I'll be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin
In all fairness, my modest enthusiasm for John McCain is matched by my strong aversion to Barack Obama.
Jim Miller's post captures my own thoughts pretty well, and expresses them more gentlemanly than I could have.
Truly frightening.
One more really good reason to get out and vote for John McCain.
You know there are other choices than McCain for those that want to express their disgust for Obama. I understand your modest enthusiasm for McCain, but voting for him helps his liberal wing of the party to gain more power in the party. You need to send a message to the GOP elite that they can not count on your vote no matter what. They need to present a decent small government candidate if they want our vote! Posted by: Lysander on November 3, 2008 08:30 PM
Something from Powerline blog that appropriately summarizes my thoughts.
"After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?
Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.
Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise-- whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team-- is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.
The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.
The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents.
The triumphal tour of world capitals and photo-op meetings with world leaders by someone who, after all, was still merely a candidate, is just one sign of this self-centered immaturity.
"This is our time!" he proclaimed. And "I will change the world." But ultimately this election is not about him, but about the fate of this nation, at a time of both domestic and international peril, with a major financial crisis still unresolved and a nuclear Iran looming on the horizon.
For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries.
The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law.
After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.
Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion.
People who think Governor Sarah Palin didn't handle some "gotcha" questions well in a couple of interviews show no interest in how she compares to the Democrats' Vice Presidential candidate, Senator Biden.
Joe Biden is much more of the kind of politician the mainstream media like. Not only is he a liberal's liberal, he answers questions far more glibly than Governor Palin-- grossly inaccurately in many cases, but glibly.
Moreover, this is a long-standing pattern with Biden. When he was running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination back in 1987, someone in the audience asked him what law school he attended and how well he did.
Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.
But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85."
Add to Obama and Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and you have all the ingredients for a historic meltdown."
awesome. After I read it I said, "yeah, got it"?God help us though! Posted by: mark on November 3, 2008 08:59 PM
In 2000, when some people claimed to believe that a disused pig farm was a "Texas ranch", despite the owner's inability to ride a horse. This has been another edition of Short Answers to Stupid Questions.
This post is very cruel to Jim Miller. He disallows comments for a very good reason, and now you allow an avenue for us to hand his horse-whipped arse to him. For a taste:
"...never been an executive in a business... The closest thing he has to executive experience is being chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge -- which failed completely."
Jim believes Arbusto and Harken Energy were the greatest success stories in the history of capitalism.
"Obama is not well-informed on most subjects important to a president. There is no reason to believe that he understands military strategy, on even the most basic level. He understands so little of physics that he thinks that the problem of storing nuclear wastes is unsolved."
How well has our war in Iraq gone, Jim? Do you think it reflects the most brilliant military strategy? How about Mr. Bush's grasp of physics? (Yes, it IS better than yours, but still...)
"... Obama has promised both immense tax cuts, and enormous increases in spending. "
As opposed to the Bush Administration's policies for the past eight years.
"(He claims that he can pay for both with unspecified savings, but no one who understands our budgets takes him seriously on that promise.)"
Ronald Reagan's supporters never took budgets seriously.
"For years, one of Obama's closest associates in Chicago was Tony Rezko, who was convicted of corruption -- and is now most likely implicating other Obama associates."
How's Kenny Boy's retirement in Switzerland going? Jack Abramoff visited Bush in the Oval Office many times. (This is what "character and integrity in the Oval Office" really meant, Jim.)
"People have died for their fashions, so strong is our desire to pose in just the right way."
They've subjected themselves to endless public humiliation, just by posing as learned on politics.
"And our enemies know that. Almost all of them, from the Iranian regime to Kim Jong Il from Castro to Chavez, have endorsed Obama. They aren't backing him because they wish us well."
Uh, Jim? The rest of us don't listen to what foreigners think of our elections. (Especially when said foreigners have repeatedly been revealed as wild-eyed liars.)
"... recall what happened when the leftists took control of Congress in 1974 and what happened after Jimmy Carter was elected president."
Political campaign-finance reform, and a higher approval rating than G.W. Bush now has, are BAD things! BAD, BAD things!
"Obama is elected, we should fear more conventional conflicts as well, with deaths mostly in the thousands, and hundreds of thousands, "
He'll lie to start a war in some country which never threatened us, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of locals. (It's bad when a Democrat does it; trust Jim on that.)
"You may recall that, in 2007, he admitted that genocide might be a consequence of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq (which he was favoring at the time), but did not see that as a sufficient reason to change his policy."
You may recall that links to reliable sources are necessary when making serious accusations. That's why Jim, not you, wrote this post.
The Iraqi people also want our rapid withdrawal, because they want genocide against themselves (according to Jim). The Bush Administration has agreed to a timetable for our withdrawal, although Jim doesn't know that.
