Palin is a great pick for VP
Posted by Mike Sylvester - 8/29/08 @ 7:52 pm - Filed Under 2008 National Elections
I want to start this post by reminding you all that I switched to the Republican Party earlier this year from the Libertarian Party. I am a Republican who is sick and tired of Republicans who vote for larger government and more regulations.
I also want to remind you that in many posts I have said that I will likely vote for Libertarian Bob Barr for President in November.
McCain’s choice of Palin has made me reconsider; I am not longer sure whether I will vote Republican or Libertarian for President in November.
Palin is a great choice for VP for many reasons:
1. She will energize the Republican base because she is a strong social conservative. I think this will ensure the Republican base votes in November and it will help McCain’s fundraising as well.
2. She has more Executive experience then Obama, McCain, and Biden combined. She was the Mayor of a small town in Alaska and has been the Governor of Alaska for as long as Obama has been a US Senator.
3. She is the only person who is truly from the middle class on either ticket. Her dad was a school teacher and her mother was a school secretary.
4. She has never served in Washington DC and I think that will help her with voters. I think many people are sick and tired of Washington DC insiders screwing things up for all of us.
5. She has a captivating personal history.
6. She has a strong reputation for fighting corruption in Alaska. She has gone after Republicans including their corrupt Republican Senator and Republican Representative.
7. She is against earmarks and told Washington that Alaska did not need Washington DC to build the infamous “bridge to nowhere.”
8. She is not a lawyer. Both members of the Democratic ticket are lawyers and I think that will hurt the Democrats in November.
There are many more reasons; however, these are some of the first ones that struck me.
Palin is the kind of candidate that Obama should have chose rather then a man who has served in the senate for 36 years.
Mike Sylvester
Comments
43 Responses to “Palin is a great pick for VP”
Leave a Reply
Looks like desperate pandering for the “Hillory leftovers! But, who cares, Right? We’ll just have another “Bud”.
I wonder. While she was Governor. Did she try to do anything about the Senator from her state? Oh yeah. He just got re-elected. Who says crime doesn’t pay.
Oh well. If McBush forgets where he left his house keys, maybe she can help!
Wow way to follow up a thoughtfull post with typical left wing hate drivel.
Mike;
I agree that Palin is a strong choice. I think the previous post shows much evidence of this. I also think you listed some good reasons here. But that #8 is about worthless. Everyone who ever runs for office (that isn’t a lawyer themselves) attempts to demonize this group.
I ask you in all seriousness, what is so bad about being a lawyer? I think a lot of people have the conception that most lawyers are not only deceitful, but smart enough to get away with it, and that is where the public hate comes from. But I would expect your answer to be more sound than this because if that’s all it’s based on then the same exact thing applies to most politicians.
To say “I’m better than a lawyer, because I’m a politician” really is laughable, and all four candidates fit into this broad category.
Mike,
I’ve made the opposite case about as much as I care to do today but this statement is incorrect:
Both Biden and Obama come from middle class roots. Also McCain came from a Naval family and I’m not as sure about their status but I would think it logical to assume his military family would have been middle class as well…
McCain’s dad was an admiral… McCain’s grandfather was an admiral. Three generations of Navy doesn’t give one the view of the average middle class man on the street
Obama is about as far from middle class America as one can get. Living in Jakarta for the first ten years of his life, then attending an exclusive private school in Hawaii before going to Columbia and Harvard doesn’t give one a typical middle class outlook on life.
Joe Biden’s dad was a car salesman. Biden has the most “middle class connections”, however he graduated law school in 1968 and was a Senator by 1972. Not much time to really get a handle on what it takes to make a living…..and anyone that has been in the Senate for 36 years loses any right to be considered middle class.
I would say Biden has a pretty clear grasp on what middle-class is.
And I notice you conveniently left out the years Obama spent as a community activist in South side Chicago…
Jeff, Biden been in the Sentate longer than you have been alive. He last memory of middle class ended during the Nixon administration.
and I didn’t conveniently leave out Obama’s time spent as a community activist on the South Side. I don’t see how hanging out with Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground gives one middle class roots.
OK that was harsh and factually incorrect. Obama didn’t meet Ayers until 1999 and didn’t get political donations from him until 2001, how does Obama suddenly grow middle class roots by working on Chicago’s South Side.
