I saw this Studio B segment live on Fox News this afternoon, and it had me standing up, clapping and cheering out loud in my empty bedroom. Mississippi boy Shephard Smith, one of my favorite Fox anchors, lays out the facts of the mortgage scandal, the bailouts, and the current "financial crisis" in one of the most succinct summaries I have ever seen, nailing Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for their complicity as well as their current hypocrisy in daring to feign outrage at a situation they created.
I wish everyone in America could see this. Shep's comments begin just as today's congressional hearing on the AIG bailout was ending. The video is about seven minutes long, but the part you mustn't miss is the three-minute rant that kicks it off. If you're not already hopping mad about what's going on in Washington these days, you will be after watching this.
Hope? I beg your pardon. We haven't seen any such thing from this crew. And the change, in my opinion, has all been for the worse. But if we had a national press that was actually interested in reporting the facts, and if more Americans took the time to understand and learn such facts as are presented here, maybe we would finally start to see some positive change and a genuine basis for feeling hopeful about the future of this country.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Friday, September 26, 2008
Food for Thought
Some excellent questions posed by Rush Limbaugh on today's show:
If the economic bailout plan put forth by President Bush and the Democrats is as great as they say it is, why don't they just go ahead and pass it? They have the votes to do so. They could save the economy, save the nation, and be the heroes in all of this. Why, then, do they need the Republicans? Could it be the plan has some problems and they don't want to take the fall if it fails? Could it be the Republican misgivings about the plan have some basis in fact?
Also, if John McCain's presence and contribution at the big financial meeting yesterday was so insignificant, how is it then his fault (as the Democrats are claiming today) that everything broke down? How can he simultaneously be a non-factor in the process as well as the cause of its failure? Hmmmm?
If the economic bailout plan put forth by President Bush and the Democrats is as great as they say it is, why don't they just go ahead and pass it? They have the votes to do so. They could save the economy, save the nation, and be the heroes in all of this. Why, then, do they need the Republicans? Could it be the plan has some problems and they don't want to take the fall if it fails? Could it be the Republican misgivings about the plan have some basis in fact?
Also, if John McCain's presence and contribution at the big financial meeting yesterday was so insignificant, how is it then his fault (as the Democrats are claiming today) that everything broke down? How can he simultaneously be a non-factor in the process as well as the cause of its failure? Hmmmm?
Friday, March 7, 2008
Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself
Just in case you missed it, here's Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor commenting on the Democratic candidates' readiness to answer that infamous 3:00 a.m. phone call. It's short--all of about 10 seconds--and not to be missed. Take a listen.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Who Would Have Thought . . .
. . . that Super Tuesday #2 would have found me--a committed Republican who cast my vote for John McCain--sitting on the edge of my seat in front of my television set waiting in breathless anticipation not for McCain's "I've clinched the nomination" victory speech but instead for election results in the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries? And who would have thought that when those results came in I would have found myself cheering for Mrs. Clinton and chanting along with her supporters in the crowd, "Hil-lar-y, Hil-lar-y" and "Yes, she can; yes, she can"?
You go, girl. Because as long as you and Mr. Obama are battling each other, you are spending less energy going after John McCain. And if by chance you can win this nomination, I will be a little more optimistic about GOP presidential prospects as well as about the fate of the country should we have a Democrat president. And finally, as much as I hate to agree with your husband, I have to say he's right--you are more entitled to this than Mr. Obama. You have worked longer and harder to get here and--darn it!--it just wouldn't be fair for that young, smooth-talking whippersnapper to slither in and take it away from you. So hang in there, Hillary--I'm behind you all the way (well, maybe not all the way).
You go, girl. Because as long as you and Mr. Obama are battling each other, you are spending less energy going after John McCain. And if by chance you can win this nomination, I will be a little more optimistic about GOP presidential prospects as well as about the fate of the country should we have a Democrat president. And finally, as much as I hate to agree with your husband, I have to say he's right--you are more entitled to this than Mr. Obama. You have worked longer and harder to get here and--darn it!--it just wouldn't be fair for that young, smooth-talking whippersnapper to slither in and take it away from you. So hang in there, Hillary--I'm behind you all the way (well, maybe not all the way).
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Reflections on Super Tuesday
Just a few scattered thoughts on "Super Duper Tuesday" . . .