"Oddly enough, Senator Biden has admitted that Obama would be tested by our enemies -- and that we wouldn't be happy with Obama's response. That bit of truth telling, along with a few gaffes, made the Obama campaign decide that Biden did not need to be heard, and rarely needed to be seen."
Which is why Sen. Biden has since appeared on stage with Sen. Obama.
Sound Politics just keeps Jim around to make everyone else here look good by comparison, so please keep your half of the bargain, and respect his need -- his desperate, personal need -- to avoid comments.
Posted by: tensor on November 3, 2008 11:06 PMI assume a certain level of knowledge when I write, so I didn't bother to link to the stories on Obama's acceptance of genocide. Experts in internet searches can find them using such sophisticated techniques as entering this search string in Google: "Iraq + genocide + Obama". When you do, you will find, for example, this
MSNBC article. (I hope that example wasn't too complicated.)
But that's as much tutoring as I plan to do for today, unless, of course, the student comes up with some substantial fees. Very substantial.
For the record: I closed that endorsement post, not because I fear illogical comments, but because I was annoyed by some of the nasty comments on a previous post, nasty comments mostly from those who share my presidential choice.
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 4, 2008 05:08 AMWake up, Rip Van Winkle, we already won that one.
And those who wish to run against the Bush administration should be aware I've got a nice time machine ready for their purchase, adjacent to my Brooklyn Bridge property. The price is only 10% of Obama's illegal, unchecked anonymous contributions, but we can arrange terms through Fannie Mae - that is, if they have anything left in the till after their own contributions to Obama.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 4, 2008 06:20 AMWithin all that blather and cruft, there's not a single defense of Obama's record. Not one.
Posted by: zapporo on November 4, 2008 06:44 AM"have you now or have you ever been associated with any individual or group of individual's that have supported the overthrow of the United States government"
Most likely, he'd lie as most socio-path's truly believe they are not lying so much as they're not telling you 'their truth' as they see it (exhibit A- WIlliam Jefferson Clinton changing the language of the queston from Sexual relations to Sexual intercourse and then promptly lying by using his definition).
I sincerely hope the paulestinian's use their head, hold their nose and vote for McCain/Palin. If you think Obama placing 2-3 SCOTUS jurists as radical as Ruth Badgirl Ginsburg on the bench will not inalterably change the direction of this country, you are hopelessly mistaken. He's already lamented the fact that the Warren court did not go far enough in terms of "redistributive justice' back in 1964, basically saying they weren't radical enough for him and his ideology in viewing the constitution as a living, breathing document. He says he'll appoint jurists with 'empathy' on the court rather than those that would interpret the Constitution as it was written.
McCain is the only sane choice you can make today for President, that is, if you still believe in the United States our forefather's envisioned for us 232 years ago.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 4, 2008 06:53 AMJust look at it this way, Ron Paul would have wanted you to vote for McCain.
Bad as McCain would seem to the RPers', Obama is light years worse for ANY cause RP supports.
Of course we are in Washington...
But one thing to consider is that write in's have to be hand typed into the system, so that slows the counting of your votes for all the other candidates (like for Governor...) you voted for. So if you want to lengthen the time we have to wait to know the winners of close races, just write in your meaningless choices.
By the way, based on the thuggery we're seeing in Phily, you can just imagine what Obama's "civilian security force" will be all about. South Africa HERE WE COME! Posted by: scott on November 4, 2008 11:08 AM
I'd go with guilt-by-association as your main fallacy, repeated across this and other posts. (It's a subset of the ad homiem fallacy.)
Wake up, Rip Van Winkle, we already won that one.
Has Osama bin Laden cleared you to speak for Al-Qaeda in Iraq? Or is winning the new losing?
I assume a certain level of knowledge when I write, so I didn't bother to link to the stories on Obama's acceptance of genocide.
I assume a certain level of seriousness when I read, so I naturally expected a serious charge to have so much as a single citation of evidence. I won't make that mistake for you again.
(BTW, serious charges require a bit more than a Google search. Just sayin'.)
Within all that blather and cruft, there's not a single defense of Obama's record. Not one.
Yes, I was deliberately imitating this site's support of Rep. Reichert! How kind of you to notice!
But that's as much tutoring as I plan to do for today, unless, of course, the student comes up with some substantial fees. Very substantial.
Behold, the very closest Jim ever got to a high-paying job. Capitalism can be such a cruel mistress. (Just ask G.W. Bush. Don't ask Sen. McCain; his only private-sector job was a gift from his second father-in-law.)
Speaking of tutorials:
"For the record: I closed that endorsement post, not because I fear accurate comments..."
Fixed! (Don't worry, you get that one for free!)
Posted by: tensor on November 4, 2008 07:19 PMbuy cod day next adderall
order tramadol
cheap tramadol cod saturday delivery
buy tramadol online
no prescription tramadol Posted by: teestJergoNes on November 8, 2008 09:06 AM