Iron Man Challenge or Presidential Election?

Ryan,

Anyone can cut and paste a biography of there aspirant candidate and hide behind a landslide of sham legislative accomplishments but this is not a dick-sizing contest. (Although I am sure Obama would win that, you know what they say)

No one is arguing that McCain did not rise above and beyond the call of duty and serve his country in the most admirable of ways. This does not equate to a presidential resume. Unless he will be a naval aviator in Afghanistan or a Bush approved instrument of torture where he can train our military personal the best practices in extracting information through pain and suffering this all adds up to an amazing lifetime of military service that he should be planting himself on a porch somewhere, with a grandkid on his lap, relaying to them what Grandpa went through in the old days.

And I know, it has become cliché to say that beltway insiders, those party heads that have been in Washington too long, have inundated our politics with special interest groups, lobbyist and corporate fuck heads that limit our ability to get things done as a nation. It is not as simple as reaching across the aisle. It is about removing them from the process. Is John “I have been in Washington for 100 years” McCain going to revolutionize Washington? No. He will aid the same people that polluted the Clinton’s and receive aid from the same people that drive Bush now.

As your favorite Commander in Chief, Bush pointed out several times during the bloody primary in 2000:

Sen. McCain has said, "At no time have I ever done anything to betray the public trust." In 1990, McCain, as one of the Keating Five (and as a close friend of Charles Keating), was involved in a savings-and-loan scandal that cost taxpayers $2.6 billion and cost investors $190 million.
In the years leading up to the scandal, McCain received $112,000 in campaign contributions from Keating and accepted nine family trips to the Bahamas from Keating.

I think this is small potatoes and in a lot of ways think McCain is cleaner then many that have been there for years. Now he's just another hungry politician, happy to pander if it helps him win. Which eliminates the very reason people, hell even I were excited about him in 2000 - his honesty.

And that is the problem with John McCain. He is pandering his beliefs that made him a great politician in years past. Why else have you not supported him until this year. Well I know why:

1) He believes in Global Warming although for some odd reason he isn’t talking about that now.

2) In 1999: "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade , which would then force x number of women in America to illegal and dangerous operations," In 2007: "I do not support Roe vs. Wade . It should be overturned."

3) He was for the tax cuts because they screwed the middle and lower class: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," Now that he needs that upper class corporate campaign money he is for the tax cuts

4) Don’t even get me started on immigration and his mind boggling excuses for flip flopping….

5) He went to an Episcopalian high school. For at least 15 years, he has been listed as an Episcopalian in authoritative directories such as the Almanac of American Politics and Congressional Quarterly's Politics in America 2008. Suddenly, in September 2007, he's campaigning in South Carolina, the heavily Baptist state where George W. Bush barely managed to stop McCain's presidential campaign 8 years ago. And guess what? McCain tells a reporter "By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist."

6) And the one that disgust me the most! He has been an avid supporter of torture ban as well as closing GITMO. But he didn't even show up when congress voted to ban water torture. The one thing i loved about him...he had been through torture and it disgusted him...and he didn't even show up! Why? Well, he can't piss off all his new neocon friends now can he? This compromise is UNFORGIVABLE.

And on and on....

So this is what 26 years of experience in Washington produces??…umm…No Thanks!

But lets examine Presidential experience in a deeper, more intellectual way. Experience is developed and filtered through a person’s character. Experience never exists in isolation but involves and needs character, it seems to me — not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it.

Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to deal with congress from an executive level, understanding when to differ to your staff and when to call on the National Security Council. But if knowing the system is so useful, then second term presidents would be more successful then first term. Instead the bulk of presidents lose there effectiveness as they go along, thus the lame duck theories. Was it FDR’s experience as governor of NY that he called upon to lead this nation in it’s darkest hour, an hour darker then any “Islamic” threat we currently are involved in? Or was he drawing on his experience with his battle with polio that allowed him a unique view into despair and how to overcome it? Lincoln with 2 years of experience often summoned lessons he learned on the farm in addressing his presidential duties. Richard Nixon served as Congressman, Senator and Vice President; a resume far outdoing McCain’s and watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best organized administrations in American history (Civil rights, highways, Social Security). When his turn came his CORE character and “experience” led him to create a White House doomed by it’s own dysfunction.

More recently Ronald Regan, who never served in Washington, and who you hold so dear famously quoted:

“There is no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself.”