BTW…Jeff how do you edit your comments on this blog?
She is on record for earmarks as recently as 2006. Which would include the Bridge to Nowhere.
So she was for it before she was against it.
As for Sen. Biden, his net worth is around $277,000. That is well below Sen. McCain’s $5 million threshold for defining rich people.
Obama is the son of a single mother who worked and raised him and his sister while getting her college degree. At times she was on food stamps while struggling to better her own life and thos of her children. I’m not sure how that qualifies as richer than middle class.
Way to spit out Obama talking points Karen. Where does one obtain food stamps in Jakarta? (Where Obama was raised by his mother and Indonesian stepfather until he was 10). At 10 he moved in with Grandma in Hawaii and went to the Punahou School from the 5th grade until he graduated high school in 1979. How does one collect food stamps and at the same time afford tuition for a private school that charges 16k per year.
Even if Obama was dirt poor, (which he wasn’t) that does not give him “middle class roots” as was the point in the discussion above.
As for McCain….yeah…anyone who thinks 5million per year is middle class really has no grasp of middle class. (As stated above).
Ms. Goldner,
Frankly I am tired of hearing about being the child of single mother. I think it is something we should all know but that does not make him special over all the children that screwed up by having a two parent home. There are many two parent families that suffer as much as she did, maybe even worse for all I know.
I am thrilled that our leadership (both Demo and GOP) had passed laws that allowed her to feed him when she needed the aid in the way of food stamps.
How do you think hiring a new “ARMY OF TEACHERS” is going to play out? Once again the Feds will pick up the tab for a couple of years then dump the cost back to local school districts.
I tell you what I am concerned about is the fact he denied me the right to vote on a Constitutional Amendment to Flag Burning. For a man who professes being for the people one would think he would have at least allowed us voters to vote on such a issue.
Jon, Barack Obama lived in Hawaii until he was 5 or 6 when his mother remarried and they moved to Indonesia where his stepfather was from; he lived there until he was 10 and then returned to Hawaii. His mom and grandparents (with whom he lived for a while) were very middle class people, different from the rest of us only because perhaps they dreamed bigger than we seem to do.
JQ, I don’t think that anyone has ever said that his life was worse than that of kids who come from dysfunctional homes, whether with one or two parents. And certainly I wouldn’t say that all single-parent homes are worse than all 2-parent homes (although let’s be honest: there are a lot of far right pundits out there who spent most of the 1980’s beating up on single mothers; I choose to assume that you are not one of them.) But the fact is that being a single parent poses challenges that many 2-parent families don’t face. Barack has said that he was affected by not having a father in his life. Rather than being a “Democratic talking point,” that sounds more like something that Jim Dobson would say.
On the matter of the flag burning amendment - it seems to me that a U.S. Senator has an obligation not to support legislation that violates basic free speech protections (yeah, I’m not so thrilled about the FISA vote but nobody’s perfect). I am more impressed with Senator Obama’s work on international weapons reduction, ethics reform, and supporting veterans.
Mike says - “She was the Mayor of a small town in Alaska and has been the Governor of Alaska for as long as Obama has been a US Senator.”
Obama was sworn in as Senator in January 2005. Palin was sworn in as Governor in December 2006.
Keep ‘em coming Mike!
Jeff,
I think Jon Olinger summed it up pretty well; I do not feel that McCain, Biden, or Obama have the views of a middle classed person.
Craig,
After looking into it you are correct. Obama has been a US Senator for longer than Palin has been Governor. I was thinking Obama had been a Senator for 2 years; however, he is approaching 4 years in the senate; however, much of that time he has been running for President and doing little as a senator.
Mike
Ms Goldner,
As you called some right pundits beating up on single mothers is again a label of attempted smear. I will agree that “some people” did beat up on single mothers but on the other side we have those who wanted to provide more for these single mothers then other females. There are education programs, healthcare, and training available to single mothers that are not available to females with no children.
Any child missing a parent “suffers” to some extent. A mother or father who is killed in an accident leaves a child suffering. In some cases by parents “staying together for the sake of the children” cause the children to suffer more then if one of them had left.
My first amendment right was taken away from me by Mr. Obama by not allowing me to vote on the issue of flag burning. He denied me my right to vote. Yet you want to draw a line in the sand over FISA. I guess it just where you and I want to draw the line but there is line being drawn.
