Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Notes on the Primaries
Well, if the Republicans are looking for the new Reagan it looks like McCain has it. He speaks now like an actor, damning America's "enemies" in vague and abstract terms, speaking out against the liberals who promote diplomacy and compromise as misguided--but maybe well-intentioned--fools that would ruin the country, and claiming that he has been reluctantly chosen by history as a humble leader void of ambition and self-interest. And on the domestic front, he of course wants people to get up and help themselves rather than allow government to help benefit the disadvantaged--big government will ruin the country and never helped anyone. Sounds like Reagan to me. So, I guess if people liked Reagan, they should support McCain. I for one thought history had shown Reagan's policies to accomplish bloating the pockets of the rich and driving the country into recession (let alone setting back AIDs research, sponsoring repressive regimes in the developing world, and further stratifying the nation economically). Ugh...that speech was painful both in its false sentiment and hollow in its message. I am even more worried about this since I am increasingly coming to think that the Republicans will likely win. The Democrats will eat themselves (and for some good reasons), leaving the Republicans to waltz in and set up shop for another 4 years. I guess the one upside is that things can't get any worse....right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
And so it begins... the Villification of McCain.
And if Obama maintains his momentum, and gets the nomination, he'll have his day, too.
And it will be a sad one. Two decent men that are going to endure a shit storm of extremist, hyperbolic vitriol from the hard liners of both parties until November...
After which, the losing side will simply continue the teeth gnashing and the venom, and the polarized nature of today's knee jerk politics will continue for the next four years.
That may well be true, which is really kind of odd given that American politics is center-drive. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is pretty thin. But if you think the rancor is bad between the parties, it is disgusting within the Democratic party right now. Obama supporters are gloating and saying she's washed up and Clinton supporters are pissed off and on the attack like a rabid bunch of dogs. The odd thing, their policies are nearly identical. I was dumbstruck today when one of my officemates described Obama as a left wing ideologue. Chaves is a left wing ideologue. Castro is a left wing ideologue. Obama is a charasmatic center-left politician with the same policy repertoire as his opponent. The whole thing is fuck-tarded.
And for the record I wasn't vilifying McCain per se..really it was a slight on Reagan and what the Republicans in this country want from a leader. My issue with McCain--and honestly with most politicians--is how he trying now so desperately to conform for the Reagan-clone image that Republicans are so badly searching for. I actual admire McCain's independent streak. But I think he is going to bury the old McCain image as a rouge and step into the Reagan suit, toeing the same old party line and trying to apologize for/explain policies like McCain-Fiengold and his bash against the religious right...the things I kind of respected him for.
I guess it's not his fault. It's the nature of the beast.
McCain has his pluses and minuses, I mean he is definitely no Huckabee and his is also preferable to Romney - who I was afraid would get the nomination. I don't think he exactly deserves to be vilified, but he should be assessed fairly.
It does make me uncomfortable too that he equates himself so much with Reagan. Reagan's foreign policy was a bit frightening, his lack of knowledge about public health was ridiculous, the trickery involved in the Iran hostage stuff still stinks him up for me, and his fiscal policies were terrible... he was a terrific speaker though and great hair for such an old man :-). So that McCain likens himself to Reagan, does turn me off personally.
I like that he is against torture, unlike the current administration and Supreme Jackass Scalia. You know we prosecuted water-boarding as a war crime in WWII (or so I have heard), and now we do it... who is the criminal now?
His stance on the Iraq War has been wrong since the get-go. So McCain does not have my support on that.
I respect his wartime service. That's a positive.
I turn off when Republicans say that Democrats are "big government" at this point - see the Bush administration for details. So I dislike that characterization, and I have heard McCain and all the Rep candidates say that.
I also don't like the fact he took steps to be associated with Jerry Falwell before Falwell died. I don't feel comfortable with someone that friendly with the far right (as opposed to his stance during the 2000 election which was opposed to these type of hate-mongers). But James Dobson doesn't like McCain, so that's a plus for him in my book :-).