In my view it will take a lot more then touting credentials and military experience to convince me that he is a more ready president then Obama. Our history has shown that some of the greatest presidents we have had are limited in there government experience. And some of the worst have had an abundance.

George Washington had zero years experience and Lincoln had 2. Obama is in good company….

McCain the Great

Eric-

McCain The Great-

I cant think of the last presidential nominee that has come into the primaries with as many presidential credentials. He was a naval aviator in 1958, flew 23 missions in the vietnam war, was shot down on his 24th mission in 1967. He was held as an American POW for five and a half years, and retired from the Navy in 1981. He served in the House of Representitives for four years, was then elected to the senate in 1986 and has held that post for 22 years. He co-sponsered the bipartisian campaign reform act in 2002, and has been known as the Maverick in political circles because of his willingness to break away from partisian politics. When Obama was asked recently why people should vote him over McCain, he said because McCain is more of the same old Bush policies, with the above mentioned I hardly think anyone would stand behind him on that. When ou compare Obama and McCain its like comparing a seasoned vet to a rookie. When John McCain says Barracks call for change is eloquoent but empty, I believe as a seasoned vet he would know. Please in detail let me know what experience Obama has that would prepare him for the presidency, that can even come close to McCain......

A proven patriot, thats been in politics as long as Obama had been drawing breath, easy choice!

I would like to start off by noting I only mentioned Sept. 11th twice in my last piece, but like all things Iraq, Bush, or his administration, you like to embellish and exaggerate, I have grown accustomed to this and expect it. You noted some of our CURRENT economic problems, and as reliably as a trusty old pocket, you lay all the blame on W's White House doorstep.

First off I would like to point out George Bush, or his administration, determines the price for a barrell of oil. Im sure you have heard of The Organization Of The Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC fo short. Bush has been, and continues to demand an increase in the amount of oil they refine, and ship for exporting to other countries. Everytime he has tried to increase the amount the US imports, these member countries have refused to boost output. Got a problem with gas prices take it up with them. While I understand we dont have the best relations with some of the OPEC members, and that can cause them to be hesitant on increasing output, we do have great relations with the number one oil producing nation, Saudi Arabia. The other issues we can debate, but as to get on with the point of this piece we can find a better time to discuss those issues. I do however want to take a minute and laugh at the vets are homeless comment, did you run out of stuff man? Ya some vets are homeless, but so are 774,000 American citizens, it sucks man! Let me know when you and the left can fix that.

The comment about GI Joes and Transformers is comical and while i understand were keeping this light, I would like to point out were not chasing boogeyman in Iraq, rather were chasing Al Qaeda, and Irans Sunni militias. Far from the light hearted discription you put forth. Like you said best to stay away from that subject.

McCain-
I cant think of the last presidential nominee that has come into the primaries with as many credentials

Obama and the Right

"Hearing self-professed conservatives like Andrew Bacevich and Douglas Kmiec talk about the potential that Obama brings to the table helps to counter-balance an all too pervasive perception about Conservatism and the state of American politics that is promoted and reinforced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Anne Coulter. The unconventional tone of Obama's campaign finally allows some of the more level headed and intelligent proponents of the political right a chance to step around the outrageous and bitterly partisan discourse that has plagued American politics for so long and present a useful and, indeed, vital discussion about possible ways forward. There isn't another campaign out there that has contributed to this measured dialectic of views and values, which is greatly to merit, whether he in fact becomes the nominee or not, of Barack Obama, and to the benefit of Americans as a whole.

That this dialogue is starting to occur at all lends weight to what Obama may be capable of achieving in the White House, and serves to undercut many of the "empty change" allegations leveled at his campaign,"

To Bush's Boy Toy,

Dearest Fear Monger Rooster,

You invoked September 11th more times in your rebuttal then Georgie did in his economic speech Monday. I hope, unlike him, you know gas IS rising above 4.00 a gallon, public schools are falling apart, our volunteer army is shrinking, vet’s are homeless, infrastructure is falling apart, rich get richer, we have the biggest federal debt deficit ever and so on. I won’t bore you with these sissy things but because of your “ILKY” conservative cocoon you may want to be privy to the harsh realities facing OUR people. Busy chasing boogieman in Iraq or setting up your GI Joes and Transformers to begin an Iran invasion can be tiresome, I know or rather assume. But we have both established our feeling on the "wars", best to stay out of that fox hole.

