2008 Unleashed: The Dem’s, McCain and Our Nation’s Future
What’s most perplexing about the 2008 presidential campaign is the unadulterated love and support Barack Obama has received from America’s young generation (and from American media, but that’s for an entirely different piece). While this support has brought Obama a long way on the seemingly never-ending path toward possible presidential supremacy, Clinton is hanging tough. While I am not a Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, I fluctuate between supporting Obama and Clinton (and by “supporting” I mean “selecting the candidate who won’t make me cry myself to sleep every night if my preferred candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, happens to lose in November).
Luckily, on the Republican front McCain has officially been granted the candidacy. Instead of debating back and forth with vying party rivals, he can face the complexities associated with the general election, focusing the breadth of his energy on his upcoming battle with a Democratic contender – whomever he or she may be; this is a clear advantage that some Democrats may be underestimating.
When it comes to the overall political spectrum, one cannot help but wonder how the Democrats will possibly rectify the deep divide that the Obama vs. Clinton charade has manifested. With the Republicans losing out in 2006 – a prime example in political theory of “surge and decline” – mixed with an overall distaste for the Bush administration and its policies, left me more than concerned about the prospect of the Republicans losing out in 2008. Bearing in mind Bush’s unpopular status, one might say I had quite a bit to fear. But, then — as it often does in politics — the sociopolitical climate changed.
While many talking heads spouted off about an impending civil war amongst members of the Republican Party, conditions seem to be turning around quite rapidly. Sure, there have been spats and disagreements, but the battle for the Republican nomination is sealed and the focus of political fury has been placed upon the two Democratic contenders who have their hearts set on “making history.” While they’re out pledging to fulfill empty promises that they dress up with elaborate diatribes about “hope” and “change,” McCain is left alone to concentrate on better positioning himself among members of his party who still haven’t accepted him as the most applicable choice – and on the general election, of course. But the Democrats – they’re still battling one another and it isn’t pretty.
The gender and race cards are being pulled so fast that the deck is damn near empty. The other day I was in an elevator and I overheard an African American woman speaking with a man behind me. She was talking about how wonderful it was that a black man had made it so far in America (i.e. Obama). She went on to explain that this was the primary reason she’d be voting for him (assuming he receives the Democratic nomination).
Now, this is where my frustration over the Obama phenomenon reaches its max. While I truly love and value diversity, I would never support an individual on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead.
If Barack Obama were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I would be more than supportive (pending that the reason for said support was not based solely on ethnicity). I’m all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience. Unfortunately, Barack Obama does not have the experience one would expect to find in a candidate in the running for the American presidency. Feel free to debate me on that, but it’s basically unarguable at this point.
And don’t even get me started on Hillary Clinton. The last thing this nation needs is another Clinton in the White House – but I digress. Supporting someone based primarily on race or gender is silly and unbelievably naive. Real leadership comes from within (and from the experiences gained in the many instances that shape our hearts and minds).
And let’s not forget about “hope” and “change” – the weasel words that he and Hillary throw around so spuriously that one cannot help but wonder if they ever deviate from their scripted banter.
The fact of the matter is this: We need a president who is ready and willing to take on the complex issues that are stampeding our nation – and our world. While all three contenders are more than willing, are they ready?
The only candidate who has proven longitudinal experience coping with peace, war and the political institutions that govern the American political schema is John McCain. Argue with me all you’d like, but the facts, the timelines and all other secondary sources of data point to his experience and willingness to reach across the aisle (something that is desperately needed when considering the level of stagnation that has been created by partisan politics in recent years).
Let’s hope Americans realize this unalienable fact before it’s too late.
Guest post written by Billy Hallowell. Visit his web site.
People from around the United States have noticed Billy Hallowell’s hard work and dedication. He has been published/featured in political and cultural books, textbooks as well as articles and websites focusing on the youth of America and its role in the future of the world. In 2003, he attended the World Bank’s conference on youth development in Paris, France. Over the years, he has become known as a major force among young people and has received prestigious journalism and community awards for his work. Since he was 15-years-old, Billy has been working through the communications industry to connect and reach out to his peers.
Technorati Tags: billy hallowell, john mccain, 2008 presidential campaign , Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Obama
Share this post
Billy, a vast majority of Americans don't want a permanent presence in Iraq, so McCain has already taken himself out. Expect a landslide Dem takeover at all levels of government, because whether the issue is war, civil rights, health care or taxation, Repubs are OUT OF STEP with the nation.
