Commenter NutellaonToast continues his insistence that I am a sort of Republican fifth column, using my alleged support for Obama to secretly support McCain. Meanwhile, my Republican commenters accuse me of being a pandering shill, supporting Obama only because it gets me in tighter with my cozy liberal coterie.
Here's the thing: I dislike McCain on an intense, visceral level. I don't trust him with power. I find his personality brutish and unkind, his jokes about various women grotesque, and his political philosophy hopelessly addled. The ad he let his campaign run about Obama's sex-ed program was, as one journalistic acquaintance puts it, "beyond tawdry". I find National Greatness conservatism deeply troubling, and the idea that society would be better if it were more like the military alarming. I honor the military virtues--in the military. I do not think that America would be a better or nobler place if we were a leetle more like Sparta.
And while I am deeply grateful, and impressed, by McCain's suffering as a POW, I do not think that this makes me obligated to like him, or to vote for him. There's no admissions process to be a POW, and it stands to reason that some of them must have been people who weren't particularly admirable. The more I learn about McCain, the more I think that he's one of them. Or rather, I think of him like that kind of jerkily sexist 22-year-old of whom one thinks, "he's going to be a really good guy when he grows up". And I wish he would. But when he turned 70, I sort of lost hope.
Beyond that, I think the Republican Party is moribund. Its long tenure has made it corrupt, and depleted its stock of ideas. It has gotten too cosy with the bureaucracy and the lobbyists, and lost touch with its first principles. I do not think that this is some feature of conservatism--indeed, it reminds me quite a bit of the House under Tip O'Neil. But I think the party needs a time out to think about things.
I say this with the full realization that this will give the Democrats scope to enact policies I will hate. But I think that this is a small price to pay for a Republican party I might one day be able to support again.
At the same time, I am more in accord with most of McCain's stated domestic policy positions than Obama's. I am not voting for him for the reasons stated above, and also because excursions like McCain-Feingold give me little reason to believe that he can be trusted to abide within the constricting confines of small government conservatism. So when I talk policy, I'm going to end up criticizing Obama more than McCain. I'm not voting for Obama. I'm voting against McCain.
But most importantly, I'm not playing for the team. I'm not trying to get one or the other of them elected; you now know my opinion of McCain, and I don't think I need to repeat it ad nauseum. Nor to drum up evidence to convince you that you, too, should vote for one or the other. I give you my opinion on policy, which frankly is quite outrageous enough without trying to manufacture ridiculous scandals out of whole cloth.
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Thats all well and good but which Obama policies do you not support and why?
I totally respect your viewpoint Megan. I think McCain has personality flaws as well. Maybe he will go crazy with power. But I'm still voting for him for domestic policy reasons and because I think he'll stand up against Congress and farm subsidies. Worse case scenario if he does get alzheimers and tries to start WW3, the Constitution has provisions for impeachment.
That just silly. Why not just vote for someone else? Oh, and come back with something better than they are the only two likely to get elected, and to vote otherwise is to throw away your vote. No one vote makes any difference, so you might as well vote for someone you really believe will do the job well and whose policies you can actually support. Seriously, stand up for your principles.
Interesting article. I had always just assumed you were in the bag for Cynthia McKinney & the Green Party.
quick: Especially since she lives in DC, where her vote counts even less than most places. There's always a small chance any state will go either way, but DC will go for the Democrats no matter what. (See 1984, 1972.) It might as well say in the 23rd amendment: "The Democrats get 3 more electors."
Megan, despite the fact that you've already decided, I'd love to see you do a post like that of Oct. 29, 2004 for this election. (The post is here: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/2004_10.php) I think that was one of your best posts ever, and a category-by-category presentation would help those of us who haven't made up our minds. Feel free to add categories for personality and for like/dislike on a visceral level. Also, feel free to add a category for what it will mean for this country for the first black candidate to be nominated to lose.
For that matter, I may vote for Bob Barr. But on a practical level, unless you are actually indifferent between the two candidates, you have an actual preference, which I don't have to express through voting because DC's electorate is so lopsided. I am not indifferent. I am rooting for McCain to lose.
Megan: thanks for a much more articulate exposition of your reasoning. For a rather long time you just sounded like the rest of the media in a crush on Obama. I think that recent events have shown that the Republicans are being reformed (Trent Lott saying they screwed up with too much pork!). The wilderness prescription is frequently good, it just seems that giving all both houses and the Presidency to the Dems is a step too far.