Thought #1: Finally, Some Sanity
I have previously shared my frustration with some conservative pundits who have claimed they would rather see anyone--even a Democrat--inhabit the White House rather than John McCain. Even before this election cycle, I had my doubts about Ann Coulter's priorities, but having listened to Rush off and on over the years thought he would maintain some common sense. Yet as I have dropped in on his program over the last few weeks I have been offended not only by his nonstop hammering of McCain (which will only be destructive in the long run) but also by his insulting of conservatives who have decided to support McCain, suggesting that we are blindly letting the mainstream media pick our candidate for us. I take this personally, as I have spent more time this year studying the candidates and issues than I ever have before. In the past I am not ashamed to admit that I have sometimes just trusted my husband to tell me for whom I should vote--he is the smartest person I know, with vast political and historical knowledge, and I trust his judgment. But this year, perhaps due to my newly discovered passion for blogging, I have done my own groundwork and in fact am responsible for helping to confirm my husband's own decision to vote for McCain. So I really resent Rush's dismissal of my intelligence and understanding. I also have little respect for his argument that a Democrat in the White House would not be much different from a Republican when it comes to national security and that thus it would be better to suffer through 4 years of Democratic policies so as to crystallize in people's minds that a conservative is better for the country on bread and butter issues and to drive the country rightward again.
This makes no sense to me! All I can make of this is that Rush is willing to sacrifice national security and the Supreme Court in order to achieve the conservative purity he so desperately wants in his president. And that is a viewpoint I cannot respect.
Thus, I several times this week wished I could reach into the television set and hug Laura Ingraham, who unlike Rush and Ann Coulter is willing to say that although John McCain may not be her preferred candidate, he is certainly preferable to either Democratic candidate and if he is the nominee she will vote for him in the fall.
Please understand that I do not think that Rush and others should be falling into line behind McCain right now just for the sake of party unity. They are out there to promote the conservative agenda, an agenda which I support. And the primary season is the time for the various elements within the party to debate their differences and make their best case. But in my opinion that means positively pointing out what you see as the strengths of your chosen candidate, not relentlessly attacking another who may very well end up as the nominee. What ever happened to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment--"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"? At least not in front of non-Republicans! (Kind of like parents, we need a united front.) I know that Rush's position is that he is a conservative first and a Republican second, but as long as he continues to weigh in and try to have an impact on the Republican Party's decision he is including himself in the Republican Party and should therefore not be behaving in a way that will be destructive to the party's chances in the fall.
Thought #2 - I'm Really, Really Worried
Watching Obama's speech Tuesday night scared me to no end. I am hoping and praying for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination, not only because I think she would be easier to defeat but also because I think she has some sense. As I watched Obama I was struck by the emptiness of his rhetoric (it's beautiful to listen to seems to have no grip on reality) as well as the adoring, almost worshipful reactions of his supporters (one lady in particular, standing behind him to his left, was like a barometer whose face and body indicated--through various expressions of delight and joy, several lapses into tears, and repeated clasping and prayerful gestures of the hands--how the listener should be reacting to Obama's words). What scares me is Obama's ability to stir up a crowd through only his presence and his words, which in my opinion usually say very little of substance. I get the impression from watching the crowds that turn out for him that he could say just about anything and they would thrill to it just because it came out of his mouth. But to speak rhapsodically of "uniting people" is for me empty rhetoric. The question is, what are we uniting behind? Surrender and appeasement to those who would like to see us cease to exist? Continued indoctrination of our young people into the belief that they can do nothing for themselves and that everything good comes from the government? These are ideas behind which I cannot unite, no matter how effective the delivery.
And yet, judging from the numbers of people who are turning out to vote and rally for the other party's candidates, it appears to me that there are a lot of people ready to buy into the empty rhetoric. And that is what is frightening. The Republicans may have the right ideas, but without a candidate who can successfully unite people and winningly promote those ideas, do we have a chance to succeed? Mark Steyn on National Review Online had this chilling observation today:
"The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November."
(Author's Note: I'm feeling a bit better now that it looks like the Republicans are starting to come together.)
Thought #3 (Finally a Bright Spot) - My Vote Really Does Count!
On my local ballot yesterday there was a referendum calling for $48,600,815 in 20-year building bonds of which $43,600,815 would be used to construct a new 100,000 square foot library in my town and $5 million would be used for remodeling the facility in a neighboring town (both towns are part of the same library district). The referendum failed by 43 votes, and between my husband and myself, several of our friends, and my mothers and some of her friends, I think I know where at least 10 of those "no" votes came from.