I don't think it matters who is going to be president of these three. I'll be crying myself to sleep. All three of them will give our country away. How are we supposed to be energy independent (as all three of them say) when they are going to let another 20 million stay. If we would have not changed our immigration policy in 1965 we would be energy independent today. Instead we invite people here who accuse us of abuse and cause us to give unfriendly governments our money and them personally our tax dollars. All three of these candidates make me sick. www.goodoleboybumperstickers.com
"In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead."
So call out your boy Rush. He urged and is urging people to vote for Hillary just to keep the dems in "chaos". Is that "morally responsible?" Voting is a right and priviledge. It has zero to do with morals. People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons. I suspect morals is not at the top of the list. How many times have you just voted because the candidate was a republican and no other reason? It's the same thing.
John McCain has never run anything. His biggest leadership endeavor has been running for president (twice). First time out he was blind-sided by dirty politics by Bush. This time out, his campaign ran out of money and was on life support just 6 short months ago. They are all Senators so let's assume they know how to do that. Barack is more organized and better financed than either "experienced" candidates still standing. This is his biggest (and first) leadership endeavor to date. So far you have to rate his ability to lead a nation-wide, vote leading, record participation and donation campaign as nothing short of brilliant. If he were a republican, you would be calling him the next Reagan.
I'm not quite so depressed about the field of candidates.I think McCain actually is the most well suited person in the country to cut spending and reduce the scope of government.
And I actually think he can win, what with the democrats tearing each other apart like this:
http://slashtruth.blogspot.com/2008/03/snls-tracy-morgan-defends-obama.html
McCain announced in 2002 that he would eliminate corporate welfare (McCain-Gephardt Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission Act.) If he would have come out publicly against the Bear Stearns bailout, even I would vote for him! But instead, he came out in support of Bernanke.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't an "ideal" candidate in this presidential election, and I doubt there ever will be.
McCain seems the least-unacceptable, at this point.
As for "a vast majority of Americans" who don't want a permanent American presence in Iraq, I'm reminded of the woman who was astonished when a Republican president was elected. The election must have been rigged, she said: nobody she knew had voted for him!
And, the permanent American presence? America still has a presence in Germany, well after the end of WWII. America is a major player on the world stage, and will have a "presence" in many countries. Get used to it.
The general concensus is that Obama's judgement is suspect because he did not disassociate himself from Paster Wright after Wright's highly provacative, bigotted, and Unpatriotic remarks. Obama has expressed that he HAD spoken to Wright about some marginal comments he had heard, that he disagreed with his Paster. But had not seen the three videos that were worthy of total condemnation and which his critics assert invite questions about his judgement.
Forgetting for a moment that its tough to dissassociate yourself from someone because of statements you were not aware of, can we compare Paster Jeremiah Wright's comments with that of another controversial American Cleric?
# “AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”
# "It appears that America's anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men's movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening."
# "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."
# “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. [b]I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."[/b]
# “[Homosexuals are] brute beasts...part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven."
Just as Paster Jeremiah Wright's words were spoken as a bastardization of the word of God, so were Falwell's vitriol.
Now let's put together a little time line.
During his 2000 campaign, John McCain, in light of many of the words Falwell had already spoken, called Falwell and his ilk "Agents of Intolerance". (How'd that work out for you John?)
After we were attacked by Islamic Fundementalists, Jerry Falwell made his statement that I will repeat again here: # “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. [b]I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."[/b]*
For the record I am a member of the ACLU.
By any reasonable standard, Jerry Falwell had not become MORE tolerant since McCain's "agent of intolerance" statement.
In 2006, with an eye on the Presidency, McCain knew that he could not get the Republican nomination without the support of the Evangelical Right. So he jumped off the straight talk express, and put his lips right on Jerry Falwell's Keester. He gave the GRADUATION speech at Falwell's University. He had no past with Falwell. Falwell had not married him, baptized his children, or brought him to Christ during his considerable periods of lucidity. Yet, McCain knew that he NEEDED to associate himself with Falwell to BE politically viable.
He exercized sound judgement.
So, what does it say about racism in America. What does it say about those on this board who use the "refusal to dissassociate himself" line of extrement to question Obama's judgement while maintaining a telling muteness on the Judgment of McCain in seeking OUT Falwell.
