An Ideal Choice in a Less Than Ideal Election
It is not necessarily ideal but it is what we have. Senator John McCain and Senator Barack Obama are of course the two candidates for President this fall. The
obvious fact that seems to be overlooked lately is that certainly one of them will be President and sworn in next January. It may be fair to say that not that many people regardless of what side of politics they are from can honestly muster excitement about these prospects. The typical campaign ads and whistle stops or speeches delivered in recent days mark this election cycle as no more interesting than the Super Bowl when your favorite team will not be involved. So what do we do when circumstances conspire to offer less than optimum choices for the future of this country?
That is simple. Just like choices made on a daily basis for life in general and the routine matters of any individual we do the best we can with what we have. In terms of the Presidential election in the US you can vote or not vote. While both candidates try to attract various demographics for their vote, Obama has been credited for drawing younger voters which James Carville is credited for asking the question ‘ what do you call a candidate who courts young voters? The answer is loser. A recent story from VOA included this statement from a young Republican, ‘While people may really believe that Obama or McCain is the right guy they may not make it to the polls on that day,’ Gallagher said. ‘I think it is the classic problem of the 18-25-year-olds. They have an opinion but they have trouble getting to the polls.’
Another young person was quoted in the article with this statement, “I know plenty of people my age and younger who are not interested, who are apathetic, who do not turn out to vote,” he said. But that statement could apply to a large segment of the voting age public based on voter turnout in general. There are 50 million people between 18 and 30 in this country. Obama leads McCain 55% to 32% in this category. But McCain’s draw of older Americans may prove more reliable come November 4th. In 2000 18 million of the 50 voted and in 2004 that number improved to 20 million. Who knows what will happen in 2008?
Outside the young vote of the 18 to 30 year olds and discounting those who do not honor their civic duty the vote is becoming more polarized. A report indicates that the state of Texas is overwhelmingly Republican except in the capitol of Austin. The same holds true for the author of this blog’s home state of Wisconsin. Some refer to the state capitol as ‘The People’s Republic of Madison.’ The thing that makes Wisconsin lean blue is the urban concentration of Milwaukee and Madison and the associated demographics. A similar situation is given in the Texas example and elsewhere that urban areas (larger populations) are predominantly Democrat while the suburban and rural areas are Republican. As for the state capitols and large urban centers it gives credence to the idea that liberals hover around the halls of government they crave. Let the government rule the people rather than the other way around as it was intended.
With their failed choice of Al Gore, John Kerry and the recent failures of John ‘philanderer’ Edwards and scandal-ridden
Hillary Clinton liberals are left with the most liberal Senator in Washington, Barack Obama. That is coupled with one of the most experienced liberals in Washington, Joe Biden. Does it get any more liberal than that? Yes it does. Barack Obama’s far left liberal associate, William Ayers and his Hyde Park cronies propped up Obama in Illinois politics. And the liberal leaning MSM helped Obama ignore Ayers’ Weather Underground and domestic terrorist background. They also give little attention to Obama’s 20 year history with ‘damn America’ liberal Rev Wright who together with Obama’s wife Michelle have little to be proud of when it comes to America. And convicted felon Tony Rezko not only helped Obama buy into a shady real estate deal but both he and Biden have campaign finance deals courtesy of Rezko and his associates.
Along with the aforementioned usual suspects the left side of American politics is directed by the likes of MoveOn Dot Org, the Daily Kos and other kook fringe far left radical groups who do not have the best interest of ordinary citizens at heart. These problems are exacerbated by the ruling elite of the DNC such as Ted Kennedy and his lieutenants, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who will accept any Democratic party candidate they believe can win even if they are bad for the country.
That leaves us with the only other choice in this Presidential election, Senator John McCain. The most provocative or certainly notable action during the McCain campaign was his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. The campaign slogan of ‘country first’ in many ways may define more of the McCain/Palin ticket than any other. John McCain’s family and personal history of service to country coupled with the genuine admiration of his service from his VP nominee as well as her rapid rise in politics and impressive list of accomplishments to date provide a compelling case for the American voter. While not perfect or flawless by any measure it is easy to believe this pair has the country’s best interest in mind especially when compared to the only other choice.