I am still smiling about his “HUGE” role in weapons reduction Obama has played. Yes, he talked about it when he was running for the senate. Senator Lugar picked up on it and told him he should think about trying to get assigned the Foreign Relations Committee (keep in mind the power brokers of each party assign committee memberships). Lugar (R) told the Democrats Leadership that Obama would be welcome on the committee and Lugar was the senior ranking member. Hence, Obama was assigned by the Democrats. Obama had zero ranking on the committee, let alone the senate, as he was a “new kid on the block!”
Lugar wanted additional funding for a program him and Sam Nunn had started years before in trying to get rid of nuke and chemical weapons in the old USSR, before they fell into the hands of others. He ALLOWED Obama to become part of the sponsorship of the bill that would provide funding for this additional reduction.
I am glad it passed and that thousands of viles of chemicals and nukes have been destroyed. I am happy that Obama tagged along with Lugar on this measure but don’t try to sell the point he was some kind of real leader in this effort.
JQ,
The Flag Burning amendment is an abomination and you shouldn’t be able to vote on it any more than you should be able to vote on an amendment to repeal slavery.
Burning of the flag is not done to stay warm - it is political speech and thus it is protected by the 1st amendment and rightfully so. Political speech that is not offensive doesn’t need protection. American citizens don’t have to celebrate the burning of the flag but they should recognize the basic freedoms this country was founded on.
Furthermore, nobody is burning flags anyway. It was a bogus wedge issue used to gin up discontent…
Jeff,
Following your statement then under freedom of speach I should be able to say or write that I want to kill some person. Sorry, that is against the law, which it should be, and includes the President.
I consider the flag the symbol of the United States. It stands for the United States. Men and women have given their lives for that symbol.
What the heck is, “Political speech that is not offensive….?” Much like Ms. Garnder you wish to draw your own line in the sand and say that. However, you support to deny every voter in this country to decide if that STUPID RED, WHITE, AND BLUE FLAG should be out of bounds!
Well, I wasn’t going to follow off onto the flag tangent here, but since Jeff picked it up, I’ll go with it.
During the heyday of the Soviet Union, they used to show pictures of thousands of flag-waving citizens turning out for their military parades. We dismissed this as mere propaganda, saying that it didn’t matter how many people showed up because the fact that they were forced to be there and wave those flags nullified any claim that this showed true public support for the regime.
Now, let’s get back to our own patriotism. In this country, the symbol of the flag is not owned by the state, it is owned by the people. And that fact is what gives it it’s prime value. If you take that away, the flag itself is recduced to just the value of the cloth - it becomes virtually meaningless.
Certainly the flag is also a military symbol and deserves respect on behalf of all who fought/fight to defend it. But this aspect really is no different than any other flag for any other country. What makes this flag special is that it is also the personal symbol for each American. If you attempt to define that symbolism for them then you destroy it in the process.
So, if the state tells me how I must treat my flag, then it really isn’t my flag at all, it’s theirs. And all I am doing by waving it is furthering their propaganda. The main thing that gives that flag value is the fact that people actually can deface it but choose not to. If they tell me how I must treat my flag, then they may as well just take it away from me.
If a flag-burning amendment were ever passed, I expect a lot of people would actually burn their flags in protest. What I would do though is to carefully fold the flag, enclose it in a box along with the receipt from when I purchased it, and send it to Congress asking for repayment.
Phil,
My idea of the flag is what every person has done in this country to make it what it is for me today. It is the symbol of the blood and tears so many have contributed so we can have what we have today.
The people who have given their lives fighting on our shores and the shores of other countries.
The people who marched and never gave up the battle to provide voting rights to all.
The people who died fighting the idea one man could make some other man a slave because of his skin color.
The people who died fighting the idea that people where denied rights because of their skin color.
The people who never gave up the strugle to make people equal.
Yes, there are days I am upset with my country and those who are in charge at that given moment. But I will, and like others will fight on to make this the best place to live.
To me that is why the flag is the symbol that should never be burned by an American.
JQ,
That’s your symbolism (and mine) of the flag. Other Americans may feel differently and they certainly should have the right to do so. Threatening to kill someone is not political speech so that point is meaningless.