Is the bigotry of one so different from the bigotry of the other? Is it enough to foregive one from SEEKING OUT while condemn the other for refusing to disassociate?
I have never, ever been more disguisted with people on this board. I have NEVER been more ashamed to be an American. NO ONE is talking about McCain and Falwell. It took me TWO DAYS to realize the hypocricy myself. I too, am THAT racist.
Please, consider this post carefully and sign below to join me in saying "Yes! God DAMN an American which compels a decent man like John McCain to SEEK the association of a man with such hateful, bigoted and UnPatriotic Speech as the Reverand Jerry Fallwell."
*Yes, he eventually apologized. He had millions of reasons for doing so. But we all know what is in his heart (at least as anyone can ever know what is in another man's heart, of course.)
I think that WhiteguyinATL needs some therapy. Get a grip, dude.
The Democrats need people to believe that they are victims and the only way out of their victimhood is to vote for socialist liberals. They don't want people to be independent and self-reliant, if they were they would stop voting for liberals.
McCain isn't my choice, but of the three he's the only choice.
"If Barack Obama were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I would be more than supportive (pending that the reason for said support was not based solely on ethnicity). I’m all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience."
Billy, you would support patent liars.....two people used by this administration to help disseminate the treasonous lies of this administration?
I'm not surprised.
"I'm all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience."
As a recovering English teacher, I need to point out that you probably meant "but advancement should be based primarily on experience." - or something like that.
Now, back to the Obama thing. I think I've got an Obama supporter, or at least a The Reverend Wright supporter, commenting on one of my blogs.
He has an interesting premise: That The Reverend Wright and Thomas were saying the same thing: "God Damn America" = "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
I'm being very unfair to the gentleman's argument, of course. Both comments in question are at
http://anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-damn-america-wright-obama-and.html
About ethnicity as a sort of intellectual 'get out of jail free' card: I am profoundly grateful that none of my ancestors had the sort of "help" that blacks have had of late.
I'd better clarify that last remark.
About a quarter of my ancestors were Irish. Not the properly civilized Scots-Irish that another quarter were: Irish. Catholic, poor, 'drunken, sex-crazed, irresponsible, violent' Irish.
You know, *those* people.
I don't know if we'd have had the strength of character to get haircuts, drop our accents and flair for outstanding costume, get steady jobs, and start working our way up the ladder: if we'd been told that our worst behavior and beliefs were "Irish culture" and "Irish theology" - and that they should be admired or condoned.
...and petunia would fight for a fetus to live and consign a young troop, or Iraqi to their deaths......in the name of what? God? Higher corporate profits?
This war must end now. McCain will unzip any zipper on his knees to get in the white house.......WHY?
David Walters - Regardless of why we went into Iraq, do you really believe walking away is the right thing to do? You don't think any innocent Iraqi's will die at the hands of terrorists? You're probably more concerned with the rights of terrorists than the rights of a 9 month "fetus".
@petunia
LOL. You are TOO funny!!
Anytime you want to guest post here; you are more than welcome!!
petunia,
Your right....wars do happen, and all too often there is no real reason or justification for them. I've seen the airstrike gone bad......it ain't nice. And as to the argument of being "un-moral"(from your reply to Dissolvethecorp)......uh, what do you base that upon? Did he lie like bush(condemming how many to death?). Have you even heard the Rev. Wright's sermon?
Lonely Conservative,
"........do you really believe walking away is the right thing to do?"---Absolutly
To David Walters,
You would absolutely leave Iraq, but you didn't mention the consequences in your answer. You don't mind giving the terrorists a haven for planning future attacks? Leaving them to take over the oil to fund their future attacks? I wonder how many more mass graves will be in Iraq if we were to leave to soon. Watch what you wish for.
Lonely Conservative,
The consequences of leaving Iraq would be the ability to redouble our efforts once again to stabilize Afghanistan and hunt for Bin Laden once our troops are rested, refitted, and trained for action. Oil? Why not invest those billions a month we are bleeding in Iraq into technology to wean us OFF of oil.....?
As a college student in Virginia the blind love of Obama is strange. College students couldn't have an easier life and politically they are motivated by a guy who talks about hope and change. What hope and change do you need in college!!!
anyway, enjoy the blog, keep up the good work.
To David Walters-
Sure, we'll invest all of those dollars in ethanol, driving up the price of all grains, livestock, cattlet, etc. The problem is, even Barack Obama said that if he pulled our troops out he would send them back in if AlQueda established bases there. So we'd be back in no time, costing more money and lives than if we just allow the current strategy to work.