One contrast that stands out between the candidates for President is the ability to admit mistakes and the courage to stand on principle against overwhelming opposition. Senator John McCain almost destroyed his chances for victory early in his campaign for President with the McCain/Kennedy ‘amnesty’ measure. The immense outrage over allowing the rule of law to once again be abandoned in favor of illegal immigration met the challenge to defeat the measure in the summer of 2007. John McCain admitted it was a mistake and while still favoring the ludicrous ‘path to citizenship’ for illegals understood the majority of Americans were opposed to the so-called bipartisan legislation he, Kennedy and the White House proposed.
On the other hand, for Barack Obama, one time Messiah for the far left kook fringe antiwar movement that is the largest constituency of the DNC was and is incapable of admitting he was wrong on the troop surge that was a complete success in Iraq and vindication of General David Petraeus and every service member in uniform. While he claims to support the troops his only policy on the matter is withdrawal, surrender and defeat. Not a quality one looks for in a Commander-in-Chief.
McCain on the other hand supported the troop surge from the beginning in the face of overwhelming public opposition as well as political suicide. In his own words he would rather win a war and lose an election and at the same time he was correct in his analysis that Barack Obama was willing to use the war as a political tool to win an election. Again, Barack Obama’s choice is not a quality you look for in a President.
A post on this blog that starts a series of looks at the economic policies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden displays their support for the redistribution of wealth to cater to their base of liberals that favor socialist doctrine. Together with the items mentioned here you should have enough incentive to reject the Obama/Biden ticket or at least continue to view the vast array policy initiatives they endorse. None of which are favorable for the future of the United States.
So in an election cycle that is less than ideal, one candidate, John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, may be ideal when compared to the alternative of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Obamassiah: Not just generalized “socialist doctrine.” The One’s ‘father figure” and political mentor, known simply as “Frank the poet” in The One’s memoirs but whose full name is Frank Marshall Davis, was a Communist agitator and radical black activist… and The Obamassiah’s role model as a youth. Later, Saul Alinsky’s MArxist menifesto became The One’s model for “community organizer” and his relationship with Ayers gave him an in to implement the communist philosophies of Alinsky and Davis.
A bland socialism isn’t The Obamassiah’s cuppa. Rank Marxism is his meat and potatoes.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Anyone but Hussein Obama my friend!!!
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:43 pm
So I can count y’all to vote for McCain/Palin eh?
September 24th, 2008 at 5:21 am
David is delusional. Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM’s Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis,” demolishes right-wing misrepresentation of Davis’s radical influence in one simple paragraph:
“Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.” (See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha)
September 24th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Where you lose me in your argument is ‘For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle.’ I don’t know anyone who views communism as a tool for gaining life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But I do appreciate the effort for adding to the discussion. Thanks for stoppin’ in and the commentary.
What say you, David?
September 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Frank Marshall Davis considered membership in the CPUSA as a vehicle and tool because, according to “The New Red Negro” (cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as a source):
ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only available institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.
Further, as The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA: “This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930’s and 1940’s flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflicts appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of “unorthodox” political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist.”
A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930’s until at least the early 1950’s. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work.
The bottom line is that communist ties were the NORM for African American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.
September 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
This is what I see from Cliff Kincaid:
Obama’s communist connection, which he failed to disclose in his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, by referring to Davis only as “Frank” and ignoring his communist affiliation, is a far more serious scandal than an Edwards “love child.”
As I commented to Michael Savage on the Savage Nation radio program last week, this is the key to understanding Obama because Davis’s influence over him during his high-school years in Hawaii helps explain why he would later associate with terrorists, communists and socialists.
Controversy over the Obama-Davis relationship is growing, at least in the conservative-oriented media. Rush Limbaugh, who last Thursday commented on our exposure of the dishonest Associated Press story about Davis, put a link to the AIM column on this matter on his website.
Also heavily drawing on our material, Investor’s Business Daily published an August 5 editorial, “Young Obama’s Red Mentor.” The paper noted that the “cryptic references” in Obama’s book to this communist mentor “were?and still are?designed to protect Obama’s background from the scrutiny it deserves.”
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff241.htm
September 24th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I completely agree. Good article. Gave you my RCP today.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
A “scandal” requires wrongdoing. What is the scandal Kincaid talks about? Was Obama wrong for visiting Davis as a teenager? Obama didn’t identify “Frank” by his full name in his book because he identified a number of people only by their first names. This is common practice in a memoir. I would think a journalist like Cliff Kincaid should know that. Where is the scandal?