Now don't get me wrong--we love the library and use it a lot. But although I would agree the facility we utilize could use a little remodeling, I see no need for a 43 million dollar state of the art amusement park. I rarely see a crowd at our library. There is space that is currently not being used. There is room for expansion on the current campus. And considering that I know much of the money that would be raised would be spent on what I view to be unnecessary technology and programs and a collection of books that does not represent my values to the same extent that it represents those of secular humanism, this is money that I am unwilling to pay. The additional assessment on our property would amount to "only"about $70 per year, but after watching our property taxes increase by approximately 40% in the last 8 years and seeing no end in sight, my husband and I have decided to register a "no" vote on any additional increases. The causes are always noble--who doesn't want good schools and libraries?--but as I have watched the tax base in our area do nothing but expand as more and more $400,000+ houses get built and more and more businesses come in (including an Ikea just down the road from me), and as I consider other money-makers such as the red-light monitors that slap motorists with $100 fines no matter the severity of the infraction, I can't help but wonder where all the money is going. So this week my husband and I decided to stand athwart further tax increases and yelling "Stop!" and this time at least, we got heard (at least until the next referendum).
Chalk one up for the little guy.
Thought #1: Finally, Some Sanity
I have previously shared my frustration with some conservative pundits who have claimed they would rather see anyone--even a Democrat--inhabit the White House rather than John McCain. Even before this election cycle, I had my doubts about Ann Coulter's priorities, but having listened to Rush off and on over the years thought he would maintain some common sense. Yet as I have dropped in on his program over the last few weeks I have been offended not only by his nonstop hammering of McCain (which will only be destructive in the long run) but also by his insulting of conservatives who have decided to support McCain, suggesting that we are blindly letting the mainstream media pick our candidate for us. I take this personally, as I have spent more time this year studying the candidates and issues than I ever have before. In the past I am not ashamed to admit that I have sometimes just trusted my husband to tell me for whom I should vote--he is the smartest person I know, with vast political and historical knowledge, and I trust his judgment. But this year, perhaps due to my newly discovered passion for blogging, I have done my own groundwork and in fact am responsible for helping to confirm my husband's own decision to vote for McCain. So I really resent Rush's dismissal of my intelligence and understanding. I also have little respect for his argument that a Democrat in the White House would not be much different from a Republican when it comes to national security and that thus it would be better to suffer through 4 years of Democratic policies so as to crystallize in people's minds that a conservative is better for the country on bread and butter issues and to drive the country rightward again.
This makes no sense to me! All I can make of this is that Rush is willing to sacrifice national security and the Supreme Court in order to achieve the conservative purity he so desperately wants in his president. And that is a viewpoint I cannot respect.
Thus, I several times this week wished I could reach into the television set and hug Laura Ingraham, who unlike Rush and Ann Coulter is willing to say that although John McCain may not be her preferred candidate, he is certainly preferable to either Democratic candidate and if he is the nominee she will vote for him in the fall.
Please understand that I do not think that Rush and others should be falling into line behind McCain right now just for the sake of party unity. They are out there to promote the conservative agenda, an agenda which I support. And the primary season is the time for the various elements within the party to debate their differences and make their best case. But in my opinion that means positively pointing out what you see as the strengths of your chosen candidate, not relentlessly attacking another who may very well end up as the nominee. What ever happened to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment--"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"? At least not in front of non-Republicans! (Kind of like parents, we need a united front.) I know that Rush's position is that he is a conservative first and a Republican second, but as long as he continues to weigh in and try to have an impact on the Republican Party's decision he is including himself in the Republican Party and should therefore not be behaving in a way that will be destructive to the party's chances in the fall.
Thought #2 - I'm Really, Really Worried
Watching Obama's speech Tuesday night scared me to no end. I am hoping and praying for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination, not only because I think she would be easier to defeat but also because I think she has some sense. As I watched Obama I was struck by the emptiness of his rhetoric (it's beautiful to listen to seems to have no grip on reality) as well as the adoring, almost worshipful reactions of his supporters (one lady in particular, standing behind him to his left, was like a barometer whose face and body indicated--through various expressions of delight and joy, several lapses into tears, and repeated clasping and prayerful gestures of the hands--how the listener should be reacting to Obama's words). What scares me is Obama's ability to stir up a crowd through only his presence and his words, which in my opinion usually say very little of substance. I get the impression from watching the crowds that turn out for him that he could say just about anything and they would thrill to it just because it came out of his mouth. But to speak rhapsodically of "uniting people" is for me empty rhetoric. The question is, what are we uniting behind? Surrender and appeasement to those who would like to see us cease to exist? Continued indoctrination of our young people into the belief that they can do nothing for themselves and that everything good comes from the government? These are ideas behind which I cannot unite, no matter how effective the delivery.