I will say this argument is very scary:
You’re only one slippery slope away from other political “symbols” such as the President, Congress, etc. You either support the freedom of political speech or you do not. I’m proud to live in a country where we do. It doesn’t mean I want to burn flags or that I think it’s the right thing to do.
But it does mean that I support everyone’s right to do so if they wish. Any government that tells me I can’t speak out and protest against said government is one that should be otherthrown…
Not threaten to kill but that someone should be killed. It is expression. Think how many people say that about a person that has killed others, raped, or some other crime of that level. No one bats an eye. However, what I think you had come to mind was something else.
I have no idea what you mean by slippery slope.
Just like this blog there are limits that you will allow people to go before their posts are removed. Which I support! But under your words they have the right to say what they want and use the language they see fit to say it. But you don’t, and I support that.
Again it is just where you and I draw the line in the sand. But Obama voted to deny me and you the right to say where that line should be with regards to the flag.
This blog isn’t the government. I am not bound by the 1st amendment and thus you have no 1st amendment rights here.
The govt “drawing a line in the sand” to tell me what political speech is and isn’t allowed is a dangerous precedent and expressly forbid by the 1st amendment.
You are not bound by the 1st amendment is true. Then you would not be upset in the least if the company hosting your web site cut you off any time they wanted or edited your comments? I think not!!!!
Jeff, we agree to disagree. I also hate to tell you that there are things you can not express or do in public under free speach. So government has already drawn a line in the sand.
Jeff, your reasoning that there should be no amendment to the Constitution to ban flag burning because it is permitted by the First Amendment is flawed. Precisely because Flag Burning is permitted by the First Amendment is why they need to AMEND the Constitution. It’s like saying we shouldn’t pass a law to ban smoking in bars because smoking in bars is currently legal. That being said, I agree with you that the amendment is unnecessary.
Mike: Palin is a great pick for all the reasons you stated. The Democrats, because they can’t help themselves, are going to make fun of her and her family for hunting, snowmobiling, and having five kids. Hollywood types will guffaw at the chloce. And the rest of America - the people who don’t live in NY or Detroit and who bust ass for 40 or more hours a week - will look at the Democrats and wonder, why is it that worthy of mockery?
Finally, I like Joe Biden. But if he managed to have a net worth of only $277K after being in the Senate since the Taft Administration, is he smart enough to be President, Vice President, or the mayor of a small Alaskan town? Geez, how does that happen? Doesn’t he own a house or a car? Does he having a gambling problem? Has he been spending it on hair plugs? Is he buying his speeches off the internet? It’s way above my net worth, but he’s been making expontentially more money than me since I was born.
Keith,
I understand why the amendment would be necessary. But passing an amendment to override the most fundamental right recognized by our constitution is not something citizens should support - that’s what I was trying to say.
Furthermore, the government does not have the power to recognize my right to burn the flag or not. Freedom of political speech is an inalienable right regardless of what politicians decide to put in the US Constitution…
Two topics here, so where to start. I just did a post about the choice of Palin as McCain’s running mate.
Come on, this is nothing more than pandering and hoping that some of the discontented Hillary supporters and blue collar workers will jump over to McCain’s side because a “woman” was picked.
It also salves the fears of the right-wingers in the Republican party.
Did anyone watch the talking heads on the morning shows Sunday morning? Absolutely unbelievable - Pawlenty was gushing all over the place about Palin’s qualifications.
For months we have heard nothing but negatives about Obama’s lack of experience and now, all of a sudden, Palin comes along and the Republicans whistle a different tune.
She is a heart beat away as the saying goes. I am not terribly happy with Biden, but I would much rather have someone of his background a heart beat away than Palin - whose accomplishments include City Council and Mayor of a city of about 8000.
She is governor of a state that is 47th in population - roughly 683,000. We have cities in the United States that are bigger. Has she accomplished many admirable goals in her life? Of course.
The excitement over her selection will pass, and true Hillary supporters will get over her defeat and do as she asks - support the Democratic party. The Republican party will also become disenchanted with her as the campaign wears on - especially is she is unable to hold her own in the debates.
McCain also insults Palin by his comments from his 2000 run for the presidency. He basically says the position is useless and a waste, and then he appoints her to run with him? A smack-down if I ever saw one.
As to the Flag Burning issue - the Supreme Court has said on a number of occasions that burning the flag is a protected form of speech. Congress has been unable to pass either an act that penalizes burning the flag or an amendment to the Constitution doing the same.