McCain will go along with far too much of the Dem legislative agenda. He won't go anywhere near as far as Obama and nominees and appointments will be far better for the country than Obama's. It will be Carter all over again, with an amazingly large number of staffers coming from Kos. Say goodbye to the DoD, CIA, and FBI as remotely effective institutions. Clinton was BAD, but he wasn't Carter. I truly expect ELF and Al Quaeda to be running our intelligence and security apparatus. Heck Bill Ayers might skip over Secretary of Education and get Homeland Security.
Oddly, I developed a similar intense dislike and distrust of Obama while reading Audacity of Hope.
I'm sure some will call that racism, but it's not. I'm not going to try to change anybody's mind about that -- that's their problem, not mine.
He's done nothing on the campaign trail but harden my dislike. I cringe every time I hear him say he's going to "fund" something to solve every problem.
If domestically weakening the country is a good way to stave off foreign policy problems by being unable to respond to them, well, I suppose that is a good thing in some peoples' minds.
I think you've misunderstood the idea about society being a little more like the military. It's about military society, not spartan physical and arms training programs for everybody.
When I visit a commissary, I lock my car out of habit, not out of fear that someone might break into it. Military society enforces non-prejudice fairly well; "minorities" flourish there and "foreigners" flourish there. At the same time, being a white male isn't disparaged.
I have to ask -- just how familiar you are with military social life?
I really, really, really am not disparaging the military, nor trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with it. I admire the military virtues so much that I am willing to say that I am against a draft because a society that cannot inspire its young men to defend it does not deserve to survive.
But the military virtues, such as duty, honor, sacrifice, courage, and loyalty, are not the only virtues. They are virtues precisely because they are chosen, not mandated. John McCain's ideas about things like national service bother me greatly. But I find more bothersome still his seeming belief that the entire world is composed of Good Guys and Bad Guys, and that the main problems can be fixed by getting McCain to kick out the Bad Guys for us and replace them with Good Guys. I'm not even talking about his foreign policy; I'm talking about the way he approaches things like pharmaceutical reimportation, which seems to be less about the actual empirical effects and more about his sense that pharmaceutical companies are not living up to his high moral standards. And, on the flip side, his penchant for randomly changing his policy positions whenever a reporter points out that some actual people would suffer from his programs. He seems to live in a fantasy world where he can fix America's problems by ordering its citizenry to shape up and fly right.
supporting Obama only because it gets me in tighter with my cozy liberal coterie
Didn't really deny that this is the case. I'd bet that, among Megan's circle of friends, there are zero voting for McCain. At the very least, Barr voters will outnumber McCain voters - I mean, surely people like Mr. Bloggingheads Cookoff and Ms. Arrested At Jefferson Memorial aren't voting for McCain. But really, it's kind of fascinating that the commenters are so interested in who she's voting for.
Donna B writes: "Military society enforces non-prejudice fairly well; "minorities" flourish there and "foreigners" flourish there. At the same time, being a white male isn't disparaged."
Women face a lot of problems in the military, though, including a lot of rapes. And just ask Jews and atheists at the Air Force Academy about the problems with SuperChristian wackaloons being "non-prejudiced."
"I think the Republican Party is moribund. Its long tenure has made it corrupt, and depleted its stock of ideas. It has gotten too cosy with the bureaucracy and the lobbyists, and lost touch with its first principles. I do not think that this is some feature of conservatism--indeed, it reminds me quite a bit of the House under Tip O'Neil. But I think the party needs a time out to think about things."
The collection of creeps and goons McCain would fill his administration with would make a zombie run fast. Take a look at Palin and you know what his idea of competence looks like.
There are only two reasons to vote for McCain, if you're a libertarian leaning conservative. The first is that defense and foreign policies under McCain will be better than under Oh!Bummer. Oh!Bummer will slaughter the military and hand over the keys for foreign policy to the UN, the French, and the Chinese. Ugh. The second is that it's time to resurrect that time honored American tradition of ticket splitting. Giving Congress unfettered reign over the nation with a weak, go-along President like Oh!Bummer in the White House is a prescription for economic and social disaster.
What's the difference between a run-of-the-mill Democrat and a regular American? The Democrat loves Congress and disdains the military. As Gallup polls regularly show, Congress is the lowest rated public institution in America, and the military the highest. In other words, Democrats are seriously out of tune with the people.
So, however low Republicans have sunk (and that's just about to the level of whale poop in the Mariana Trench), we need a Republican counterweight to Reid/Pelosi. Since the corrupt Republicans in Congress will continue to lose seats come November, that means that the only option is to give them the Presidency. Also, we need an America that can stand up to the world, not waffle on every important issue like Oh!Bummer.