BTW: Cliff Kincaid’s Accuracy In Media (AIM) has “deliberately misrepresented” Frank Marshall Davis. I have documented numerous AIM “specific misrepresentations” in the “Redbaiting Barack Obama” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX. I invite you and any other person of integrity to refute any of these AIM falsehoods, and to post your findings either here, or in the comments section of the blog.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I’m mixed on the issue of 18-30 yr. olds voting, or not! I tend to hope they stay home. I think true Conservative’s in this age range will get themselves to the polls.
I like the Liberals hovering in the halls of power. I’ll steal that one of these days.
Excellent look at the differences between the two tickets.
Maggie
September 25th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Intended to say: RCP
Maggie
September 25th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Stanfod, Kaleokualoha has sucked you in by the typical commie/leftist/soi disant “progressive” technique of reframing the argument. I clearly and accurately stated Davis’ radical communist activist past. He restated it as “Davis was not a Stalinist,” proceded to conflate “Stalinism” with “Marxism” and “comunism” and then argued against something not presented.
Using well-known falacies of rhetoric–especially his primary one, “Straw man”–is a part of the leftist toolbag of phony argument. He’s:
a. not worth responding to because he makes disingenuous arguments or
b. not worth wasting time in attempts to persuade because IF he doesn’t know he’s presenting false argument, then he’s probably too stupid to be persuaded by reason.
Stanford, IMO the only proper response to such trolls is,
“I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! I fart in your general direction! You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! …now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a!”
I know, I know: it’s a higher order of “argument” than such trolls deserve, but tis as low as I’m willing to go. OTOH, if you feed a troll, you’ll have to get out your pooper scooper to deal with the droppings.
Now, off to up my meds so I can deal fairly with such trolls (tying BOTH lobes of my brain behind my back is the only way to level the playing field).
On the gripping hand, this (the comment thread) is an alternate method of dealing with trolls. Fun, but ultimately just a way to kill time.
September 25th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Au contraire! I posted Tidwell’s entire paragraph which included this absolutely relevant statement: “Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology.”
This was a direct response to David’s delusional scenario of Obama implementing the “communist philosophy” of Davis. Tidwell’s statement could have been intended for David, because Davis is certainly “attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete.”
I am arguing against something CLEARLY presented: David’s delusional scenario. Tidwell says there is no evidence of Davis instructing Obama in communist ideology. What evidence does David have that Davis instructed Obama in such?
September 25th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Sorry, David, I have not been sucked in if that means someone has convinced me of something. I just like having discussions. Go ahead, visit K’s link, you may find it interesting.
BTW, to everyone contributing, thanks, I luv this stuff.
It will be a while based on the time I have available these interests but K will have more to digest from this blog or possibly on his comments section which would only be fair.
September 25th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Another BTW, in case you did not notice, Kaleokualoha is supposed to be the son of Frank Marshall Davis as stated on his blog. Another reason I found this whole discussion attractive or perhaps even compelling.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Thank you, Sir, for your willingness to listen. Unfortunately, David’s reaction is more common among the followers of Cliff Kincaid.
I am indeed the son of Frank Marshall Davis, and my blog is an attempt to defuse the barrage of disinformation from AIM concerning my father. As a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer, with specific training in Deception Analysis by the C.I.A. at “The Farm” in 1989 (while I was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency), I can recognize a KGB-style disinformation campaign. I believe others can too.
Once again, I invite anyone of integrity to examine Kincaid’s falsehoods in the “Specific Misrepresentations” section of my “Redbaiting Barack Obama” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX
September 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Just to be clear, yes, I will listen and I encourage people to share their opinions on this blog as well as other places cuz everyone is entitled to have an opinion.
BUT, Barack Obama is about as far left as it gets. His association with ‘we should have done more’ domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his wife and others plus 20 years of Rev ‘ …damn America’ Wright and convicted felon Tony ‘raised funds for Obama and Biden’ Rezko and the list goes on, causes me to form the opinion that he is not someone who should be in the Senate, let alone the White House.
But you are welcome to continue to share your thoughts on this blog and given the time required to analyze such matters it is likely this could go on for a while as I have limited opportunity to pursue all my interests and those pesky responsibilities to which most of us need to attend.
Thanks for stoppin’ in and thanks for your comments