There is a great deal of inaccuracies regarding my position in your reply, but I will save the tit for tat when I feel more offended. I do want to broach 3 specific subjects that I thought would elevate the dialogue:

1) I never have believed that there was a Manchurian Candidate type conspiracy in regards to 9/11. On the contrary I , like most Americans, gave Bush my 100% support. I looked to him (blindly) to lead us in the aftermath. I did however feel like the ball was dropped from Richard Clarke’s detailed transitional reporting. But, you cannot blame this on anyone but Al Qaeda. People change and my days of conspiracy dreaming ended when I found out Oliver Stone fabricated the movie JFK and Gore Vidal, with all his insider knowledge advised everyone it was pretty simple: The Mob Did It…and YES…it was ONE MAGIC BULLET!

2) John Kerry’s corpse has Karl Roves fingerprints all over it. Because he was weak and trying to play the election game “safe” is the reason he lost the democratic base. I backed him not because I didn’t agree with his issues (ending the war, SS policy, immigration) but because I went along with a man that lost his balls in Vietnam, Or rather his nuts were removed by Dick and Karl with a pick axe and a blow torch. Am I bitter about the way the election was handled? Yes. Am I embarrassed that it was our election to lose and we fucked it up? Yes. Do I think John Kerry would have made a good president? I don’t think we got an altogether clear picture. Thanks to the media and of course the evil doctor Rove.

There is an Arabic Proverb (thought you would like that):

When the angels present themselves, the devils abscond.

My dear Brother you mistook my political choices for political confusion. And my weakness is a by-product of our flawed 2 party “democratic?” system. You point out I supported Kerry, but you damn well know I had no choice. He failed to stand up to smears and muffed a few hail marys. He was an after thought in the post Howard Dean media tarnishing hit job. It was a kitchen sink strategy in a must win game for Republicans and he failed, yes embarrassingly, to rise to the occasion. Although it was very close. Hardly a landslide that repubs like to envision.

3) I understand that all parties go through varied phases of political cohesion. I also understand that you cannot be all things to all people. Bill Clinton made a career out of being a moderate and centrist. But in all fairness Bill ran on that. He believed the country was more center then partisan. How quickly he found out that is a dangerous place to operate your politics. But Bush ran on a right-wing compassionate conservative. In other words, he was conservative in politics, but open to social and economic policies that would improve America. Both of which, compassionate and conservative are lies. A torch bearer for conservatism that is setting fire to the party is a more accurate vision.

I know that Bush has had problems to deal with unlike any have in the last 30 years. I am not naïve in thinking that 9/11, Katrina and the War in Afghanistan were not going to have a negative impact on our society. But Bush, in the wake of these tragedies, had something that no other president as had in the last 30 years as well: Almost 100% support from every corner of this great country. In an unprecedented command of the American populace both democrats, republicans and independents were integrated through a heartbreaking disaster and willing to bond together despite there differences continue to heal the American soul. Not even Obama can drum up this kind of unified coalition.

Bush could have fulfilled his self diagnosed compassionate conservative role. But he didn’t. He became a rougue. A Neo-con with the help of those around him. There was so much promise.

Taking out the great costs of the war for “argument” sake is futile in examining his record. Remember FDR had WWII to contend with and he grew the Union State of America to a World Super Power, so I do not buy that 9/11 and the current wars prevent him from following the path of a true conservative. But I will concede the point. Even though he has run the federal debt to the largest it has ever been.

As stated by the Father of modern conservatism, William F Buckely:

“I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress. And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."

An Absence of Effective conservative ideology. Amen. The facts are the facts. Because of circumstances you cannot change your ideology. Bush has made the same mistakes as his Father in this regard: He was elected on a Reagan-esque, tax cutting platform but the White House veered to the left. President Bush has signed a bill to regulate political speech, issued protectionist taxes on imported steel and lumber, backed big-spending education and farm bills, endorsed massive entitlements for mental health and RX Drugs. In his first 2 years in office Bush presided over more government expansion then took place during Bill Clintons entire 8 years! It has been argued, in looking at his record, that he has betrayed every ideal American Conservatism has. Ryan you cannot change the fundementals of your beliefs and ideals within your party, even in crisis. Hell, especially in the wake of a tragedy, National emergency or a full blown WAR! That is the moment you search for the roots of what has made Republicans great. Not abandon them. The heart and soul of conservatism is FISCAL CONSERVATISM: the government should be responsible for how it spends money. The basic economic view has always been very simple: balance the budget, and quit deficit spending.