And yet, judging from the numbers of people who are turning out to vote and rally for the other party's candidates, it appears to me that there are a lot of people ready to buy into the empty rhetoric. And that is what is frightening. The Republicans may have the right ideas, but without a candidate who can successfully unite people and winningly promote those ideas, do we have a chance to succeed? Mark Steyn on National Review Online had this chilling observation today:
"The real story of the night, when you look at their rallies and their turn-out numbers, is that the Dems have two strong candidates either of whom could lead a united party to victory. Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn't bode well for November."
(Author's Note: I'm feeling a bit better now that it looks like the Republicans are starting to come together.)
Thought #3 (Finally a Bright Spot) - My Vote Really Does Count!
On my local ballot yesterday there was a referendum calling for $48,600,815 in 20-year building bonds of which $43,600,815 would be used to construct a new 100,000 square foot library in my town and $5 million would be used for remodeling the facility in a neighboring town (both towns are part of the same library district). The referendum failed by 43 votes, and between my husband and myself, several of our friends, and my mothers and some of her friends, I think I know where at least 10 of those "no" votes came from.
Now don't get me wrong--we love the library and use it a lot. But although I would agree the facility we utilize could use a little remodeling, I see no need for a 43 million dollar state of the art amusement park. I rarely see a crowd at our library. There is space that is currently not being used. There is room for expansion on the current campus. And considering that I know much of the money that would be raised would be spent on what I view to be unnecessary technology and programs and a collection of books that does not represent my values to the same extent that it represents those of secular humanism, this is money that I am unwilling to pay. The additional assessment on our property would amount to "only"about $70 per year, but after watching our property taxes increase by approximately 40% in the last 8 years and seeing no end in sight, my husband and I have decided to register a "no" vote on any additional increases. The causes are always noble--who doesn't want good schools and libraries?--but as I have watched the tax base in our area do nothing but expand as more and more $400,000+ houses get built and more and more businesses come in (including an Ikea just down the road from me), and as I consider other money-makers such as the red-light monitors that slap motorists with $100 fines no matter the severity of the infraction, I can't help but wonder where all the money is going. So this week my husband and I decided to stand athwart further tax increases and yelling "Stop!" and this time at least, we got heard (at least until the next referendum).
Chalk one up for the little guy.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Four Days and Counting
So tonight, with my state's primary election looming, I decided it was time to settle on a candidate. And after several hours online visiting websites and looking up policy statements and past votes and quotes on issues, I made my choice: on Tuesday I will be voting for John McCain.
If my chance to vote had come a little earlier, I would have probably gone with Fred Thompson because in spite of my reservations about his passion for the office, he was the viable candidate whose views best reflected my own. But of course Fred is out, and so is Rudy Giuliani, the other candidate to whom I was giving serious consideration. I had previously decided against both Huckabee and Paul, so that now leaves me with a choice between Romney and McCain.
I have all along been unable to enthusiastically embrace any of these Republican candidates, having doubts about all of them. Thus my indecision a mere four days before the vote. But I will admit that I have always had a "soft spot" for McCain and thus a difficult time understanding the anti-McCain passion, even hatred, that often spills from the lips of many of today's vocal conservatives.
For example, this video of Ann Coulter promising to endorse and campaign for Hillary Clinton should McCain get the nomination confirms my growing suspicion of her as a complete loose cannon and self-serving publicity hound, and I will forthwith be removing her link from my sidebar:
I just don't understand how anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative and would be better for the country than John McCain. I also don't accept the argument that there is little difference between the two. Here are just a few issues illustrating the chasm that exists between these two frontrunners of their respective parties:
On Abortion
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade, voted yes on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 0% rating from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 75% rating from the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee).
Clinton supports upholding Roe v. Wade, voted no on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRLC.
On Civil Rights
McCain has a 0% rating from the ACLU, a 33% rating from the HRC and a 7% rating from the NAACP. He voted yes on banning same-sex marriage and on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds and no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He supports an amendment against flag burning and the right of formerly Confederate states to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.