Yes, McCain kind of stinks and sucks in many ways. Nevertheless, he's the man for the moment, with or without lipstick. Yes, he'll go along with some of the loony Congressional baloney, but he'll stand up to them better than Oh!Bummer.
That's enough for me. This election is about putting a lid on Congress, in my opinion. After all, their approval rating is about half that of Bush's.
I sort of side with hey. Giving the Democrats both houses and the presidency is like giving a four year old a loaded pistol. Better to split the executive and the legislative. This should, if we don't get to lopsided in Congress, limit the worst excesses of both sides.
Now to the original topic; You get flak from both sides because you think for yourself. This is highly offensive to the thought police on both sides. On the other hand, I have it on the best authority that a lot of your readers like this site because you think about your positions, then explain them. We, the readers, can then discuss them openly, as opposed to sitting in a circle shouting slogans at each other.
Voting against McCain is fine, if rather petty. Voting against someone is probably the norm for most of the electorate (is my coastal elitism speaking there?). Regardless, it's rather silly to even entertain the idea of, much less proceed with, voting for someone if you know at the time that you disagree with their position on policy. Not to mention just how hypocritical it would be to complain about said policies later... Go with Barr if he floats your boat.
If you really think the McCain Obama Sex Ed ad is "dishonest", you need to check out what Jim G has to say about it.
Some choice quotes:
it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
[Bold mine]
Yes, there is a section stating that course material ought to be “age and developmentally appropriate.” But the bill also talks about alcohol and drug use education instruction in grades 5 through 12. So the legislation clearly recognized that some topics are best held until later years, but deemed that instruction on sexually-transmitted diseases - not merely "good touch, bad touch" - wasn’t one of them.
The ad was a fair shot.
I read your blog because you are a crazy libertarian extremist, but not a partisan shill. By reading your blog I can pretend to be open minded, without changing any of my views. I like the fact that you recognize that global warming is real and that McCain is an ass, but its your loony policy ideas that keep bringing me back.
OK, let's talk viscera. My visceral reaction starts with McCain in the Navy. The Navy has a long tradition of, what might be called here, elitism. Let me offer a possible example. A warship is off the coast of VN. North VN is not supposed to have the capability of hitting the ship with shore batteries. However a shell explodes some distance away at bridge level, that is the level from which the commander of the ship operates. There are sailors moving heavy ammunition in narrow tiers above deck level. 'Battle stations,' which would lead them to quickly get off those tiers, is not called. The ship is quickly turned leading one of those sailors with a heavy shell to be thrown off a tier. He lands a deck below with the shell on his gut permanently paralyzed. The captain is protected w/o moving. My thought is 'elitism.'
John McCain wasn't on this ship but on an aircraft carrier. The rank he held was not to fly above a certain parallel in Vietnam so as to would avoid the areas of highest antiaircraft action. He declined the protection and was shot down on a mission sent above that parallel. My viscera is for him.
Well, Megan, at least we now know whose fifth column you're in. At least you own up to it.
So now you're just "against McCain" eh? I remember a post a few months ago when you said of Obama, "He's my guy!"
I'm really flummoxed by your reasoning. In 2000 the Repub's got the legislative and executive for the first time. Since then it's been nothing but unmitigated screw ups. Your solution, then, is to give them a breather so they can go back to... what? exactly? That time when they were in power and weren't screwing up?
I know I'm younger than you, but I know only two eras of Republican influence. The first, when they took the house in 94, was when the dicked around chasing after a ridiculous impeachment and ignored all real policy, making total asses of themselves and doing nothing to appreciably improve America.
The second, they somehow manage to get beyond that and get the house, senate, and presidency. Now, without anyone to go around videotaping from the bushes, they get time to concentrate on their policy. So what do we get? We get the worst terrorist attack ever. We get the stupidest war ever. We lose an entire city to a hurricane. We get a financial crisis, ridiculous energy policies, etc etc etc.
Fine, you thought the GOP was a good idea when it was largely kept from doing what it wanted, but it's screwed up every chance it's had for almost two decades. What on earth makes you think a little breathing room is going to change that?
Face it, the policies failed because they suck! you may not like the idea, but the Dems just govern better. I don't like them all that much, but they seem to have screwed a lot less up than the Republicans. what on Earth makes you cling to them?
Megan,
You shouldn't have to explain yourself to others like this. I think what you just said is very obvious each and everyday you write.
God, I hate partisanship! BLECH!
It shrinks the IQ and stunts evolution.
Non-Obamoids, take heart. If we're for McCain, we only get a guy who will try to obstruct the will of the Dem party for the next two to four years. If we lose, we've clearly been promised (most of us have, anyway) a big fat annual check of 500 to 1000 bucks in tax rebate every year.