So no.... I do not believe you can take conservatism, and blame 9/11 or terrorism on "evolving" your party. History shows us that through worse things then 9/11, standing for your core values as a party can lift you to great heights.

The idea that Iraq somehow washes his sin’s of spending OUR money unwisely is incredible. A true Conservative would have found a way to pay for it, if it was necessary, and certainly would have made sure we wouldn’t take the brunt, that the responsibility would have been shared. Remember the oil was supposed to pay for it? Now were borrowing from China.....

John Quincy Adams:

"Wherever the standard of freedom shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions, and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."

Pat Buchanan:

“It is remarkable how complacent Americans seem to be, as our freedoms are gradually restricted, and more and more power and wealth flow to Big Government to protect us from terrorists."


Those are 3 really big conservatives speaking truth to power Ryan….

I don’t fault you for standing by our president. I don’t fault you for agreeing with him, even when he is wrong. What I don’t agree with is the “War Party” that bush created is not to be confused with Conservatism or even Republican. It is truly Neocon.

I will post a seperate piece answering your questions and adressing Obama's patriotism.

But here is another topic I want to establish while we are laying the groundwork for this blog, and that is religion. I noticed it had ALWAYS been a really important topic for you. When Bush was running you consistently alternated your defense with fighting terrorist and being a good Christian…..So…..what do you make of McCain. Is this time different? (And please remember your argument with Kerry was he didn’t “really” practice his catholic faith….not going to work here either.)

To My Starbucks Sippin Lefty of a Brother

To My Starbucks Sippin Lefty Of A Brother........

Eric-

Though answering your intelligent question of what ILK of conservatives I best relate to is tempting, I find it easier to tell you I am a conservative Republican ILK. I do this in hope that it helps you understand my position to a greater extent. For most of my political life I have understood you to be a pretty far left leaning, ie. 9/11 conspiracies ect. Which would explain my surprise to hear you were agreeing with any conservative pieces in regards to the state of the Republican party, good or bad. You say some are Obama backers, I challenge you to name one Republican publicly backing Barrack Obama, and as not to send you on a wild goose chase I can answer for you 0. I strongly urge you to check your sources on that one, as for the circling wagons, and you question of backing someone who doesn’t share the core beliefs of your party, I would like to point out John McCain’s voting record in the senate, he carries a 95% conservative voting record.

What you have to understand is the Limbaugh’s, Hannities, and Ann Coulters of the world do not have the final say on John McCain and his conservative credentials, although they act like they do, there what’s wrong with our parties image. With his voting record and his overall political record I would say he holds true to our dearest beliefs. McCain was a strong opponent of the Bush Tax cuts, not because he didn’t like the whole bill, but because it favors the higher income bracket, and for that didn’t vote for the bill. That in its self is not enough for conservatives to cross into the liberal abyss. I believe any true politician will look beyond there president, in any party, if not to further there own political agenda, then to ensure the party is moving in the right direction for the next four years.

Where were you going with telling me my politics should be more then just the president I back? Let me respond by saying long after Bush is gone I will still have the burning passion of conservatism running through my veins. I believe now more then ever conservative ideology is in our countries best interest, and the best way to further our common interests as citizens. I am however curious as to your generalization saying MOST conservatives feel Bush has run the party into the ground, I’m here to tell you that is false, George Bush Is the torch bearer for conservatives. You need look no further then the RNC meeting last month, or the House Republicans, and Republican Senators vote over the last 4 yrs. He was the head chair at the biggest conservative rally in D.C two weeks ago.

While you do see a little unease in the Republican party, that is attributed to the new world we live in, on Sept. 11th 2001 our party was forced to look into reformation of our dearest beliefs, civil liberties, and smaller govt' were effected. An example wire taps to give us the upper hand against terrorists communicating in our country, and abroad to plot against us. We want less govt' but this was something worth the price. So I guess my answer to you is I back the man, and always put the party before him. At the risk of confusing you it is possible to stand behind the man that got your party to the presidency, while not selling out your party. Your concerns for me loosing my political purpose is appreciated, yet unfounded, and far from reality. I’m now if not more dedicated to the principles of conservatism, the ideals set forth by great people such as Ronald Regan, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill ect... I do believe the core values of conservatism remains, but like anything else have to be modified from time to time. As you know I have stood by President Bush through thick and thin, good decisions, bad decisions. I do know he is not to blame for the current situation on earth, and has had to make some hard choices, choices that might not match exactly with conservative thinking, but rather choices to protect America and its citizens, rising above partisan politics, to make those choices against the conservative grain. Yes Brother, I took time to review my candidates running for my parties nomination, or as you say "wavered on which Republican to vote for". McCain ended up being the that best fits mine and the parties ideals, and I make that decision knowing he is the best man to lead this country in the times were in, and for the times to come in the next four years, not because as you say " will keep the Bush Legacy in full errrr swing" To the contrary brother McCain and Bush share the core beliefs but really couldn’t be any more opposite. Remember the 2000 election man? They couldn’t be anymore different.