Why is it "blind love" for Obamma, Grozet?
Lonely Conservative,
Never mentioned ethanol.....it's a poor choice......
Thinking outside the box.......and not allowing energy industry to dictate our energy policy would be a good way to approach the energy situation.
Our military is stretched far too thin, and the cost of maintaining troops for an indefinite period in Iraq will continue to have an adverse effect on our military force, as well as add to our debt that will only make this recession we've entered worse, not to mention the legacy it leaves ours kids. Perhaps Exxon, or Shell......KBR would like to fund the war, but i know i don't want to.
The idea of a single Iraqi Nation may be a bad idea....it certainly doesn't look like a viable nation now, or at any time in the near future. Like i said, regroup.......with quick reaction units poised in Afghanistan, but get out of Iraq and start lookin' for Bin Laden.
David Walters,
Thinking outside the box brought us ethanol. How much money have we sunk into that, and continue to sink into it? I'd like to see the oil companies start drilling for oil in Alaska and the outer continental shelf. The lefties keep blocking that, the same way they block any new refineries or nuclear power plants.
I'd rather see them finish the job in Iraq. If not my two little boys will be over there doing what the American people didn't have the stomach for today.
Lonely Conservative,
Ethanol was probably an idea of Cargill or some other agribusiness, but this isn't the forum for alternative energy .........
As for your 2 boys, i suppose they can opt not to volunteer, as i instructed my son......... and like i said, let KBR handle it.......if KBR, Shell, or Exxon want the business, fine, but why should we(taxpayers)pay for their security? Perhaps we(ALL taxpayers) should get a dividend? Republicans.......rich people and suckers!
Hey conservatives, if you had to live in one country or the other would it be Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? I'm curious to hear your answers. Remember one is our "ally" and the other is our "enemy".
petunia,
.....And if you try to say that war is murder...it is not....it is war. " Try telling that to Goering.
You used the analogy of the "intruder"......coming to murder my family, if i kill him(in this state)all i have to do is prove that i felt the lives of my family were at risk. War is the same...it is justifiable when your country is attacked. It's a war crime if you engage in war for profit, or racism. In light of the know now.......5 years later, it's seems most American's are beginning to see that the wool has been pull over their eyes with respect to the reason we attacked and occupied Iraq. Thank God for truth tellers like Rev Wright! Have you even heard the sermon?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
Is Bush a war criminal? I'm for a fair trial. How about you?
petunia,
I'm afraid that you're missing a point.
"Hate speech," as used in contemporary American culture, is
(1) The expression of hatred toward a group or, less often, an individual (with exceptions - see below)
(2) Statements expressing support for a traditional or conservative viewpoint: particularly if such statements are sufficiently cogent to sway an uncommitted listener
Exceptions to definition (1): No statement, no matter how emotionally charged, irrational, and violent, and clearly directed, may be considered hate speech if it is made by a liberal member of select minorities, by a spokesperson for an active liberal group, or in support of a liberal cause.
I'm not a professional philologist, but even an amateur can't help but pick this sort of thing up.
Thanx Norski for clearing that up........
petunia..........Göering was convicted of a war crime,
i only propose a fair trial for ol georgie boy(and dick):)
petunia
.......oh, the drugs, .............well, why they aren't exactly prescribed by my VA doc.......however he engourages it.....
.......yes, petunia, in a way Rev. Wright does sound wacked.........but in the black community.........IT"S BIG! i know, 'cause i opted to go to a "black liberation" church one sunday while i was a p.o.w @ the durham rescue missiom.......staying there as a homeless Vet........anyway, that's another story.....
.......and my gandad(maternal) had a lower party# than hitler.....
To me, Dresden is a war crime.......did you ever read "slaughter-House Five"?
Nice book......ever see a cooked baby?
Now I do know you have problems DW. My Vietnam Vet friends would not be happy with your view point or your disloyalty to our President and country. George may not be a good communicator (think we can all agree on that) but he is FAR from a war criminal. That was Saddam's job and a good thing he's gone....wish we could get more of them. I'm sure his sons did a little baby cooking....I've heard stories from eye witnesses that saw those sorts of things. For a group of people who want equal rights (and my friends are just friends, not races or different colors).... this group sure does like to ostracize themselves by spouting hate speech and blaming the white races, the Jews, the Italians....whatever....yea, sounds a little wacked. It IS a little wacked. Keep up with the drugs, they'll help eventually.:)
petunia,
Me? Problems? No many, really......that's why i have so much time to waste!
