans, look at his speech. You don’t need to divine it.

McCain did not endorse Pastor Hagee. Does anyone even know what an endorsement is? It is when someone says you will be good at this job. Should someone not accept anyone’s support even though they are a law abiding, mainstream American with a following? Do you agree with everything done or said by anyone? At that rate, a man could not even be endorsed by his wife

I think you degrade the level of political discourse Patrick. One level shows a hostility to the beliefs of people with whom you disagree. You refuse to understand that their are two American mainstreams, a conservative, traditionalist one and a liberal, progressive one. Both are equally valid as far as legitimacy. Both have a right to contest for leadership of this nation. The lower level of your attack is guilt by association. You can’t attack John McCain. So you pull what you claim to quote out of context from someone who once said he would vote for him, with no attribution to show it was legitimate. (When and where did he say this? Did you get it from some liberal site which habitually makes these quotes?) Even then the quote is perfectly reasonable so you add some characterization which is not borne out by the quote. Then you say John McCain is bad because he has a tangential association with a man you don’t like because of something he may have said once three years ago. I have no respect for that kind of politics.
on 12 May 2008 at 4:15 pm22Patrick

By way of clarification, Hagee said it on national radio, during a September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio’s Fresh Air, not “some liberal Web site.” Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for “a level of sin that was offensive to God.” He referred to a “homosexual parade” held on the date the hurricane struck (which was actually scheduled for the following week) and said that this was proof “of the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans,” despite the fact that the area of the city where the parade was scheduled sustained little to no hurricane damage.

Besides, your main man McCain did the same sidestep act as Obama when the quotes came to light, and even said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulous” in April that it was “probably a mistake to court and accept Hagee’s endorsement.”

Anyway, are you this quick to jump up and defend Obama and his tangential ties to Rev. Wright, or are you going to tell me that’s a whole different situation?

I have no need to attack John McCain. I just plain old don’t like him as a presidential candidate. I think he stretched himself way too thin trying to please both sides of the aisle and isn’t good for much anymore.

I am well aware that there are two American mainstreams. I just don’t happen to believe that gay people caused a hurricane. Sorry. I just don’t.
on 12 May 2008 at 4:36 pm23Jordan Warfel

‘Hagee said Hurricane Katrina was an act of God, punishing New Orleans for “a level of sin that was offensive to God.”’

Is that supose to be on the same level as Wright claiming that the government infected blacks with AIDs and wanting God to dam America? I wouldn’t wish the damnation of God on anyone.

Why did it take Obama so long to denounce his pastor? I thought he was like a member of his own family?
on 12 May 2008 at 5:07 pm24Patrick

Not the comments, per se; just the general situation: “Candidate distances self from pastor’s comments.”
on 12 May 2008 at 8:41 pm25Don

At what point do we acknowledge that preachers exist in a totally different realm from politics. They speak of God and hell and heaven, salvation, rapture, the end time, the parting of the Red Sea. It’s religion. People believe in all kinds of weird stuff. It’s religion. We have burning bushes, and God’s wrath. If there ever was a place for the Bill Of Rights to kick in, it is the preacher’s sermon.

Are we really going to start interpreting these people literally? Is that how stupid politics has become? Wright, Hagee, Billy Graham, the whole bunch should be able to say whatever they want without being judged is some political reality. Hagee can talk about sin and punishment and God and homosexuals. Wright is entitled to talk about what goes around comes around when nation’s make war and a government capable of experimenting with people. Get off these guys.
They exist on the edge of reality. Let it be.
on 13 May 2008 at 1:52 pm26Patrick

Pretending politics and religion are not entwined is a dangerous business, my friend, and it ignores a large part the political climate in this nation basically since Roe v. Wade, if not earlier.
on 13 May 2008 at 1:53 pm27Patrick

… a large part OF the political climate… (we need an edit function on these things!)
on 13 May 2008 at 2:49 pm28DavidAnderson

Patrick wrote– Anyway, are you this quick to jump up and defend Obama and his tangential ties to Rev. Wright, or are you going to tell me that’s a whole different situation?

Patrick, Look at my comments on various Rev. Wright posts. You see that I reject saddling him with Rev. Wright’s views when his whole carreer seems to say he disagrees. Senator Obama is not Rev. Wright. They represent an entire generational shift. To gloss that over is to miss something important by my friends on the right.

Yet, it is different because it was not merely about Rev. Wright endorsing Senator Obama. It was about how much inspiration he received from the man who Senator Obama claimed inspired him to view politics from a Christian perspective. He even named one of his books after one of Rev. Wright’s sermons. He was a mentor. It was legitimate to ask where do they part company. I think once that was answered, it is nothing but politcal piling on.

I love being consistent because I don’t fall into these traps, but even if I didn’t happen to agree with you, I think the case would be easy that it is different.

1. What John Hagee said was mainstream both historically and for others of his faith. Lincoln said the Civil War was God’s judgement for slavery. What Rev. Wright said went to the extreme. He accused the government of spreading AIDs to wipe out minorites without any proof.

2. John McCain has a friend in Congress who goes to John Hagee’s church who seems to have facilitated the timely endorsement, and hardly knows the man. Senator Obama went to Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years.

3. John Hagee never called America evil and criminal. Rev. Wright did. US of KKK–Terrorist flag, ect.

4. John Hagee works for interfaith cooperation, is married to an Hispanic lady, and has a multi-racial church. Rev. Wright preaches Black Liberation Theology and promotes the black ethic.

5. John Hagee has had no official role in the McCain Campaign. Rev. Wright was a spiritual advisor to the Obama Campaign.

6. Senator Obama and Rev. Wright were very close. No such relationship existed with Rev. Hagee and Senator McCain.

There are differences. I don’t think they are substantial. Both candidates have expressed their own views and their is no conflicting evidence stating that they shared the views in question. I move on and go to the real issues.
on 13 May 2008 at 3:02 pm29DavidAnderson

Thank you for recognizing that there are at least two mainstreams of thought. I would then say, no one can be condemned for valuing the support of either. You can’t build a center right coalition without the John Hagee’s, Dobson, and Robertson and you can’t build a center-left one without Boxer and Kennedy. It is therefore silly to bash people over the head for tangential associations. you can’t get to 51% without having someone support you that someone else doesn’t like.
on 13 May 2008 at 6:48 pm30Don

I think we should look into what books and movies the candidates expose themselves to. It truly is Orwellian the way the thought police in the right wing of the Republican Party claim to love freedom, but want to condemn people for what thoughts they expose themselves to. You guys are as bad as the Islamofascists the way you demand some “pure American patriot” brand of thinking. You think you are the only true patriots just like the Islamofascists think they are the only true believers. If Hagee wants to tell his flock homosexuals are an abomination, or Wright preaches the USA has committed damnable crimes good for them. That kind of fire and brimstone is the hallmark of a free society. This is a free country. What does any of it have to do with the issues the next President will deal with? President Bush attends an all American white bread church. What good has that done us?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

DelawarePolitics.net

30 Responses to “It’s Time for Action”

Leave a Reply

Our Sponsors

Get DP.net via Email!

Latest Comments

Topics

Blogroll

Contributors

Tags