Clinton has a 60% rating from the ACLU, an 89% rating from the HRC and a 96% rating from the NAACP (a rating, by the way, that indicates a strongly pro-affirmative action record). She voted no on banning same-sex marriage and on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. She also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
On Education
McCain supports homeschooling, charter schools, and vouchers as well as unrestricted block grants to states so school districts can decide for themselves how educational funds are best used. He has voted no on a host of educational funding initiatives such as $52 million for "21st century community learning centers" as well as on national education standards. He has a 45% rating from the NEA.
Clinton supports federally funded universal preschool. She is against educational vouchers and only supports choice for those in the public education system. She has never seen an education funding bill she didn't like and has an 82% rating from the NEA.
On Family Values
McCain has an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition; Clinton's rating from the same group is 0%.
On Free Trade
McCain has a 100% rating from CATO; Clinton's rating from the same group is 17%.
On Health Care
McCain is against mandating universal health care or insurance coverage; Clinton wants to universalize health care and pay for it with a huge tax increase.
On Iraq
McCain wants to achieve victory in Iraq; Clinton says she will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.
On Judges
McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Clinton will not.
I could go on. All of the above information and more is available at http://www.ontheissues.org/. The site itself reflects a slight leftward bias in its use of certain descriptive words and phrases, but the factual information is detailed and extensive. And based on that information I simply don't understand how it is possible to see the two of them as birds of a feather. I understand that McCain has taken some positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and immigration that are unpopular with conservatives. But he has an impressive gallery of supporters, he has long fought government expansion and overspending, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and his record on cutting taxes certainly beats Hillary's (72% from the NTU versus her 21%). He may not walk in lock step with the country's conservative powerhouses, but a Clinton or Obama clone he is not, and I wish people would stop making that claim. And I can't for the life of me understand how any Republican would choose to sit out this election because their first choice of candidate did not win the primary. The judges that are appointed during the next term will impact the direction of our country for a generation or more, and while we can't know for certain what to expect from any president's judicial appointments (just think back to that conservative hero Ronald Reagan), I would much rather take my chances on McCain's (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Paul's) appointees than Clinton's or Obama's.
(By the way, it is interesting to note that the site linked above describes both Romney and McCain as "populist-leaning conservatives" and places them at almost the same position on its political philosophy graph. Both Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, are "hard-core liberals." And to round out the current group, you might be interested to know that Huckabee is described as a "hard-core conservative" and Paul as a "moderate libertarian.")
So why McCain and not Romney? Even though I will admit to a certain "ick" factor with reference to his Mormonism, that is not my reason for not voting for him. McCain believes in evolution, which I view as just as false a faith as Mormonism. But voting for a president is not about finding the candidate who shares your religious views; it is about finding the candidate you believe to be most capable of leading the nation and most deserving of your trust. And with McCain I have a certain level of security that he knows what he is doing and that even though I may not agree with him on all points, I can count on him to say what he thinks and to stand up for his principles even when they are not popular. There is a record there that I can look at and feel that I know what I'm getting, whereas although Romney says a lot of the right things I have with him a much stronger sense of a politician saying and doing what is necessary to win the election, whether that means changing previously held views, promising sweeping government solutions to long-existing problems, or speaking glowingly of the sunny skies and good feelings that are going to magically manifest themselves as soon as he takes office. I respect that one can have a change of heart or mind, but in Romney's case I am not comfortable with the number of such changes he has apparently experienced in recent years (two big ones that come to mind are his views on abortion and the Department of Education). I also think that given the current state of world affairs, McCain's foreign policy experience is a huge plus, and I will frankly sleep better with him in the White House. Finally, I think McCain has a much better chance of winning in November, and I believe the importance of that simply can't be ignored, especially in a situation that to my mind offers no "dream" candidate.
If you will be voting on Super Tuesday and are undecided or simply unsure about your decision, I heartily encourage you to spend some time visiting candidates' websites, looking at specifics on issues, and visiting the site above. This is what I did tonight (at long last!), and I now feel that I can vote with some conviction and a clear conscience, if not that all-encompassing enthusiasm that has been so elusive during this very long election season.