This election isn't that bad in terms of the booby prize. And when Bam's security plan results in the mushroom cloud rising over Manhattan or the Potomac in the next decade, we'll remind folks that we at least warned them.
Nutella,
I'm not a conservative but you make it very hard to not defend it when you say things like this:
"Face it, the policies failed because they suck!"
Tell me, besides the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, what domestic policies are you talking about and what makes them "conservative"?
MarkG writes: "And when Bam's security plan results in the mushroom cloud rising over Manhattan or the Potomac in the next decade, we'll remind folks that we at least warned them."
That sounds like every movement con I know - they'd look upon the murder of millions of Americans as a happy opportunity to say "I told you so."
Rush Limbaugh would grunt and jizz in his pants on-air if Manhattan were nuked. Most of his loyal listeners would follow his lead.
That sounds like every movement con I know - they'd look upon the murder of millions of Americans as a happy opportunity to say "I told you so.".
Your interpretation is flawed. It's more a resigned fatalism. Meanwhile, the Left, who only recognize domestic foes, would ask how America forced others to perpetrate such a heinous act. There's always room in the FDR internment camp: The space at GTMO is far too limited for the enemies of the real left.
MarkG Cheneys: "Your interpretation is flawed. It's more a resigned fatalism. Meanwhile, the Left, who only recognize domestic foes, would ask how America forced others to perpetrate such a heinous act. There's always room in the FDR internment camp: The space at GTMO is far too limited for the enemies of the real left."
At least when Pearl Harbor was bombed the liberal FDR attacked the right country in response, and got the job done in less than 4 years. Your worthless heroes decided to jerk off in Iraq and lost track of bin Laden - Dumbya soon announced that capturing Osama wasn't important.
Your own acquiescence in the face of such horrific bullshit is between you and your conscience, assuming you have one. But I wonder why you hate America, and why you feel superior to people whose judgment is demonstrably better than yours. The invasion of Iraq was moronic, and only morons still claim otherwise.
Has anyone drawn attention yet to the 2nd comment in this thread by "Nelson"?
"Worse case scenario if he does get alzheimers and tries to start WW3, the Constitution has provisions for impeachment."
You've got to be kidding, right?
Megan -- you write that John McCain's ideas about national service bother you greatly. Well, Obama's bother me greatly -- because mostly he has no feasible way to fund them.
In fact, I don't believe that McCain has a policy on national service other than a to call to "serve a cause higher than self". If he does, please point it out to me, I've missed it.
Is McCain perfectly consistent in translating his ideals into legislative action? Hell, no. He's made some first-class blunders. Compare to Obama's record -- little effort, fewer blunders.
And you totally missed my point about military society - it includes not only soldiers, but their families. Plus, "duty, honor, sacrifice, courage, and loyalty" are meaningful outside of the military or we have certainly lost our way.
MoeLarryAndJesus -- Did I not say that the military community was striving for an ideal and that being human they weren't likely to obtain it? If I didn't, I should have. The striving in itself is worthy of note.
The Air Force Academy has had more than its share of problems, and that drifts into some of the problems the Air Force is having. I think they are working on solving some of those right now, as the last time I was at BAFB there were training classes going on out the wazoo... several of them being run by men in suits, not uniforms. Look for changes to come.
A lot can be said about the AF culture by my husband's decision to join them after 4 years of the Marine Corps. He wanted a "civilian" job. He retired after 22 years total military service.
He's been out for years now, but one daughter served in the Army, her husband is currently in Iraq. A son has served in Afghanistan twice as an AF reservist, and in the Gulf War on active duty.
A son-in-law is a graduate of West Point and has had some seriously interesting "assignments" after he was released from active duty.
I present this information to back up my claim that the military COMMUNITY, not just the soldiers themselves, try to live an American dream of inclusiveness and acceptance, while accepting difficult decisions and assignments.
It's not difficult to find examples of failures in both soldiers and the community at large. However, I stand by my claim that the military community is a model to strive for.
Donna B writes: "I present this information to back up my claim that the military COMMUNITY, not just the soldiers themselves, try to live an American dream of inclusiveness and acceptance, while accepting difficult decisions and assignments.
It's not difficult to find examples of failures in both soldiers and the community at large. However, I stand by my claim that the military community is a model to strive for."
I'm curious, what do you think about gays in the military - and what sort of discipline should the wackaloon SuperChristians at the Air Force Academy be subject to?
I don't think there is anything about being gay that undermines an individual's ability to serve the ideals of "duty, honor, sacrifice, courage, and loyalty" either in the military community or elsewhere.
