McCain and Trust

John McCain hit the nail right on the head in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination. He said the Republicans have lost the trust of the American people. That's really an understatement, at least for this former Republican.

He claims to be different, and to advocate change. And it would be believable, given his reputation. But Obama's point that he voted with Bush 90% of the time is telling.

His stated policies are on the whole better than Obama's, but the differences are pretty minor. But where they really differ, he is pretty scary.

His platform on abortion is too extreme. The platform supports a constitutional amendment that "The unborn child [from the moment of conception] has a fundamental individual right to life, which cannot be infringed." This means a 12 year old girl, raped by her father will be forced by the federal government to bear the child. That is positively barbaric.

He supports even further cutting taxes on the wealthy. This just makes me sick, and I won't talk about it any more.

His responses to various questions lead me to believe he is a warmonger. At the least he tends to think about international issues in military terms. When asked about how to deal with evil in the world, he dismisses any notion of containment, and insists on defeating it. Well, there is a lot of evil in the world, and many countries wish us harm.

If you vote for a warmonger, please do not be surprised when you get a war. What I am really afraid of is, Given McCain's attitude toward global ideological struggle, the opponents in his war will not be Iran or North Korea. They will be Russia and China.

Faith Forum

Some comments on the recent Faith Forum 'debate' at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church.

I love the forum. This is a great opportunity to learn how the candidates think, and to hear unrehearsed answers without the distraction of partisan attacks and punch lines. I hope this becomes a tradition. Thank goodness one of these evangelicals has finally realized you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

McCain has much better domestic policies, and Obama has much stronger foreign policies. I know this is the opposite of what the ignorant masses think. I'm glad I don't have to answer to public opinion polls like these guys.

McCain sees every foreign policy issue through the prism of the military. It is a little scary when military thoughts crept in to his answers to non-military questions. His approach to evil in the world is single minded: "you have to defeat it". As president, I wonder how he would handle the half dozen or so evil regimes that exist. Would he attempt to defeat all of them at once, or one at a time? I am a firm believer in taking what people say at face value, and I have no doubt that he would get us into more than one new war if elected. We can pray it is not against Russia or China. Iran would be disastrous enough as it is. Watching him talk about war, do you get the impression of a man whose fondest wish is to recreate the glory of WWII?

Another thing that is scary is his opinion on the supreme court. He opposes the four liberal justices, who have maintained our personal liberties. I can assure you that replacing just one of them with another right winger will have a noticeable negative effect in your life.

Curmudgeon

McCain's depiction of Obama as a celebrity appeals to the curmudgeon in us. It resonates in a couple of ways.

1. People resent celebrities for achieving fame and fortune without hard work.
2. People are tired of hearing about the next new thing, which is really nothing special.

Unfortunately for Obama, number 1 is hard to fight, but he did it well against Hillary, who is a much better campaigner than McCain. And it is usually a small factor in presidential elections. Claims of 'not ready to lead' don't stand up for anyone who is objective and listens to what Obama is saying.

Number 2 should be easier. You just have to explain what the new thing is about, until it seems less risky. Very few voters want another Republican disaster, so the bar for this is not too high. Obama should address this issue head on, as is his style. He should talk about how change can be scary, but the risks can be managed. This has the additional advantage that his opponent becomes the candidate of the status quo (as if he is not that already).

If the Republicans want to subtly 'define' Obama as a 'celeb', then Obama should 'define' what their argument is by answering charge 2 instead of charge 1.

Talking to Enemies

GW Bush, McCain, and Hillary all agree that we should not talk to hostile leaders without preconditions. Obama disagrees. He is right and they are wrong.

This can best be seen by turning the issue around. Consider the case of Suu Kyi, an opposition leader in Burma/Myanmar. The burmese government (a repressive dictatorship) refused to meet with her about the recent unrest unless preconditions were met, such as "she renounce widespread calls for international sanctions against the military regime".
Here is a news item.

Surely renouncing sanctions should be a result of negotiation, not a precondition. Otherwise what motive does the junta have for giving any concessions at all?

Predictably GW Bush insisted (correctly) that the meeting should take place without preconditions.

Such hypocracy arises when one takes the attitude that our people are good and the other side are evil people who need to be controlled. I will not argue that those who are hostile to us are not evil, but asking them to implicitly accept that categorization for all to see by submitting to preconditions is not going to work, for obvious reasons.

Here's another analogy: in a hostage situation, imagine the police refuse to answer the phone when the hostage takers call, claiming that 'taking hostages was wrong and so they should release the hostages first, before we talk'.

Unpresidential Candidates.

I've been itching to write about the presidential race for a while, but I didn't have enough to say about any one candidate. So I'll put it all in one post. Each group is in alphabetical order.

Republicans:
Rudy Giuliani - This guy is a Republican? And since when can someone competent get elected?
John McCain - He learned his lesson in 2000: suck up to the right to get the nomination. That was proof that intra-party politics is still done in back rooms. One problem, the right is in a coma this time. So all he did was destroy his base of independents.
Ron Paul - Gets ALL the attention on the internet (among republicans), and still polls lower than Attila the Hun. I suspect that polling results are also decided in back rooms. Or less than 5% of voters use the internet.
Mitt Romney - 4 more years of stupid.
Fred Thompson - 4 more years of stupid.

Democrats:
Joe Biden - Started his campaign with a racist gaffe. If Obama is the first clean black candidate, which one was dirty? I've got news for you, the brown color is melanin, not dirt.
Hillary Clinton - Why do so many men have such a violent reaction to her? For the very same reason women in management are called ball busting bit**es. The women these men grew up with were submissive. A woman with a dominant personality emasculates them, and reminds them of other women who emasculated them. She will go all the way largely because she has mastered the most important skill for a president: teflon skin.
John Edwards - Typical old fashioned democrat. Panders to anyone with a hand out. Claims to have made a career of fighting insurance companies. So why does he want to force 40 million people to become customers of the insurance companies?
Barack Obama - The guy with the vision. Gets ALL the attention on the internet (among democrats). Proves that being right does not win debates. Hillary, if you do not choose him for your running mate, a lot of voters will be VERY angry with you.