The other day, for the first time this entire election season (including the primary campaigns), I finally got the opportunity to see a candidate speak live at a rally. I saw John McCain and Sarah Palin at a local university, and I have to say, I was somewhat alarmed, yet impressed.
Alarmed and impressed not at the candidates, mind you, but at the crowd. I'm not going to spend too much time on what the candidates said, because it really wasn't anything new. What caught my attention was the rowdy and ruckus raising crowd in attendance.
Of course, the McCain-Palin ticket is lagging behind Obama and Biden in national polls, but you'd never know it from the boisterous turnout the rally got. The admission line wrapped around the entire gym twice, and then some. This is in Pennsylvania, too, which is fairly likely to be won by Obama in the election (though that's far from a sure thing at this point). The crowd itself was far from what you might expect based on Republican stereotypes: college kids (myself included), elderly couples, moms with their kids, veterans, businesspersons, and young married couples. I realized that the Republican "fat, old, rich, white guy" stereotype is just that: a stereotype, and not a very accurate one, either.
Once we were finally seated, deafening shouts of "USA," "Nobama," and "Sarah" rang through the indoor arena. I'm a little concerned over some of the things they shouted- there's nothing wrong with "USA," but the shouts of "Nobama" seemed slightly vicious. A lot of these supporters really actually hate Obama, it seems, which I don't think is quite right. Sure, we don't agree with him, but that's certainly no justification for shouts to "kill him" or of the "n" word at rallies (neither of which occurred at the rally I attended, but have supposedly happened in the past). I'm not a fan of negative politics, but it's inescapable these days. Well, I'll just do my best to take the high road, and let those who want to walk in the gutter do so.
As for the speeches themselves? They were pretty decent, I think, especially considering McCain isn't quite the demagogue Obama is. Palin spoke first, and I quickly realized that the campaign was using her as the attack dog- she lashed out at Obama's character and platforms, all the while trumpeting what a great hero John McCain is.
McCain himself managed to deliver an exciting speech. He really brought two issues out that are probably going to clinch my vote for him: his experience, and his fundamental vision of government.
Think about it: Obama's resume is undeniably lacking- his four years in the Senate can't be compared- by a long shot- to John McCain's two decades of military service and three decades in the legislature. Fifty years of experience! Who cares if he's old? It's like Reagan once quipped in a debate after the issue of his age was brought up: "I'm not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Here's one of the most damning campaign lines in modern history- and it's still so relevant today.
I don't want to harp on the "war hero" issue, but the time McCain spent in Vietnam is pretty revealing of his character. McCain made another comparison to Obama here: what sacrifices has he made for this country? I mean, he wasn't left permanently disfigured through torture by the Viet Cong, while spending five years in a prison.
Also, McCain highlighted a fundamental difference between him and Obama, and really, all Republicans and Democrats: "Obama places his faith in big government- I place my faith in the American people." This quote really resonates with me: Republicans believe Americans are smart enough to handle their own affairs and solve their own problems, without government interference. Democrats seem to think we all need to be suckled by Mama Government.
Honestly, I wouldn't have voted for Obama even if I hadn't gone to this rally. But I also wasn't totally sure I'd vote for McCain (I had been exploring Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin as possible alternatives). I think the rally, despite its flaws, has set my mind.
Republicans say less government, but they are pushing for back-alley abortions and constitutional amendments defining marriage and rights thereof. Less government led to dergulation which led to the S&L scandals and our current economic situation. Less government obviously means different things for different people for different topics.
I am truly disappointed in McCain/Palin for promoting hate. I understand they're desperate and don't have anything to stand on but lies and half truths attacking Obama. Sure, some people are falling for it because they don't bother to look for the truth. When the crowd starts cheering that Obama is a terrorist, isn't it only responsible to correct them? I guess not by their rule book.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Not all "Republicans" are good ones- for example, by my standards, George W. Bush has been one of the worst. The Republican Party today is dominated by neoconservatives, while I personally identify much more with the less prevalent "paleoconservatives”. Unfortunately for us, all those neocons like Bush, Rove, Delay, Santorum, Cheney (and the list goes on and on) have given other Republicans- paleoconservatives- a bad name.
To clarify, I think I have libertarian leanings when it comes to less government: I really do mean less government and laissez faire economics (and despite the fact that free market, zero-regulation economic policies got us into our financial mess, I will continue to insist that government intervention will make it worse- in fact, so far, the massive bailout has done nothing helpful).
I agree that McCain and Palin should reprimand their overzealous supporters who exhibit hate. They are not however responsible for it, and certainly do not promote it. In fact, as I speak, Larry King is playing a news clip showing McCain defending Obama- perhaps he's realized that the hate of some of his followers is hurting him. Nevertheless, it's a petty issue not worth basing a major decision upon.
