Archives
Monday, September 08, 2008
THE THINGS THEY SAY. Peter. I read your comments and take great
exception to
what you’ve said and your use of this forum to make such statements
with not a
single example. It seems to me that you have indulged in the same type
of smear
tactics you object to in the media. So I
have made some responses in boldface to individual paragraphs of your comment. I have also added a brief statement of my own at the end. I was MN as
well this past week, but at the other
event across the river. There people like Gary Johnson, Grover
Norquist, Bruce
Fein, Tom Woods, and Doug Wead talked about the country's problems, the
GOP's
problems and solutions for both. Theirs were familiar pleas for the
party to
listen to the movement, for once, and for the movement to actually take
its
role, power and mission seriously. They
had their opportunity in the primaries. What you fail to understand is
that
your movement failed to be convincing or even persuasive to more than a
splinter group of delusional fanatics. Yes, Barry
Goldwater, Jr. came out and said that
the direction Ron Paul suggests is the best thing the movement has
going. Then
Ron Paul came out and expounded with the usual. You may disagree with
policy
suggestions, but that's all the substance that came out of I want to
like Sarah Palin. I want McCain's
compelling story to make a difference to me. Likewise, I want this
website's
writers' insight into McCain's deepest motivations, and their
self-projections
onto his candidacy, to win me over and to make me feel good about not
just
voting for McCain, but working to get others to do so as well. But I'm
not
sold. It seems to me that John McCain’s
own words should be what must convince you, not someone else’s
interpretation. It
also seems to me that the only input which ever sells you on anything
is your
most recent exposure to Ron Paul. Unfortunately, I dare say McCain and
Palin
know that about you, too. The one thing Paulistas have made abundantly
clear to
everyone is that nothing anyone can say to them will ever convince them
to take
their heads out of the sand and look at the world as it is. Which makes
you
quite a bit like the hardcore Obamaniacs. A door long slammed shut
against
common sense and garden variety logic. What about
policy? This must not be discussed. We
know Barack Obama will be bad for the country. McCain's personal story
and
Palin's small-town cred are not answers to that, though. Policy is not
discussed because there would be no fundamental difference between
either
administration. No fundamental
difference between either administration? That’s ridiculous. Indeed,
it’s preposterous,
In point of cold fact, the only way
to begin the kinds of reforms libertarians claim they believe in is
with the
“veto pen” McCain referenced in his speech. Without that pen as a first
step
toward slicing the lard out of existing government, every plank of
Paul’s
reform platform is as much a naïve fantasy as his belief that the This is
because they share a love for big
government, an imperial presidency and the arrogance that the elite in
this
country know what's best for not only every person in each American
town and neighborhood,
but for every 'global citizen' and their nations. As President, Obama
or McCain
know they have to answer to no one regarding their dealings with other
nations.
If you took the time to actually check
John McCain’s record, you would know what a malicious falsehood this
statement
is. I’m wondering if you understand the structure of our government.
Does the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a check and overseer of
“imperial”
executive foreign policy decisions ring a bell? Again, you fail to
discern the
obvious. If the Congress had a real rather than strictly political case
to be
made against the Just like
with Jindhal, I'm worried that what
could have been a great thing for National
political conventions used to be days,
sometimes weeks long. There party activists and officials actually
debated and
did battle with members of their own party to best define it and elect
the best
candidates who will represent the ideas for which that party is a
vehicle so
that it would be united against the opposing party. And
who do you think the delegates were? They did debate, and they had
some acrimonious fights. Easy to miss that if you decided ahead of time
that it
didn’t happen. And your nostalgia for smoke-filled rooms is quaint to
the point
of infantile. Today’s party reps can communicate and argue and resolve
issues
without necessarily being locked in one room for a few weeks. Have you
heard
about recent developments like cell phones, email, video conferencing
and chat
rooms? If you haven’t you might find them exciting if you opened your
eyes long
enough to escape from the 1880s. This is no
longer the case. The entirety of this
event was a media show, of course, but it was a show in which the
delegates,
and thus the rank-and-file Republicans who elected them at their
caucuses and
county and state conventions had no say. There were no resolutions, no
debates,
no motions, no voting. Only a coronation to look good for the media. Wrong. These things didn’t occur on the
convention floor because the media is watching and filming the
convention floor
24/7. It all happened behind the cameras, in un-smoke-filled rooms, but
it
happened nonetheless. You’re free to disagree with a platform that
doesn’t call
for total unilateral disarmament and abandonment of the world to
apocalyptic
Iranian Jew-haters, neo-Soviet adventurism, and suicidal European
socialists,
but that doesn’t mean your ignorance is proof of some kind of
imperialist
conspiracy. In fact, the
media's presence is the main argument
for this scenario. However, if the media's main goal was to make
Republicans
look bad, even among the delegates there were ample opportunities and
people I
know that were on the floor, and were interviewed, who highlighted the
corrupt
nature of the event. This paragraph
doesn’t even make any sense. Two major
reasons none of these accounts are aired
or printed, in my opinion, is first that the media and its
establishment has no
interest in allowing the public to consider, if even for a second, that
these
conventions and the meat of the political process are centrally
controlled and
not in our best interest (as most probably already know), but that
every aspect
of the political process the public can easily take total control over,
wresting power from the few and returning it to their neighborhoods. See comment about paranoids above. Of course
the media would have an interest
in exposing the lunatic conspiracy you describe with no evidence
whatsoever.