Sexual preference or whatever is the correct word to use these day, remains separate from moral values. (And no, I do not include sexual predators in that statement, whatever their preference might be.)
Do I foresee military FRG's giving homosexual partners membership? Not anytime soon, but I don't think it's entirely out of the question in the future, as the policy of don't ask, don't tell is morphed into why give a hoot.
As far as the evangelicals worming their way into the AF Academy, it's a shame to be sure. It defies the military way as I see it. Hopefully the new AF leadership can deal with this.
As for their punishment? Demotion and public humiliation would suit me, but would likely backfire. The leadership of the academy must be replaced, because attitude flows downhill just like other stuff. If they have to retire them with some "honors", okay by me, just get rid of them.
In fact, I think that's the best way because the last thing we want here are martyrs.
I'm trying to remember if I've only heard this before in your BHTV stints, or if you've written it all here, too. I'm pretty sure it's been adequately covered in both fora, so, anybody who hadn't gotten yet just wasn't paying attention. You'll probably only have to repeat yourself six more times before the election.
And a couple of times after it.
The Iraq war is not the stupidest war ever. It's not the stupidest war of the last century. It's not the stupidest war this country has ever gotten itself into. It must be fun, though, thinking so.
Well, you've just done what Sullivan has long failed to do and articulate a clear, rational reason that a small-government-type would choose Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin. Also unlike Sullivan, you've done this without scrambling your own brains.
The Iraq war is not the stupidest war ever. It's not the stupidest war of the last century. It's not the stupidest war this country has ever gotten itself into. - Brown
That's true. It's stupider than Vietnam, though. The rationale for the initial involvement in Vietnam was quite defensible -- wrong, but very defensible -- and once the US was in, it became harder and harder to get out. Before that...the Spanish-American war may have been stupider than Iraq by our modern lights, especially if you include the Philippine insurgency coda, but it's not very reassuring if you have to go back over a century to find a war anachronistic enough to seem stupider than the one Bush launched in 2003.
Before you wrote this, I was basically in the process of writing you email saying the same thing as NutellaonToast. Part of me still believes it.
Listen: your behavior is literally irrational, respective to your own self-interest. You want McCain to lose, but you acting to enable him to win.
When you write 150 posts nitpicking Obama's well-thought out and clearly articulated domestic policies, but can't bring yourself to highlight a single moral, intellectual or other failing of McCain's without dismissing it or defending it, you are influencing tens of thousands of voters to vote for John McCain, even while you root for him to lose.
Somehow, you must not understand that: it's mystifying to me. Look at the post after this one!
"Sarah Palin came off looking like a moron on foreign policy .... BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY IMPORTANT???"
Why are you making excuses for something you admit is evidence of an inferior capacity to govern?
You don't have to just repeat your opinions ad nauseum. Go in deeper! Give us a 25-post series on *why* excessive reliance on military virtues is harmful in governance style. Do a 'greatest hits' of what's wrong with Republican governance. Do something constructive!
And for the love of Pete, STOP gleefully, or mournfully, or whatever-fully, filling the blog with defeatist posts pointing out various trivial declines in Obama's polling position. You are breeding panic, despair and resignation, full stop.
You want McCain to lose, huh? Get your torso in gear and make it happen! I know you're a libertarian and all, but if this is 'rooting' for Obama, I personally would rather have you in opposition, so that Obama supporters would know better than to listen to you.
The ad was a fair shot.
Horsefeathers. Jim is inaccurate, or a liar.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-c.html
he most controversial item in the McCain ad is the assertion that Obama supports children "learning about sex before learning to read," and the accusation that Obama's "one accomplishment" on education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners."
But both claims are false.
The idea seems to be to paint Obama as an insanely liberal sleaze ball who wants to teach young kids who don’t even know how to read all about graphic sexual information.
That's not fair and it's not accurate.
One can only imagine what the John McCain of 2004 – who called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads “dishonest and dishonorable” – would say about this ad.
**
To back up its claim, the McCain campaign points to Illinois state senate bill 99, which never became law and which Obama didn't author -- though he did vote for it in the state senate education committee on March 6, 2003, on what was a strictly party-line vote.
The text of the bill can be read HERE.
I spoke to two Illinois advocates who were involved with assessing the bill in 2003 – Gretchen McDowell, the past president of the Illinois Parent-Teacher Association and Kelvy Brown, the legislative coordinator of the Chicago Department of Public Health – to see what the bill was trying to accomplish with regards to kindergartners.
The bill was updating Illinois law on health and sex education, addressing sex education classes that already existed at the time, and offering guidelines to instructors as to what should be in those classes.