Less government as far as regulation goes will continue to promote greed and selfishness at the cost of the economy. If we had regulations, sub-prime mortgages wouldn't have happened, or at least not to the extent that it has. That doesn't matter now. I think it just shows that we can't let it happen again. It would be great to think that all Americans are trustworthy enough to do right. It isn't reality. The S&L scandal should have taught us that, but lobbyists and politicians in the pockets of developers and bankers seem to make people forget.
The bailout is not regulation, it's intervention. There is a huge difference. No one is being jailed or fined for the chaos that has become our economy.
I do remember when McCain would separate himself from attacks, even denounce them, pushing for an honest campaign. That was during the primaries and at the very beginning of the race. Things have changed. He's changed.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
This is a well written post, and I appreciate that you aren't supporting the hateful attitude many republicans are showing towards Obama, even though you don't think he's the best candidate for the job.
"Live above money; put your heart in front of you and follow it."
Unknown
...(believe it or not)...but, not anymore. Here is some footage from one of McCain's recent rallies, in which the crowd shouts several times, "kill him" in reference to Barack Obama...
You can see from the face that he makes at the beginning of the crowds "kill him" tirade, that Sen. McCain heard the invectives and was even just a little bit taken aback by them. The fact that he didn't stop right then and there to reign in the crowd showed a complete lack of both leadership and character.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I had quite a bit of respect for McCain 3 or 4 years ago, but it's dwindled to just about none in the past year or so.
The fact that he didn't stop right then and there to reign in the crowd showed a complete lack of both leadership and character.
I agree and I have a feeling criticism for that is why he's started defending Obama's character, not because he actually cares about Obama's character.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I had to watch the video a couple of times to catch the invective, and yet again to see McCain's reaction- it really is subtle, but there's definitely something there.
At least his reaction shows he certainly doesn't condone the behavior, even if he failed to stop it. I've yet to hear his explanation of the matter, and I'm sure McCain would have an excuse- like the fact that acknowledging this person would only ensure his message was heard by everyone. If so, that tactic obviously failed, since we all know about it now anyway.
Anyway, like I had said in an above post, I think this particular instance merits little significance, especially when it comes to the real issues facing this country, and basing such a major decision (i.e. choosing a candidate come election day) on a inconsequential episode is reckless.
It's a shame that John McCain has to put up with such ignorance within his party. Furthermore as a Canadian Obama supporter it is even more shocking that people can have such hate towards a single man. If McCain truely wants to gain the support he needs, he should not be looking for it in his diehard supporters, he has that vote, but on the independent vote which will sway the election. He needs to focus more on his platform and less on belittling a fellow candidate!
Is it really Obama's fault that he wasn't a prisoner of war for five years?
Also, sorry for last comment, made a mistake.
That is a good point- I think the significance of McCain's time as a POW serves to demonstrate his strength of character, which Obama has not yet had the chance to show. In my blog, I blasted Obama for not having an instance where his character had been tested, which I'll admit was unfair. At best, all I can do is say the POW incident does undeniably make McCain look good, but shouldn't be held against Obama.
McCain's most common answer to anything a few months ago was somehow related to being a POW. I saw the Tonight Show when Leno asked him about not knowing how many houses he has, and it turned into the fact that he was a POW.
Even other people use it as an excuse. He cheated on his first wife? Oh, well, he was a POW. He has anger issues? Oh, well, He was a POW. That makes anger issues in a president tolerable?
If (when) he offends another leader so bad due to his anger, what is going to happen? "Oh, don't mind him, he spent years in a POW camp." That'll work.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I think you may be onto something there- I was surprised at how much McCain talked about his experience in the military at the rally. At one point he asked all the veterans in attendance to raise their hands so we could applaud them. That's nice and all, and veterans are great, but McCain seems to be focusing too much on them- they aren't that large a voting demographic, and most veterans are already going to vote for him.
So yes, I agree, it seems unusual that McCain talks about his POW experience so much (it is appropriate to talk about to an extent). The advantage of that is nobody wants to critique an American hero about his flaws.
...and rightfully so. He'll bring up his POW experience, but not the experiences of other vets. He has voted against legislation to help people in the military.
To be honest I tend to think that his mindset is that Iraq is like the new Viet Nam. We left Nam, so he doesn't want to leave Iraq until we "win". What is "winning" there?
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
Of course not all veterans support John McCain, but the overwhelming majority does.
Let me just say that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. Sure, I was only 14 when it started, but I was against it from the beginning. But whining about what a terrible decision the war was isn't getting anything useful done for us. We made Iraq worse by invading it (at least from the standpoint of terrorism), so now we have to make sure we stabilize Iraq and prevent it from becoming a safe haven for terrorists- that, I think, is the meaning of "winning" this war.
As it turns out, we are winning now, thanks partially to the troop surge advocated by McCain. For example, combat troops in major Iraqi cities are leaving, because there is little threat from terrorists and insurgents anymore. The most telling instance of us "winning" the war is that the US military is in the process of leaving Fallujah- once among the most dangerous cities in Iraq. I don't support the war, but I do support McCain, because the surge decision demonstrates that he has good judgment when it comes to "winning" this war.