If my chance to vote had come a little earlier, I would have probably gone with Fred Thompson because in spite of my reservations about his passion for the office, he was the viable candidate whose views best reflected my own. But of course Fred is out, and so is Rudy Giuliani, the other candidate to whom I was giving serious consideration. I had previously decided against both Huckabee and Paul, so that now leaves me with a choice between Romney and McCain.
I have all along been unable to enthusiastically embrace any of these Republican candidates, having doubts about all of them. Thus my indecision a mere four days before the vote. But I will admit that I have always had a "soft spot" for McCain and thus a difficult time understanding the anti-McCain passion, even hatred, that often spills from the lips of many of today's vocal conservatives.
For example, this video of Ann Coulter promising to endorse and campaign for Hillary Clinton should McCain get the nomination confirms my growing suspicion of her as a complete loose cannon and self-serving publicity hound, and I will forthwith be removing her link from my sidebar:
I just don't understand how anyone can claim that Hillary Clinton is more conservative and would be better for the country than John McCain. I also don't accept the argument that there is little difference between the two. Here are just a few issues illustrating the chasm that exists between these two frontrunners of their respective parties:
On Abortion
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade, voted yes on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 0% rating from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 75% rating from the NRLC (National Right to Life Committee).
Clinton supports upholding Roe v. Wade, voted no on parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, and has a 100% rating from NARAL and a 0% rating from NRLC.
On Civil Rights
McCain has a 0% rating from the ACLU, a 33% rating from the HRC and a 7% rating from the NAACP. He voted yes on banning same-sex marriage and on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds and no on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes. He supports an amendment against flag burning and the right of formerly Confederate states to fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their heritage.
Clinton has a 60% rating from the ACLU, an 89% rating from the HRC and a 96% rating from the NAACP (a rating, by the way, that indicates a strongly pro-affirmative action record). She voted no on banning same-sex marriage and on recommending a Constitutional ban on flag desecration. She also voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
On Education
McCain supports homeschooling, charter schools, and vouchers as well as unrestricted block grants to states so school districts can decide for themselves how educational funds are best used. He has voted no on a host of educational funding initiatives such as $52 million for "21st century community learning centers" as well as on national education standards. He has a 45% rating from the NEA.
Clinton supports federally funded universal preschool. She is against educational vouchers and only supports choice for those in the public education system. She has never seen an education funding bill she didn't like and has an 82% rating from the NEA.
On Family Values
McCain has an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition; Clinton's rating from the same group is 0%.
On Free Trade
McCain has a 100% rating from CATO; Clinton's rating from the same group is 17%.
On Health Care
McCain is against mandating universal health care or insurance coverage; Clinton wants to universalize health care and pay for it with a huge tax increase.
On Iraq
McCain wants to achieve victory in Iraq; Clinton says she will begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office.
On Judges
McCain says he will appoint strict constructionist judges. Clinton will not.
I could go on. All of the above information and more is available at http://www.ontheissues.org/. The site itself reflects a slight leftward bias in its use of certain descriptive words and phrases, but the factual information is detailed and extensive. And based on that information I simply don't understand how it is possible to see the two of them as birds of a feather. I understand that McCain has taken some positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, tax cuts and immigration that are unpopular with conservatives. But he has an impressive gallery of supporters, he has long fought government expansion and overspending, he supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and his record on cutting taxes certainly beats Hillary's (72% from the NTU versus her 21%). He may not walk in lock step with the country's conservative powerhouses, but a Clinton or Obama clone he is not, and I wish people would stop making that claim. And I can't for the life of me understand how any Republican would choose to sit out this election because their first choice of candidate did not win the primary. The judges that are appointed during the next term will impact the direction of our country for a generation or more, and while we can't know for certain what to expect from any president's judicial appointments (just think back to that conservative hero Ronald Reagan), I would much rather take my chances on McCain's (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Paul's) appointees than Clinton's or Obama's.
(By the way, it is interesting to note that the site linked above describes both Romney and McCain as "populist-leaning conservatives" and places them at almost the same position on its political philosophy graph. Both Clinton and Obama, on the other hand, are "hard-core liberals." And to round out the current group, you might be interested to know that Huckabee is described as a "hard-core conservative" and Paul as a "moderate libertarian.")