I realize that many have given their lives for the flag as a “symbol”, but that freedom also includes the right to disagree and burn the flag if necessary.
Military personnel don’t stop and ask which rights they fight to protect or only the rights with which they agree - they fight to protect what this country represents.
Why is burning the flag any more a desecration than wearing the flag as a patch on jeans or on jackets? Or as a bandanna?
Where do you draw the line on what one believes is unacceptable treatment of the flag? Very few people ever burn the flag. In my entire 60 years, I do not know anyone who has burned a flag, and I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s. The issue has become a red herring to distract from the real issues of the day.
We have some strong Leaders to think about.
After 18 months of network news and the remaining 2 months +… till election time.
We all have a brain.
Obama only lived in Jakarta for 4 years. Where did you get 10? More BS from conservatives trying to make Obama out to be not an American, but some kind of underground Muslim.
By the way, John McCain was born in Panama before the canal zone was created. Technically he should not even be allowed to run for president, since he was not born on US soil.
I invite everyone to go to Obama’s own web site and read through all of his platforms he is running on.
Take a piece of paper and mark a minus down for what will be increased spending, a plus for reducing federal spending or additional tax income. Keep in mind nothing is free so every item needs a plus or minus.
Add up the costs of programs where he even bothers to mention what they will cost. Then take the entire profits from big oil and you still can not come close to affording his plans.
But Obama knows Chicago politics well. Where the nightly news is started with the latest teenager gang killings or so political connected person going to federal court!
” She was the Mayor of a small town in Alaska and has been the Governor of Alaska for as long as Obama has been a US Senator.”
Now that is real Vice Presidential material. Kinda like giving the nuclear launch codes to Dan Quale. I know I feel better already.
Alfred E. Neuman for President!
Why is it that this is a Obama vs Palin? Do you Obama supporters know something about McCain pending death?
Why not argue Obama vs McCain and Biden vs Palin?
J.Q.
The biggest reason this appears to be an Obama vs. Palin is that the Republicans just pulled another one of their hypocritical stunts.
All we have heard for months on end is that Obama lacks experience. So, he selects a VP choice who has experience. This compliments his qualities. It also ensures - God forbid - that if anything happened to Obama, someone who is ready to lead would step in.
On the other hand, that can’t be said about McCain’s pick. McCain is not a spring chicken, and his age puts him at a disadvantage as far as natural longevity. If something happens to him, guess who will step in? A 44-year-old woman with no experience to speak of who thrills the right because of her moral positions.
Leading a country requires more than being against abortion.
It makes perfect sense to me that Palin is being compared to Obama. The argument from the Republicans has been lack of experience, and they just shot themselves in the foot.
Charlotte,
Unless you know something others don’t know why are you soley hell bent on him dying. Consider three of our last nine presidents have been shot at or shot. So I would say the chances are greater who ever is elected would be shot over dying in office.
You and I both old enough to know this was the same song played by the Democrats when Regan ran. That he would die from his old days of smoking or the stress of working long hours. So with that, why should I beleive he will be gone before his term is up?
While you are kicking the crap out of Palin why don’t you list how many budgets Obama has ever had to create and live with? At any level above maybe his household budget.
While you are kicking the crap out of Palin why don’t you count the number of time Obama has obtained millions of dollar from the oil companies? Let alone ever returned over $1,000 each to the people in Alaska.
While Palin never was directly involved in the so called “bridge to no place” that Obama has requested well over a billion dollars for his state in earmarks. If you want to start go to his Senate web site and he has them listed for 2008 which nearly equals the “bridge to no place.”
By the way you can nearly double that if you count the money his sidekick Dick Durbin has requested.
No one ask a question about earmarks going to the Hospital Obama’s wife works (I understand she has cut back and will be leaving there) at. They never had any earmarks coming their way until his wife was there and he was in the Senate. In fact, the first year he was in Washington he landed a earmark for them.
Setting here comparing her experience to Obama or Biden on domestic affairs would be a waste because you would say it did not count.
Now for background on world affairs. Let see, Jimmy Carter, John Kennedy, and Lydon Johnson, and Bill Clinton come to mine when times get tough.