I do remember you voting for Kerry not for his ideals keeping in line with party beliefs, but because he was against Bush, I ask you then who lost there political purpose? You made a mistake and admitted it, but are you rectifying the mistake of following your candidate down a rabbit hole to utter embarrassment, or the mistake of not voting for the man best qualified for the job? I say to you the supporters of Obama, Michelle Obama, ect. Its a shame it took you this long to become proud of American society, and culture in America, America is a great country for a million reasons a day, we are a leading nation in the world, and it isn’t because of its president, politicians, or foreign policy, its because of the citizens that make up this wonderful land, its too bad your just now proud of where its going. I want to know what polls you see that show Obama leading McCain in anything...Exit polls, Primary polling? I wasn’t aware polling for the general election had begun, then I remembered Obama hasn’t secured anything yet, and everyday looks like he is getting further and further from it. While my party has secured its candidate, you cant deny there is potential your candidate might not do the same.

Is it possible for party principles to evolve with the times? And should you be accused of disloyalty if your a free thinker in the realm of politics?

A Question for my confused Neo-con in training Brother....

Ryan,

I had asked what ilk of the conservatives you find yourself in because I am trying to understand your position to a greater extent. At the risk of conveying political weakness I have been assessing and agreeing with quite a few conservative pieces in regards to the state of the republican party. Some are Obama backers, most are starting to circle the wagons for there worst nightmare: McCain. But while there choice of party and political leaders may be rooted in there beliefs to some degree, most all the conservatives I am reviewing look beyond the president they back.

Where I am going is your politics should be more then the Bush/Obama you back.Most conservatives feel Bush has run the party into the ground and are very afraid McCain will be more of the same. I know you know this. True Republicans want to return to smaller government, fiscal responsibility, non-torture, restoration of civil liberties, less-religious overtones in government...ect.So I guess my question is where do you stand? Do you put party before the Man? Or the Man before the party….. What are your political standings? Please do not confuse this with a probe into the issues: “I believe in keeping America safe from terrorist or I am against abortion”. Rather what political philosophies do you embody besides quoting bold type, right wing headlines?

I ask because I am concerned you have lost your political purpose. You have truly “stood by your man” Bush through impressive odds. And although you wavered on which republican candidate to throw your weight behind, McCain seems your fit, as he will truly keep the Bush legacy in full…err..swing. However Ryan, I caution you and ask that you reconsider your position with them. It is an indisputable fact that they are not conservatives or for argument sake, haven't practiced conservative ideals. I have much respect for any and all Republicans that have stood up and said they will not support McCain because he has agreed to keep tax cuts for the rich permanent...even in the face of economic recession… and other things of this nature. I can relate. I have made the same mistake. When I backed John Kerry I followed the party down the rabbit hole to utter embarrassment. Although, I will never forgive the swift boating of someone who was a vet, I supported John cause he was above my scrutiny as a Democrat. I will never make that mistake again.

Rush and Hannity and Beck make there living off characterizing these leaders as the party. As Bush goes so goes the party. But true political honesty tells quite a different story.

That is why I support Obama. That is why a lot of people, Michelle and many supporters believe they are proud again of the society and the American culture and America in general. Cause Obama actually embodies my beliefs and the beliefs of the Democratic party and his movement is powerful. Every poll Ryan shows a freshman senator (Obama) winning against a seasoned vet (McCain).....you can't deny that. And all things being equal...that is because Obama has the support of Liberals...McCain unlike Bush does not have the support of his party. And yes, I know some will come around....but you cannot deny the sell out potential there.But what do you think about supporting leaders that don't reflect your CORE party beliefs? Or are your political ideals interchangeable with who is holding the mirror?