Other issues for McCain and if I am with or against or neutral on:
2nd Amendment - neutral.
Immigration - neutral.
Strict Constructionist Philosophy - against.
Space Program - with.
Abortion - against.
Lobbying & Ethics Reform - with.
So, do I respect John McCain? Yes. Is he a "good man"? Yeah sre. Do I like his independence of thought? When he does actually demonstrate it, yes. Do I think I could vote for him? No.
Personally, I under the reasoning behind trying to conjure the patron saint of the GOP to try and gather the support of the conservative base... Hell, I loved Reagan (and the fact that Reed hates him so! Teehee!), but I think that McCain would be better served standing as his own man, on the platform of ideals that got him to this point in the first place. Moderates and Independents have carried him this far: Go the for the gusto and try to shift the conservative core back to the center.
It's not as if the hardcore conservatives are going to vote democrat anyway... And they know that not voting might as well be a vote for Obama or Hillary. Now, correct me if I am wrong (and I may very well be), in my experiences with friends, co-workers, and acquaintences, Republican voters seem to be a little less apathetic on election day, even when they aren't happy with the choices presented to them. "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line"? I dunno. That may very well be a subjective observation that results from the company I keep. But I know quite a few registered democrats that somehow just don't ever vote, even if they have a favorite candidate... But I can't name a single republican that I know personally that hasn't voted in a major election. Not that this is a good or a bad thing... I have my own reservations about voting JUST to keep the other team from winning. I'd rather see people voting for a candidate, than against one.
Anyways: And I have to agree with Pope's point on Big Government. The GOP has no business touting themselves as being the "smaller government" party after the last 8 years. So unless McCain is serious about some of the fat from the Leviathan, I'd rather he take the high road and leave that point off his agenda. Of course, I'd rather he actually carry it out... :P
I actually have seen the same things among my friends in regards to Democrats and Republicans voting as Beck. The cause among many of my Dem friends often seems to be they are totally unhappy with the nominee, whereas my Rep friends are very hard-line party supporters regardless of the nominee.
Though I did know a few people who voted for Kerry last time not because he was a good nominee, but because he was not W. I understand this reasoning, "I would rather have this new pile of shit, than the old pile of shit." Whereas I had friends who voted for W for the inverse reason, "The evil I know is better than the evil I don't know." I understand this reasoning too. I personally find both sad forms of reasoning, very defeatist, very resigned... but both had a strong sense of realism as a base.
I personally have yet to vote against my conscience in a national election. Does this mean I often "throw my vote away"? Damn right, and I will proudly do it again! But I find in general this is NOT AT ALL what people, even rational people, do and I honestly still respect their decisions and will listen quietly as they chide me and shake their heads. Most people who actually vote, at the end of the day end up along party and/or ideological lines.
My point in the end is I agree with Beck in general about the way Dem and Rep vote anecdotally, I do not know the statistics on it though.
As a question to Beck, what is it about Reagan that you like? Perhaps you should do a blog entry on the topic. I promise to be respectful in my responses and attempt to see your point of view. I also promise Reed will attack you without question and mock you ad infinitum :-D (j/k Reed... sorta :-D), but I think it would be interesting. I always wonder what people who so admire Reagan... admire him for. Perhaps you could ask Reed and I to do the same for... um... someone we admire. Who do you admire in politics Reed? Wilson? Clinton? Carter? Goldwater? I will have to think of who I admire before I can even answer myself. Point being, it would be a fun sideline exercise to do a few blog entries on people we admire - much like I was doing on People You Should Know. Ok, now I am babbling... signing off :-)
Heh, well, I could, with the understanding that doing so would not be unlike smearing myself with chum before taking a quick dip in a shark tank. :P
And to be honest, my affection for Reagan is rooted more in sentimentality than politics... I'll go into that some other time when I have a moment to articulate my thoughts and feelings.
Ah, well at least that is a very honest answer. Thank you sir.