So why McCain and not Romney? Even though I will admit to a certain "ick" factor with reference to his Mormonism, that is not my reason for not voting for him. McCain believes in evolution, which I view as just as false a faith as Mormonism. But voting for a president is not about finding the candidate who shares your religious views; it is about finding the candidate you believe to be most capable of leading the nation and most deserving of your trust. And with McCain I have a certain level of security that he knows what he is doing and that even though I may not agree with him on all points, I can count on him to say what he thinks and to stand up for his principles even when they are not popular. There is a record there that I can look at and feel that I know what I'm getting, whereas although Romney says a lot of the right things I have with him a much stronger sense of a politician saying and doing what is necessary to win the election, whether that means changing previously held views, promising sweeping government solutions to long-existing problems, or speaking glowingly of the sunny skies and good feelings that are going to magically manifest themselves as soon as he takes office. I respect that one can have a change of heart or mind, but in Romney's case I am not comfortable with the number of such changes he has apparently experienced in recent years (two big ones that come to mind are his views on abortion and the Department of Education). I also think that given the current state of world affairs, McCain's foreign policy experience is a huge plus, and I will frankly sleep better with him in the White House. Finally, I think McCain has a much better chance of winning in November, and I believe the importance of that simply can't be ignored, especially in a situation that to my mind offers no "dream" candidate.
If you will be voting on Super Tuesday and are undecided or simply unsure about your decision, I heartily encourage you to spend some time visiting candidates' websites, looking at specifics on issues, and visiting the site above. This is what I did tonight (at long last!), and I now feel that I can vote with some conviction and a clear conscience, if not that all-encompassing enthusiasm that has been so elusive during this very long election season.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Conflicted
As I consider the current state of the Democratic primary race, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I find it quite satisfying to see the Clintons having to fight for what they obviously think they are entitled to. And when I look at Obama I can see why so much of the country is gravitating towards him. He is young, energetic, intelligent, and attractive; he has a beautiful family that he adores and that adores him; and he has an undeniable gift for oratory. If I were throwing a dinner party I would much rather hang out with the Obamas than with the Clintons. Yet all that I am hearing from Mr. Obama in the way of a message right now are nebulous things like "hope" and "change" and "unity." I know all politicians throw those words around, but with Obama they seem to be the meat rather than the fixings. And when he does put forth a policy statement or opinion, it is easy to see that the word "change" is nothing more than fluff because from what I can tell he embraces the typical entrenched liberal Democrat approach to problem-solving (more government and more money).
So as much as I love seeing Hillary sweat, and as much as I would love nothing more than to see the Clintons get put in their place, I will be pulling for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. Because even though the thought of Bill back in the White House makes me cringe, I think the country would be safer with Hillary at its helm and Bill at her elbow than with Obama leading it. Bill has been there. He has to know what's at stake. I am reminded of his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News last year and his adamant, quite passionate assertion that he tried to get Osama bin Laden. I believe him--I think he really tried. I'm not sure Obama would bother.
What I'm also not sure of is which of the two Democratic frontrunners would be easier for a Republican candidate to defeat. But my gut tells me Hillary. I think the Clinton negatives are multiplying exponentially these days and people are being reminded of the less charming and likeable side of Bill. And as she fights for her political life, Hillary is having an even harder time than usual turning on the charm. I am seeing more and more pictures of her lately with clenched teeth and grimly set lips, whereas Obama seems to me to be maintaining quite well. If Obama gets the nomination I fear it would be all too easy for our rather shallow and emotion-driven populace to embrace him as the tabula rasa upon which they could write their own personal narrative about the future without having to grapple with inconvenient things like facts.
On the other hand, once we get past the infatuation stage with Obama and people start taking a closer look, maybe some of the sparkle will start to diminish.
Someone with a smarter political mind than mine has told me that the strongest Republican match-ups would be McCain against Obama and Romney against Hillary. What do you think?
So as much as I love seeing Hillary sweat, and as much as I would love nothing more than to see the Clintons get put in their place, I will be pulling for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. Because even though the thought of Bill back in the White House makes me cringe, I think the country would be safer with Hillary at its helm and Bill at her elbow than with Obama leading it. Bill has been there. He has to know what's at stake. I am reminded of his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News last year and his adamant, quite passionate assertion that he tried to get Osama bin Laden. I believe him--I think he really tried. I'm not sure Obama would bother.