This is important because the question arises about the use of the word “comprehensive” in McCain’s ad describing the classes.
McCain’s ad makes it sound as if Obama was mandating that kindergartners receive the same information as a sexually active high school senior.
Not so.
The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" -- in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.
McDowell points out that the bill states “All course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.”
So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?
“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.
Is McCain right when he says Obama wanted kids to learn about sex before they learned how to read?
“If by 'sex' he meant that there are boys and girls and mothers and fathers, yes," McDowell says.
But that's clearly not what McCain is suggesting.
"No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse," McDowell says. "I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”
Says Brown, “things for freshmen in high school and for 7th and 8th graders are not the kind of curriculum you would have for a student in kindergarten."
Donna B replies: "Do I foresee military FRG's giving homosexual partners membership? Not anytime soon, but I don't think it's entirely out of the question in the future, as the policy of don't ask, don't tell is morphed into why give a hoot.
As far as the evangelicals worming their way into the AF Academy, it's a shame to be sure. It defies the military way as I see it. Hopefully the new AF leadership can deal with this.
As for their punishment? Demotion and public humiliation would suit me, but would likely backfire. The leadership of the academy must be replaced, because attitude flows downhill just like other stuff. If they have to retire them with some "honors", okay by me, just get rid of them.
In fact, I think that's the best way because the last thing we want here are martyrs. "
None of these things will ever happen under McCain, Donna. That's what the selection of Palin is all about. McCain would continue the Bush policy of sucking up to the Religious Right. Palin's church is all about "pray away the gay" and Jews For Jesus.
Policies you will hate is a small price to pay for a party you might be able to support again? I guess thats true since most of the full price of those policies will be paid by others...
"he's going to be a really good guy when he grows up".
McArdle has got closer to nailing it than anyone else; again. I now know that my take on McCain is: "John McCain has the potential to be a great president; when he grows up. Until then, I would be happier if he did not have a driving license."
I hope that McArdle will say what disquiets her about Obama (apart from his obligatory and, I think reluctant, pandering to the teachers' unions). All I can say at the moment is that there seems to be a vacant space in Barack where irony should be; and that suggests to me a shortage of steel in his soul.
I guess that I shall finish this election the way I finished Bush v. Gore; promising myself one drink if the Democrat is defeated and two if the Republican loses. I hope it will not be as long between drinks this time.
The Republican Party will never be to Megan's liking. There are too many of us gun totting rednecks out here in the leafy suburbs for Megan ever to feel comfortable. That is a shame. I really wish Megan would move out of Washington and get to know the country a little. She can blog from anywhere.
I have come to conclusion that policy and issues don't matter much anymore in American politics. I don't think this is a good thing but it is true. Culture matters in American politics. By culture I mean not culture in the broad sense but culture in the shallowest sense. It is not like we are Muslims and Hindus or something. It is culture in the shallowest sense of what kind house you live in, what your hobbies are, what kind of music you prefer, what books your read, clothes you wear and so forth.
Megan will always invent new excuses to support Democrats because they are "her people". She could never be in a party with people who live in the country, hunt, own big cars, hunt, listen to country music, and do any number of other distinctly uncool and unMegan like things. Of course, those people couldn't bring themselves to be in a party with a bunch of people who live in Washington DC and ride bikes every day. So, this is not to slam on Megan in particular.
This is really bad for the country. You can compromise on policy. But is there is really no compromise on culture.
John writes: "By culture I mean not culture in the broad sense but culture in the shallowest sense."
I've seen enough of your posts to know that you mean everything in the shallowest sense, Johnny.
Items: I have hunted (and before I became a vegan, liked me some fresh venison), have friends who hunt, myself listen to country music, and still have relatives doing all those things back in the farm town where my mother grew up. I don't want to live in the country, but that doesn't mean I despise its benefits.
Your preferred scenario is Obama wins, does a bunch of stuff you disapprove of for four years, the GOP reforms, wins in 2012, undoes all of the bad things Obama did, remains uncorrupted, starts enacting some of the good things you want, wins again, remains uncorrupted, does some more good things. This seems an unlikely scenario to me. I am not enough of an optimist to be willing to take one step back for the possible opportunity to later take two steps forward.
Fair enough, those are good reasons. I'm voting Obama but not for the same ones.
But all that said -- you _were_ wrong about the "Keating Five," for the reasons many commentators pointed out, and probably that should be adopted for whatever small correction in makes in your assessment of McCain.
"Items: I have hunted (and before I became a vegan, liked me some fresh venison), have friends who hunt, myself listen to country music, and still have relatives doing all those things back in the farm town where my mother grew up. I don't want to live in the country, but that doesn't mean I despise its benefits."