......and thanx to the laws of supply&demand, i found a new green-slinger, so i can stay "whacked" & incoherent (.......did anybody else ever notice at the end of "Platoon", Rhaj loots a sack of weed from a dead NVA?)
So, i suppose you never did read "Slaughter-House Five"........never mind, it's pointless anti-war garbage too. Yes, there are always two or more points of view,.........why would we want to clutter our minds with any more than one?
petunia.....
Okay then! So, back to the original rant and that is......i think .......war criminals&the untimely deaths of ALL babies ..........from abortions and bombs.
War and abortion have something similar in common......innocent dead.
petunia,
Killing is killing....it makes no difference if you think one can run and another cannot. Were ALL the victims of Dresden,Hiroshima,Hanoi guilty of something(not being american?) You hold all life in a womb sacred, but once it comes out, well there seems to be another set of rules that apply to murder. Why?
Obama doesn't care if they are born or unborn, if it's a failed abortion and the baby is born alive....he voted that you can "finish off the job"...
Killing is NOT killing. If I killed a guy who was going to kill me - not the same as just killing someone outright because you don't like him and not the same as killing someone in a car accident or even dropping a bomb ---- if you think it's the same you have a problem. In your line of thinking then, living is living.... a slave, a free man, it doesn't matter how you live as long as you're breathing.
let's not get philosophical... there are always mitigating circumstances and exceptions are in most categories (to a small degree)
Petunia,
Killing results in death. We can argue mitigating circumstances, but the results are all the same.......from an abortion to popin' a cap on someone. You take exception to killings due to abortions......that's fine. I take exception to killings in the name of the United States of America; killings that do NOT make me proud to be an America.
Wounded Knee, Dresden,Hiroshima, are a few of these........do we put the past behind us by learning from our mistakes, or by simply sweeping it under the rug?
DW,
You will never stop wars and people fighting. We cannot let bullies stomp all over the playground and push down the nerdy kids....sorry. We DO NOT want the bullies to rule the playground.
You, are disgracing what the vets are doing right now however. Your guilt about your stint is understandable....there are many more wounded in war than those hit with weapons and I'm sorry you had to live through it. I wish men could be reasonable and talk things out but that is not the way people are (especially these modern terrorists). How do YOU think we go about squelching them from attacking us again? Ignoring them doesn't work, Clinton tried that and look what 9/11 brought us. Dave, I wish this was a lollipop and cotton candy world - but it ain't. No one can honestly say a guy shooting down people at the mall in the US is the same as abortion or the same as war. Even though they all result in death, they are all different, wish it wasn't so.
So okay, we are now beating a dead horse.....
petunia,
I used to hate Howard Zinn. I just found out he was a navigator on B-17's in WW2, and George McGovern? I believe he flew B-24's over Europe on combat missions as well.
Hell, it's not so much about personal guilt as much as I know deep down that dropping bombs, no matter how noble the cause.....is F**KING WRONG!::(sigh,rollin' another)::
This latest installment of "America Protecting Freedom" has us using smart bombs, so i guess that makes it all better.
I remember my chem professor @ WCU......Dr. Youmans, another B-17 pilot,: his hand shook so bad, he couldn't even write on the blackboard....
Me?........don't ask
To All John McCain supporters,
With the energy consumption growing and currently 85% of world energy supplied by fossil fuels and 97% of our transportation system depending on oil, it is clear that a replacement must be secured for a stable and affordable energy supply, and we as a country must begin the process of transition to alternative source of energy, transportation fuels and transportation methods.
McCain. our future President of United States should announce “The United States Energy Independence Plan 2018” a plan comparable to the past monumental projects like Manhattan or Apollo, (at its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities) to achieve the goal of national energy independence in the next 10 years Let’s show to the American people our republican courage and political will to announce such a radical plan and to put our nation on a path of achieving Energy Independence before 2018.
It must be clear to us that no single technological project in the next ten years will be more important to the long-range prosperity of United States and humankind; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. It must be clear to ALL Americans that energy policy and energy independence is more significant as increases in social entitlement programs or tax cuts. Without energy, current economies will collapse and increased energy prices are limiting our economic growth.
Our Republican/John McCain presidential campaign could be based and won on our USA Energy Independence Program.