Another great speech tonight, this time by Joe Biden.
It seems that the same good friend who would be thrilled to be on a ticket with McCain and didn't believe Obama was qualified to be commander in chief, now says McCain's Judgement is lacking.
This comes from a senator who voted against the Gulf War. Any smart guys know who the other senator was? hmmm....
Both Biden and his understudy in the senate, Obama both voted against the Surge in Iraq which was solely responsible for smashing the insurgency against Iran's Proxy attack against the west.
John McCain convinced GW that this was the correct course of action. McCain was right.
Obama's senate experience? He wrote what legislation? None? Sponsored legislation? hmmm.
John McCain voted his conscience which on many occasions went against the Bush Administration and many democrat senators followed McCain and not Obama. As a matter of fact Obama followed McCain as John reached across the aisle. Many conservatives considered John a RINO for some of his stances. some are still afraid that John will surprise everybody with Hillary or Joe Lieberman. (Pretty doubtful, John is already a centrist. I still have delusions that John will pick Ted Nugent for VP!)
As for Obama showing leadership and getting bi-partisan support for his legislation, again I ask which legislation did Obama write and if any, did he lead, follow or even have bi-partisan support.
Again for lack of judgement, we are in a war on two fronts, and both Biden and Obama voted against the funding that was needed for equipment for our soldiers and medical care that was needed for them.
Well, John. with good friends like Joe Biden, who needs Kim Jung Ill and other whack job enemies...
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Check out this Novak article. From it:
McCain's top strategists argue that the Bush coalition that won the last two presidential elections is dead and must be replaced by a new one that extends to the left, as Lieberman would.
Bush strategists disagree, asserting that McCain is getting around 90 percent of the old Bush vote and can win the election with a few moderates added in.
McCain is not Conservative and wants to take our party back to it's progressive years. His conservative model is Teddy Roosevelt, sure he was a Republican, but he was the furthest thing from a Conservative.
The frustating thing about this election, and it may get even more so once McCain names his VP, is that we have a choice between an ubber far left candidate and a moderate candidate. For the liberals they've got a choice: support someone who is fully behind their causes or someone who gets behind some of their causes. For the conservatives the choice is: choose someone who you disagree with almost completely ideologically, or support someone who is unreliable, but may throw you bone occasionally, and now believes your coalition is dead.
Although I disagree strongly with Obama, I can predict his response since he follows the liberal/progressive line. With McCain, who knows where he'll land on an issue. Some people praise this as his "maverick" nature. I think it hurts him because voters want consistency.
It was suggested to me that John May pick Lindsey Graham as a VP pick.
Didn't Teddy leave the republicans and form the Bull Moose Party?
(progressive)
I know you and I disagree on Teddy's Unilaterilist thinking, but I think we agree that progressivism is not a good thing.
I think that John McCain won't be bullied by tyrants that want to destroy western civilization, nor will he back down from China or Russia either. Russia is testing our resolve right now, and GW just sent our Navy to Georgia on a mission of mercy. (yeah, so they're armed to the teeth, too. That's OK by me.)
I think that with Obama we will be perceived as weak from those who wish us harm and may be emboldened to attack.
Those same Tyrants will be as aprehensive about McCains perceived volatile nature and US first Unilateralism as many folks at home may be. (Of course, I think that is a good thing...)
Graham seems like a suitable pick. More conservative than McCain, but someone I still disagree with on most civil liberty stances:
* Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
* Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
* Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
* Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
* Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
* Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
* Set minimum spending on defense at 4% of GDP. (Dec 2007)
Why would you need to set a minimum on defense spending? We're spending way too much as it is.
Thanks for the List of Lindsey's votes.
As for the last question.
I agree with having the minimum defense spending limits even though I think 4% of GDP may be extremely low.
Here's why.
As I understand it the federal govt. only has 3 real responsibilities and all the rest are reserved for the states.
priority 1) Common Defense.
Priority 2) Printing a common currency and infrastructures between the respective states to keep trade open.
Priority 3) Treaties and trade with foreign nation/states.
If we increased our military spending and our spending on transportation, yet cut spending to all other non priorities, we would not have a deficit at all, and taxes would be lower.
What am I missing? shouldn't all other spending be taken care of by the respective states as their citizens see fit?
Educate me as to where I have strayed from our constitution.
thanks again, hammer.
I'm in total agreement that the defense of the State's is one of the federal government's highest priorities.
It just seems odd to say that regardless of whether or not you need it you MUST spend at least 4% of GDP on defense. Now I'm sure we are spending way more than 4% GDP currently, it just doesn't feel right for the GOP to say you MUST spend a minimum of X number of dollars on Y. This doesn't have to do with straying from the Constitution, just simply related to fiscal responsibility.
Okay, so I couldn't get you to take the bait...;)
Anyway, my thoguhts are that we need to be ahead of any other major military powers and not be in the position we were in prior to WW2 or even in the position that Carter's admin left us in in the 70's.
China is putting together a modern Navy, Russia and India are combining to build an equivelant to the F-22 Raptor. China claims that they are building a militerized space program and not recognizing the US's claim to the moon, etc.
Normally I don't like to use links to support my thinking. but www.globalsecurity.org
is one that I regularly read. If the link here fails I have it on my resource sidebar.
I'm also an individual who believes that Military spending needs to be in secret and not disclosed as how money is being spent if easy for you and me to find, is just as easy for spies from potential enemies to find.
Why make it easy for them. I am a firm believer in black projects, 40 million dollar toilet seats, and secret bases, so to speak.
We claimed the moon? Cool.
Will you be as big of a believer in black projects if they are run by an Obama administration as instead of a McCain admin?
Personally I don't trust either one of them to do anything behind my back.
It's only a slightly different question than what I ask my liberal friends. If you want government run healthcare would you accept Bush being your Doctor in chief?
Good question and one that I've used but not for some time.
From the Patriot Act to any change of powers of govt. Sound good to most folks, so long as their party or favorite president has the reins. But most don't realize that someday, when the other side has the reins of power, how will they use it?
Gitmo and the Patriot Act under someone like Janet Reno? I shudder.
As for black projects, when developing new technologies almost has to exist (now put your tinfoil hat on. I'll loan you one of my extra ones;)without judicial, congressional or executive oversight. They don't need to know until the technology actually works.
I know, that is and should be a terrifying thought. But anything less is a beaurocratic nightmare and the potential for leaking secrets is too great.
We've had presidents who can't even hide a blue dress, how can most be trusted with the knowledge of projects that I hope are actually being worked on.
Our boys in Langley couldn't even keep our interrogation techniques secret.
I know that this is not very Libertive thinking, but some things are best kept secret,even compartmentalised from different sections of the same project.
Keeping the Manhatten project secret was an almost impossible task.
Maybe my statement about keeping the president out of the loop is a bit goofy, but perhaps the predisposition to keep secrets might be a quality to look for in a president. could you imagine if congress knew the full capabilities of the SR71 Blackbird?
Or the B2 or F117? or even any technologies nicknamed Aurora or Brilliant Pebbles etc. that may or may not exist.
How's that for conspiracy theorizing... or should I say speculating...
Post a Comment