Nobody truly wins a war. Over 100.000 of people have already died, including our soldiers and journalists and non-military citizens of Iraq. (http://www.infoshout.com/) By the time I finish this statement, the US will have spent OVER 564 Billion dollars on the Iraq war alone. (http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home) I don't know if you know this, but we are very close to a recession here. Iraq has a surplus We invaded under false pretenses, and the US continues to occupy under false pretenses. The occupation is breeding terrorists.
Back to my original point... McCain was in Nam when he went down. He's pissed that the US just went home without "winning." I still have no idea what "winning" a war is. I think McCain sees Iraq- another war we should not have stepped into- as his chance to redo Nam. His head is stuck there, with rage and hate. That is not what I want in the leader of my country.
-Sonja :)
"Democracy works only when you vote. When you don't take the time to vote for the candidate you find the least offensive, you run the risk of electing the candidate you find the most offensive."
I think part of our differences here arise from the fact that I define "winning" differently than you. "War is hell," (another phrase McCain likes to use), and not everybody "wins." But there are more desirable outcomes in a war, and also much less desirable outcomes; if we manage to achieve the former, that's a "win" in my book.
I believe, and I think you would agree, the United States would be far better off today if we hadn't started the war. We made our situation worse by going into Iraq: there was stability and order (even if it was ruthlessly enforced by Hussein) and no terrorists back then. Now there's little stability and lots of terrorists. I think what I'm trying to get across here is the idea that we had no good reason to go to Iraq in the first place, but we now have an imperative reason to stay. It's not a good situation, I know that, but what else are we supposed to do? Just leave? We'd be hurting ourselves in the big picture by doing that.
Iraq is a pain in the neck. We're wasting money there, people are dying, and we invaded with questionable justifications, but like I said, we need to recognize that despite all that, we are in a war, and that war needs to be ended- with a "more desirable outcome," because that will benefit us in the long run.
Now, about your point that McCain sees the War in Iraq as making up for Vietnam... well, that's an interesting psychological evaluation, but it's subjective all the same. Still, we're entitled to think what we may, so I respect that.
I too appreciate John McCain for his service in the military. However, I don't think it equates to political experience. Being a soldier or a POW is different than making decisions as a leader.
Also, Obama has actually been a senator since 1996, that's 12 years. see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama
I think the fact that McCain's campaign puts so much emphasis on his military service only proves that he intends to stay committed to the war in Iraq, which he certainly doesn't deny.
I just want to know, does anyone know what this war is really about? Does John McCain have any idea what his definition of "Winning the War in Iraq" is?
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
It is true that flat out military service is an admirable trait, but doesn't necessarily equate experience. However, later in his military career, McCain did hold leadership positions- and I think I can fairly assert that military leadership positions are among the most demanding kind.
What I was referring to when I said Obama had no experience was his career as a national senator, not a state senator. Obama has been a Senator on Capitol Hill since only 2005, but he was a state legislator in Illinois from 1996, as you pointed out. Frankly, and with all due respect to state legislators, being a low ranking state official is not impressive when examined on the national scale.
According to a recent poll mentioned in the New York Times, the majority of Americans still don't support the War in Iraq, but do think it is going well. McCain had the foresight to advocate the surge, and not pullout of Iraq, far before it was popular with the public.
I think your question about the true purpose of this war is legitimate, and I'm not sure we'll ever get a straight answer from the administration that started the war. However, that doesn't matter now. What matters is that there is a war going on, and regardless of how it started, it needs to be ended, lest we make Iraq worse off than it was before.
"Frankly, and with all due respect to state legislators, being a low ranking state official is not impressive when examined on the national scale."
Really? Then explain Sarah Palin's credentials to me.
Please, I don't buy into the whole "Palin vs Obama" campaign, but McCain's age and health status don't insure that our nation would stand a chance should he "pass".
Also, before he was a "low ranking state official" Obama, also referencing Wikipedia,
"taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, being first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.[25]."
I think that that kind of immersion in American principles is priceless in the evaluation of experience.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
I agree Palin is also lacking credentials, but at least she held a high ranking state office. I wish McCain had picked someone more experienced than her, but despite her short stint as a governor, she is still the only one on either party's ticket with executive experience. McCain, Obama, and Biden are all legislators, meaning, for example, they've never had to organize a budget or execute the law, making even John McCain and Joe Biden less experienced than Palin in that area.
I wouldn't want a President Palin, either, but McCain is healthy according to his doctors, and his mother is still kicking at 96. Also, refer to the Reagan video link I posted in the blog- I think the issue of age should play as much a factor in a campaign as the issue of race... meaning none.
Obama may have also been a professor, but do you really think that every former state official and college professor is qualified to run for president? Besides, I probably shouldn't even use the term "professor," because a lecturer is below that level. There are many people out there with resumes laden with real government experience, and that would trump any other type of experience in my book.