John Kennedy commited the first soldiers into Viet Nam as advisors. Now I will give him a break as he had penned several memos indicating that he was going to pull them out but sadly he was killed.
John Kennedy pulled the rug right out from under a group of Cubian Nationals who where going to stage a take over. He waited until these poor soles where on the beaches and Kennedy pulled the US support forces from the area.
Lydon Johnson then committed hundreds of thousands of American GI’s into the Viet Nam war. This resulted in over 58,000 brave Americans killed and 153,000 plus brave Americans in hospitals.
Jimmy Carter invited the Shah of Iran to the US and he talked him into releasing several hundred political prisoners. Which included people who acted and supported the very overthrow of Iran. In two years Ayatollah Khomeini’s Islamic revolution took place. Which also included 66 Americans being misstreated for 444 days.
This was the first real foothold the “nuts” obtained in that part of the world. Then the downhill march started. That sadly, is part of the reason as to why we have what we do today.
Bill Clinton gave us “Operation Dessert Fox” that did nothing put tick off the entire Arab world because it accomplished “zero” He bombed Iraq for four days. The only thing it served was give our piliots live training!
Bill Clinton gave us black eye with his limited strike in Somalia. This cost 18 Americans their lives and 73 wounded. Again part of the world was pissed off at us for not finishing a job.
So if you want to scare me about policy around the world I have four Democrat presidents to tell me they have no clue to the “REAL WORLD” that lives off our shores.
Remember Biden believed the fix in Iraq was to divide the country into three areas and FORCE the segration of people. Forcing people to move and live in a certain area because of their race or creed. If that is what the policy outside our country I will pass.
I will take the risk of having McCain around long enough to complete his term or mentor Palin.
J.Q.;
As is often the case, you made some excellent points in your last post here. But when you go back nearly fifty years on foreign policy and seem to only find fault with the Democrats, you prove that you are truely blind in your understanding of the situation. So, just for fun, I’ll finish off your uneven analysis with the other side of the equation.
Bush Jr.: Seemed to have forgotten that Osama bin Laden and Al-Quaida had attacked us on Sept. 11 and decided instead to focus on some tyrant in Iraq.
Bush Sr.: During the first Iraq war, Bush made a lot of promises to Iraqi dissident groups. Basically, he said if you do your part, we will be there to support you. So when our invasion began, the dissidents began their own strikes within the country. Unfortunatly, Bush just bandoned these allies as they were fighting against the regime we had asked them to topple. Also, when U.S. military was attacked in Somalia, he immediatly cut and ran.
Reagan: Response to the Marine baracks bombing in Beruit Lebanon was to pull our forces out of the area. Also negotiated with Wicked Islamic terrorist government of Iran. Although it was prohibited by both U.S. law and common sense, he gave this regime sophisticated weaponry.
Nixon: After this country committed 58,000 lives to the effort, and many Vietnamese had irreversibly put themselves on our side, Nixon cut and ran from the country. Many of these American allied Vietnamese were actually left on the ground in the U.S. Embassy compound as the last marine helicopter departed and the North Vietnamese forces moved in.
Eisenhower: One of the most ignorant Presidents of all time. Spent the better part of his time in office slowly coming to the realization that he (and the country) was being duped by the Dulles brothers Inc.
I do not argue your point one bit Phil… What we agree on is NO PRESIDENT has a perfect or maybe even a good record in forgien policy. The point was Democrats don’t have a good record in such areas. So do not try to sell it like they do.
Democrats have beat up on President Bush for Iraq but can not defend President Johnson on Viet Nam.
It is like the VA issue. What is going on for our vets “sucks” to put use a decent word. This to is not a DEMOCRAT issue because if you go back into the mid 90’s Clinton was gutting the VA spending.
Below is a link to a Time story on what was going on in 1995.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983701,00.html
Frankly I am tired of “he said, she said” crap from both parties.
Charlotte,
I love this Blog site. I think the Democrats were first to criticize Obama’s experience, especially senators Clinton and Biden. McCain all along has tried to run as a maverick and a reformer. Under those terms, I see no hypocrisy in McCain’s choice.
Phil,
If I remember correctly, Somalia withdrawal was a President Clinton issue. Bush put troops in under the U.N. and then left the issue to Clinton.