What I'm also not sure of is which of the two Democratic frontrunners would be easier for a Republican candidate to defeat. But my gut tells me Hillary. I think the Clinton negatives are multiplying exponentially these days and people are being reminded of the less charming and likeable side of Bill. And as she fights for her political life, Hillary is having an even harder time than usual turning on the charm. I am seeing more and more pictures of her lately with clenched teeth and grimly set lips, whereas Obama seems to me to be maintaining quite well. If Obama gets the nomination I fear it would be all too easy for our rather shallow and emotion-driven populace to embrace him as the tabula rasa upon which they could write their own personal narrative about the future without having to grapple with inconvenient things like facts.
On the other hand, once we get past the infatuation stage with Obama and people start taking a closer look, maybe some of the sparkle will start to diminish.
Someone with a smarter political mind than mine has told me that the strongest Republican match-ups would be McCain against Obama and Romney against Hillary. What do you think?
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Pelicans
A few days ago, my 4-year-old suddenly started having a lot to say about pelicans. Since he had not heard anything about them from me, I assumed he must have learned about pelicans at preschool or perhaps overheard a conversation between his siblings or a program on television. As I was on one occasion trying to sort out his most recent declarations about pelicans, my daughter (who has a knack for understanding her little brother's speech patterns and to whom I therefore frequently turn for translating help) laughingly informed me, "Mom, he's talking about Republicans!"
Do you think maybe our household has become a bit too political? This is not the first time my youngest has had something to say about political parties.
Anyway, good parent that I am, I have been trying to set him straight: "Honey, pelicans are animals. We're Republicans. Repeat after me: Re-pub-li-can."
I'm not sure it's sinking in. Last night I asked him, "Sweetie, what are pelicans?" His answer: "Pelicans are the good guys."
Maybe I should leave this alone. After all, he may have something there! Perhaps I should even start a grassroots movement, not unlike this one spearheaded by my friend Elephant's Child, to change the Republican mascot from the elephant to the pelican!
On the other hand, I think that this . . .
. . . probably stands a better chance of beating this in the fall . . .
Do you think maybe our household has become a bit too political? This is not the first time my youngest has had something to say about political parties.
Anyway, good parent that I am, I have been trying to set him straight: "Honey, pelicans are animals. We're Republicans. Repeat after me: Re-pub-li-can."
I'm not sure it's sinking in. Last night I asked him, "Sweetie, what are pelicans?" His answer: "Pelicans are the good guys."
Maybe I should leave this alone. After all, he may have something there! Perhaps I should even start a grassroots movement, not unlike this one spearheaded by my friend Elephant's Child, to change the Republican mascot from the elephant to the pelican!
On the other hand, I think that this . . .
. . . probably stands a better chance of beating this in the fall . . .
. . . than this.
So maybe it's time to give politics a rest and instead spend some time introducing my little boy to the wonders of the animal kingdom. At the moment, that kingdom is making a lot more sense to me anyway.
(Photos courtesy of Wikipedia.)
Friday, May 25, 2007
Election Musings
My son asked me a couple of interesting questions yesterday:
1) If we are to have a Democratic president next time around (a big "if"), which of the current candidates would you prefer?
2) Of those current Democratic candidates, which one (as a Republican voter) would you prefer to go up against?
After some thought, here are my answers:
1) Considering that he is the only one of the Democratic field who voted for the Iraq funding bill that just passed overwhelmingly, I think I would say Joe Biden. Bill Richardson (who did not vote on this bill because he is not in Congress) would be the other preferred choice.
2) John Edwards, because I think he is the most beatable.
I think the Democratic candidate that scares me most is the not yet announced Al Gore. He has become a mini-celebrity, and I think he would immediately catapult to the front of the pack. The Hollywood crowd would be empowered, and the American public might just vote him in because of a sense that he got "cheated" his last time around and deserves a second chance.
Anyone else want to chime in?
1) If we are to have a Democratic president next time around (a big "if"), which of the current candidates would you prefer?
2) Of those current Democratic candidates, which one (as a Republican voter) would you prefer to go up against?
After some thought, here are my answers:
1) Considering that he is the only one of the Democratic field who voted for the Iraq funding bill that just passed overwhelmingly, I think I would say Joe Biden. Bill Richardson (who did not vote on this bill because he is not in Congress) would be the other preferred choice.
2) John Edwards, because I think he is the most beatable.
I think the Democratic candidate that scares me most is the not yet announced Al Gore. He has become a mini-celebrity, and I think he would immediately catapult to the front of the pack. The Hollywood crowd would be empowered, and the American public might just vote him in because of a sense that he got "cheated" his last time around and deserves a second chance.
Anyone else want to chime in?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)