My political hero is William McKinley. He had no vice president from 1899-1901, oversaw a brutal counterinsurgency campaign in the newly US-annexed islands of the Philippines that killed tens of thousands of people, and extended US dominion over those islands as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, and Cuba. Now that was a man that took no guff.
And then he was shot by an anarchist after delivering a speech on customs duties and trade and then died a week later from gangrene around his wounds.
In all seriousness, though, I would have to go with Carter. He is a shining example of a how a good man with an honest interest in alleviating world problems, finding equitable solutions to international conflicts, and telling people the truth gets ground down and belittled and marginalized. He was not an effective president on the domestic front, but I think he made an honest effort to make the world a better place for everyone in it, not just for Americans and not just for a wealthy and elite few. On the international front he did a much more impressive job (e.g. making HUGE strides in bring peace to the Middle East). He also was the first president to really make human rights a priority in US foreign policy. He restricted US aid to Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala in response to the rightist regimes' campaigns of indiscriminate violence, deaths squad assassination, and extreme brutality. In fact, he tried to tie US aid to human rights performance--Reagan and Bush senior did an about face and funneled cash and US military equipment to these groups. What I find strange is how much he is criticized for foreign events over which he had no control--the oil crisis, US embassy hostage crisis, etc. In the former, he tried to tell people they needed be less reliant on oil and put the first significant funding into non-petro power research. Plus there wasn't much the US could do in response to the oil crisis but tighten its belts and negotiate with the OPEC over increasing production. The only other option would have been military intervention or reverse sanctions, which would have been problematic for a host of reasons. And on the Iran hostage issue, I find it disgusting that so many people, especially Republicans, criticize him for that when it seems to be pretty clear at this point that ranking Republicans negotiated for the hostages to be held until after the 1980 election in order to further discredit Carter.
Ah well. We should probably just pick the biggest douche since they are most likely to be most effective.
Interesting choice Reed, though I might say I am a bit surprised you would choose someone so ... agreeable and pleasant. :P
I kid, of course. I agree with your assessment that Carter was a good man who tried very hard to do the right thing for the right reasons, and I do admire his character. And while I think his leadership qualities were lacking, it *is* my belief that his administration's legacy is sullied by factors that weren't necessarily his fault.
Carter is a choice and a good man.
I - like Brian - am an oddity in voting - at least among those of either party whom I know personally. I have always voted my gut - even when I knew without doubt that I was flushing that vote right down the toilet. I can't vote for someone I don't believe in - and most of the time I don't believe in anyone. I don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils because I don't want to vote for evil at all... but such is the nature of politics. You're always voting for evil in some shape or form.
As far as Reagan goes - I had a government teacher who I still look back on as one of the people who shaped me as a person - not because she told me what to think, but because she forced me to do something I hadn't learned to do - and something I didn't want to do - and that was to try to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. She taught me that you can't believe in anything unless you've seen the alternatives. You can't believe in something - truly believe - until you've walked away from everything you've been taught to believe - and returned to it on your own two feet, on your own terms. I remember her talking about Reagan - the things she liked and didn't like about him. And the thing she disliked the most that kept her from being able to lean more into the things she did like - was that Reagan kept the country "hopped up on happy pills" so that they didn't notice the reality of anything that was going on. He kept people mesmerized with his smooth talking "acting" and so they didn't notice the button up his sleeve. I honestly don't remember much detail on the man's administration myself. My life was complicated during that time and I could barely keep up with it - much less what the crazy guy playing Oz was up to at the time. I did not develop any particular hatred of the man, anymore than I developed any kind of particular respect or attachment to him.
My father has this adamant hatred of Nixon - which I think has lead, more so than his ideals which tend to be moderately liberal, to his hatred of the republican party. My Nixon is W - but I have tried not to allow that to cloud my opinion of the party as a whole. Though I tend not to agree with the more conservative points - I think it all comes down to the person in the end and what they will turn those points into. This means that much to the chagrin of my parents and a majority of my bloodline - I have honestly never voted "the party line" or even A party line of any kind. I think I have become the black sheep. :)
Post a Comment