Maybe you are the exception Megan. Truthfully, I don't see a huge difference between an Obama and a McCain administration. Obama says he is going to tax and spend money on various programs, but that will last about as long as it takes for the Bond markets to get a hold of him and the economy to dive a bit. I have little doubt he will turn into Bill Clinton and get religion and start cutting trade deals and cutting taxes. As far as the spending goes, it is not like the Republicans have a particularly good record on this and once again, the deficit and the bond markets put a brake on the most extravagant things.
As far as foreign policy, we tend to forget that the enemy gets a vote. Obama can talk all he wants about peace with Iran or getting out of Iraq, but the Iranians and the Iraqis are going to drive that more than he will.
Unless you are just a whack job who thinks the other side is going to create a communist state or a Christian theocracy, you quickly realize that the next President has a limited set of options and the stakes in this election are pretty low. Yet, why are the partisans so bitter? Why is this a nasty campaign? The answer I think is that politics has become like sports. We root for laundry. We feel good when our side does well and the other side loses. We like the culture of the people who are on our side and we hate the culture of the people who are not. I don't see that as a good thing.
This is not to say that all elections are meaningless. 2004 was a big election. Had Kerry won, we would have lost in Iraq. That is a big deal. Domestically, it wouldn't have made a dime's worth of differnce, but in Iraq it made a huge difference. But the Iraq war is winding down. This election just isn't that important in the grand scheme of things.
Put a gun to my head and I'd have to vote for McCain just to keep the majority Democrat congress in check. I prefer Obama's foreign policy but his domestic policies really suck.
But, since there is no gun to my head, and my single vote won't decide the election, I'll vote Libertarian. By the way, if Obama wins and the GOP someday reforms and takes over again, you do know that little of what Obama and friends run through will ever be able to be repealed. See DOE for example.
"There's no admissions process to be a POW"
Sure there is. You screw up your military job. McCain became a POW because he got shot down. If he had been a better pilot he might not have gotten shot down. (Plus he trashed a very expensive aircraft.)
I think I agree with you a lot. I am troubled by Obama's tax policy (just a little) and his opposition to nuclear power and freer trade. His lack of experience is troubling but it is amazing how on the ball he seems about these issues when he has an opportunity to explain himself. I like lots of his smaller ideas like simplifying income tax filing and focusing more on super early childhood education (one of the few areas where throwing more money at the problem seems to work fairly well).
I thought I liked McCain before this campaign. I didn't think being a POW was a very good qualification for being president. For all the talk about Obama leading a religious type cult McCain is the one running on the fact that he has endured great suffering on our behalf. His campaign has been dirty and trivial and deeply dishonest and I really don't want that to be rewarded.
I want to say that I really like and respect your blog. I often disagree with you on things and when I do I can read your thoughts and maybe modify my position. I feel like a suck up, but it is pretty rare to find a blog as insightful and intellectually honest as yours is. Especially since I am probably sort of biased against a lot of what you have to say. Really though I can't think of anyone who I disagree with as often as you who I find as insightful as I find you. Tyler Cowen maybe (but I probably don't disagree with him as much I as I do with you) there are very few people as reasonable as you and I doubt very much that I am one of them.
MoeLarryandJesus writes: "None of these things will ever happen under McCain, Donna. That's what the selection of Palin is all about. McCain would continue the Bush policy of sucking up to the Religious Right. Palin's church is all about "pray away the gay" and Jews For Jesus."
Obama was member of a church for 20 years which professes to follow Black Liberation Theology. Do you think it is possible for him to have a personal faith/belief system that he feels no need to impose on the country? I do.
I also believe the same of McCain and Palin. McCain's never made a big deal out of religion and Palin has never introduced or pushed legislation that would impose her faith on her constituents.
Biden may be the most religious person on either ticket, but I don't think he's going to try to impose Catholicism on us either.
Are you old enough to remember the great "fears" that JFK would have allegiance to the Pope over his country? Remember the resurgence of that type of smear when Romney was campaigning?
You're afraid of a ghost in being afraid that pandering to get votes is going to translate into coercing a specific religion on the country. Obama/Biden can't do it and neither can McCain/Palin.
I'm voting for McCain mostly because I don't want both the legislative and executive held by either party. Plus, I think Obama can and would do much more domestic harm than McCain and as someone pointed out above, getting legislation repealed doesn't even happen once in a blue moon.
You R’s and McCain supporters just don’t get it, do you? It’s over. You had a nice run – nearly 12 years in the House, a bunch in the Senate, and 8 wonderfully prosperous years in the White House. And what happened? Nothing. It’s amazing how, when they don’t have jobs and are losing their homes, people don’t care so much about gay marriage and immigration. And it’s a lot more difficult to scare them when it’s been happening for 6 years. Oh, wait, was that a terror alert?