Kenny
Charlotte,
With regards to the age issue… Yes that is something we all must consider. Then again we also must consider the fact Obama admitted he was a “crackhead” for a very short period of his life back in high school because of pressures he believed he lived under. We also know that somebody abusing drugs is more apt to do it again. While it may not be crack it could be pain meds or some other drug. Gosh, to think of someone with their finger even near the “football” whose judgement may be effected by drugs.
Sadly we have learned a number of our former Presidents had short comings while serving in office. Be it drinking or women I do not feel either party has a clear pass on that one. Yet, in most cases the public did not learn of it until they where out of office.
I do not think Obama would abuse drugs again but I also do not believe McCain is going to die in office. So to keep beating the drum on age would require those same people to beat a drum of caution about Obama’s previous history of drug abuse.
JQ;
After reading your statement “Frankly I am tired of “he said, she said” crap from both parties.”, I think that you and I probably have a lot more in common here than it might have sounded like at first. I thought your message was extremely one-sided, so I was just trying to balance it out. But you were probably doing the same yourself. The truth is, it’s not difficult to find mistakes on U.S. foreign policy by leaders from either party.
What bothers me the most about our foreign policy is how disjointed it often appears. Frequently the actions of any one particular administration fit this description, but it is the overall package that is worse. For better or worse, the United States made war on Iraq, and the outcome of that will largely be upon our shoulders for a long time to come. The rest of the world does not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats the way we do. It is all just bundled together as U.S. foreign policy. I really think a lot of Americans fail to realize this much of the time.
As to the article you referenced, I will only say that Clinton enjoyed a Democratic Congress for just two of his eight years. Like most issues, there is plenty of blame to be shared by both parties.
Kenny;
I stand corrected on the Somalia timeline. Bush could have taken strong retaliatory measures for this attack but chose not to. I’ll actually defend him here because in the waning days of one’s administration, they should act cautiously when considering what they will be turning over to the next administration. That being said, I will go back to my first point when I was critiquing Republicans.
John Kennedy had barely taken office when the CIA announced to him “By the way, you are about to declare war on Cuba. Sorry we didn’t consult with you or let you know sooner.” This goes down in history as a mistake by the previous administration for being over-ambitious at the end of the term. There was no pressing need for the invasion to take place at that time and the decision should have been left to the new administration. This is one of the events that triggered major changes in the way we handle Presidential transitions today. This is the reason that both major party candidates are now briefed on important matters during the campaign.
Charlotte,
Sorry, meant to say “YOUR” blog,
great content!!!! Thanks for the constitution piece.
Kenny
Scott
Read the post. No one said he lived in Jakarta for ten years. It says he lived in Jakarta until he was 10. (a fact put out by the Obama campaign.) Yes John McCain was born in Panama. At the Coco Solo Naval Air Station. So Scott please clarify your position. Do you believe those born to all U.S.service men and women abroad are not citizens, or Just John McCain? Or do you simply not understand the fact that any child born to two U.S. citizens anywhere in the world is a U.S. citizen?
JQ,
That’s revisionist history. It was the Republican Congress that forced our withdrawal from Somalia and John McCain was a big part of that…
Jeff,
You got that right congress stopped this. I remember this when this played out on our TVs I was standing front and center as it brought flashbacks to Viet Nam. In Nam, if the VC got to the crew before they could be recovered and got hidden it was going to go bad. What happened is they where taken away, integrated, and often tortured. The torture alone resulted in their deaths over the VC having just shot them, which would have been more humane.
My guess is congressmen who would be on the correct committees, and with certain oversight review (access to every detail of the operation from start to finish) where plenty pissed off.
Think about what had happened to McCain. He lived through torture and I am sure he was going to make damn sure others did not for such a bullshit operation.
I never thought about this until seeing your comment about McCain. Today people have painted him as one seeking war with everyone. However, you pointed out a thing about him that shows otherwise.
I have no clue what any congressman voted but one thing I will never find acceptable is that McCain would cast a vote putting troops in harm or not for political reasons. I have found myself disagreeing with McCain’s position on a number of things but not his commitment to the use of our military.
Like the surge. I did not think it would work and thought McCain had made a error. I did not think that few of troops would slow down, let alone reverse the way the war seemed to be going. I am sure he talked to our top brass and they showed him how it would work. Regardless to ones position on the war itself, we all know fewer Americans have been killed because of the increased troop level.