That’s the kind of story that makes journalists rich, networks more
powerful,
and restores vanishing circulations to newspapers. For someone who
claims to
believe in capitalism, you appear to have zero understanding of how it
works. The other is
that greater media scrutiny and
individual involvement would cement for the public the similarities
between the
two parties (at least their DC wings), thereby shutting down the horse
race the
people eat up which makes the whole charade possible. Thank
God there’s you, the one supremely brilliant person on earth who
sees through all the lies being perpetrated on the American public.
It’s
absolutely staggering how well you can do this at such a distance from
everything that’s going on, while surrounded by certifiable crazies who
haven’t
understood anything that’s happened in Please, go
become your GOP precinct committeeman.
Get on your ***************************
I have known about John McCain for
decades. I remember
his capture, his long captivity. I remember the talk when the last POWs
were
released by It sounds as if you’d prefer the
parliamentary systems
that are slowly strangling personal liberty, capitalism, and vigor in
the
European nations you want us to stay away from. In the The critical point for me in
presidential politics
is actually believing what I’m being told by each candidate and
trusting that
the person will do what he says and that what he does is in the best
interests
of Americans. On September 11, 2001, I was at a meeting in a closed
conference
room on a Navy base. Suddenly, the door opened and we were all informed
of what
was happening. The base was being shut down and all civilians were
ordered to
leave. As we left, we drove out on the road alongside the base to get
back to
our highway. I was immediately struck by how little protection there
was. A
relatively short cyclone fence, just like what you would have in your
backyard,
was all that closed the perimeter. Anyone with a pickup truck could
have driven
right through it. I realized just how open a society we
are – so
confident that our way of life is preferable to any other that we can’t
even
formulate a scenario where we would be under attack. Some still also
believe
that our oceans protect us. I believe we are still struggling with
the methods
needed to protect ourselves. I see weaknesses everywhere. But there
certainly
have been improvements since we have not come under such an attack
again. I am thankful
George
W. Bush understood that a nation as free as ours cannot fold in on
itself for
defense like an armadillo. He understood that
the only way a society as free and open as ours can defend itself
against the
treacheries of terrorism is to seek out the enemy and attack him in
whatever
non-domestic battleground can be found. There was a time when I was convinced
that a
civilian president was the best choice for Commander in Chief. We are, after all, a nation of citizen
warriors. I have since changed my mind. In a world of terrorists who
wish all
of us dead, we need a person who understands the complexities of both
the
Department of Defense and the military structure. For all his good
intentions
and perseverance against fierce domestic opposition, George
Bush
could never overcome this lack in his own experience. It took McCain to
sell the
necessary Surge ito the administration and the congress, which he did by a heroic
refusal
to take the easy political out. That’s a
sterling example of why your glib ideological rantings aren’t worth the
tidal wave
of alphabetic characters you waste on them. And if you’re paranoid
about a
militarist dictatorship as well, go (re)read your American history. The
record shows
that previous Republican presidents who had prior military careers were
anything but militaristic or imperialist (HINT: Do a Wiki search for
Ulysses Grant
and Dwight Eisenhower. They had their weaknesses, but tyranny wasn’t one
of
them). When our nation must call on its
military in a
time of need – as we must now,
regardless oif your willful and juvenile blindness -- I want someone who
has
shown some skill and comprehension about how best to use it. John
McCain has proven
he has that understanding by calling for the Surge long before anyone
else and defying
his own party and his president to win his case. You
might recall that he received a lot of
criticism at the time and even well after positive results were being
achieved.
Today, the Surge is a huge success acknowledged by all but Harry
Reid and Nancy
Pelosi. Even Obama conceded late last week that it has been successful
beyond
all hope, even though he still refuses to admit he was wrong to oppose
it. Character
does matter, young man. The one thing Obama’s character can never permit him to
do is acknowledge an error or a mistake. That’s a sign of narcissistic
egomania. I would never vote for such a person for president, and I
would
advise you to consider what your own persistent refusal to face the
obvious holes
and errors in your political views might mean about yourself. I will have more to say as the fall
campaign continues. For now, I suggest that Pete and others like
him do a great deal more homework before they attempt to condescend to
the rest of us again. |
![]() |
![]() Home Page |
![]() InstaPunk.com |
|
![]() |