So now, you have to run on your record. And what a record it is! Worst President ever, biggest government ever, biggest deficit ever, most spending ever, biggest tool ever (sorry, forgot Santorum wasn’t there anymore), worst foreign policy blunder ever, worst attack on the homeland ever, worst response to a natural disaster ever. Wow, that’s a lot of worst’s! Then, just for flavor, throw in Gonzales, Cheney, Myers, Vitter, Foley, Craig, DeLay, the Schiavo affair, habeas corpus, signing statements, the D of J, war profiteering, Rummy, Brownie, and , yes, your latest and maybe greatest example of ideological cronyism, Sarah “Tell me lies, tell me sweet little Lies” Palin. It’s clear, the Republic party earned, neigh, MERITS four more years.
Riddle me this – when was the last time that the party in charge, during their convention, didn’t mention one, not one, accomplishment of the previous years? The answer would be, ugh, never. That says it all, doesn’t it?
At some point people like Rich Pro and LarryMoe and Jesus have got to grow and and start thinking rather an engaging in emotionally satisfying temper fits like the one above.
Exaggerate much?
Bad an idea as Iraq was, I don't think it's got anything on WWI or the Spanish-American war for stupidity of US involvement.
And Vitter and Craig look like upstanding citizens when countered with Edwards and Spitzer. Ditto on Stevens and Delay vs. Dodd and Rangel.
I wasn’t “engaging in emotionally satisfying temper fit,” nor do I think that I exaggerated that much (I would be glad to debate the calamity of Iraq vs. WWI and/or the Spanish-American War any day of the week). I was merely highlighting the failure hat has been conservatism in practice - or at least Bush’s brand. And now we are asked to consider, for VP, a person with the following character traits: dishonesty; religious nut; incurious; anti-science; inexperienced; abuses authority; hides behind executive privilege; big spender; works from the gut and places a greater value on instinct than knowledge; and most dangerous of all, is supremely self-confident to the point of not recognizing how ill-equipped they are to lead the country. Remind you of anyone?
Oh, to your Vitter remark, Shinyk, you still don’t get it. It’s spelled HYPOCRITE.
Oh, to your Vitter remark, Shinyk, you still don’t get it. It’s spelled HYPOCRITE.
Vitter's a hypocrite because he's a social conservative who hired a hooker to whisper in her ear? I guess, but this I easily dwarf by pointing out that Spitzer made his political name using not just a bully pulpit, but gestapo tactics to arrest Hookers and Johns while he, himself frequented hookers and was a John.
Vitter was Mr. Unknown-Milquetoast-Republican-Senator and visited hookers. Spitzer was Mr. Personal-Crusade-Against-People-Who-Pay-For-or-Take-Money-for-Sex and visited hookers.
I "still don't get it" because there's nothing to get.
The ad he let his campaign run about Obama's sex-ed program was, as one journalistic acquaintance puts it, "beyond tawdry".
Why would any "l"ibertarian expect a Gov't sex-ed program to actually be effective?
Here in Columbus, OH - almost 5% of the "graduates" don't get a diploma because they can't pass a 9th grade skills test after 7 attempts during their 4 yrs of HS.
There are 14 different Elementary schools in Columbus where 99% of the 4th graders can not read at 4th grade level. (we called them "2nd graders" when I grew up).
If you cannot effectively teach "Dick and Jane" or "two + two = four" to your 4th grade students, and your black male HS grad rate is under 40%- how can any sex-ed class possibly be effective?
Maybe we can pray to our school administrators...
Thanks for this post. It mirrors my thoughts almost precisely.
My right wing friends think I'm a godless communist and my left wing friends think I'm a theocratic fascist.
I'm going to copy this and email it to everyone I know.
Late to the thread but I wanted to say how much your reasoning gave me a little deja vu. I had exactly the same viceral contempt for John Kerry last time. Despite my belief that Bush was not up to the job, I could not comprehend how the Democrat Party had scoured the countryside and found a candidate so vastly more repulsive... Kerry reminded me of the Major Frank Burns character from MASH, the weasely narcissistic gigilo that volunteered to write the reports on his naval unit so he could be the Walter Mitty hero.
Like you, I'm reluctantly voting for Obama this time, but I won't be as distressed as you if McCain wins - I still think McCain would be better for the Courts and could spend his one term fighting the lobbyist culture. I agree his campaign has diminished him, but I think there are enough good qualities left to work with.