53 posts tagged “mccain”
Can the left be honest about this fruit fly thing with Sarah Palin?
Ever since Hitchens posted an article about it last week, the lefty blogs have gone to town about how Palin is anti-science.
Now first off, I admit, as Hitchens talks about, Palin isn't exactly pro-evolution or pro-climate change in terms of science. But I think it is a stretch to then say in a blanket statement that she is anti-science because in conjunction with her religious convictions she has made a "gaffe" about fruit flies.
But look at what Palin said about fruit fly research (note bolding is me):
In her speech, Palin said the federal government could finance the new investment by taking some of $18 billion it spends each year on earmarks, specific projects that are designated by members of Congress.
"That's more than the shortfall to fully fund the IDEA," she said. "And where does a lot of that earmark money end up? It goes to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France, or a public policy center named for the guy who got the earmark. In our administration, we're going to reform and refocus. We're going to get our federal priorities straight, and fulfill our country's commitment to give every child opportunity and hope in life."
I think her issue wasn't about the science, but about where our money was going: France -- as in overseas. Can't the French fund their researchers? What about funding fruit fly research here in the states? Note she didn't say: "things like fruit fly research in North Carolina."
Obama goes nuts about companies that ship jobs overseas and the left worships. Yet when Republicans criticize sending funding overseas it has the exact opposite reaction -- that the right is anti-science. Incredible.
So the left is going crazy over this statement making it sound as if Palin would slash science funding because she doesn't understand what fruit fly research did for basic genetics a half a century ago. Well... I sort of agree, but mostly disagree.
I agree that Palin probably doesn't know anything about fruit fly genetics... but why didn't she just say "things like fruit fly research" and just leave it at that? She was going for the fact that the funding was being sent abroad...
My issue here is from the perspective that the left is arguing that we need to fund this science and we may very well need to fund it. But just because it is labeled as "science" doesn't mean it should be funded by the taxpayer. There needs to be priorities in science funding just like there are priorities everywhere else in the budget. And I think that is the aim of the McCain/Palin rhetoric -- we as a budget have to set priorities.
In a perfect world, we would fund every science project out there. But guess what... this isn't a perfect world.
And my second issue here is what everybody isn't talking about. What would Obama do with the budget? He seems to have grand plans for healthcare, tax breaks, new energy infrastructure, etc. And he plans to do "pay as you go." Where for every dollar he spends for his new plans, he cuts a dollar to existing projects in the budget. To fund these grand ideas, my guess is that small projects will get the ax under an Obama administration. And he is coy about what is going to get cut...
So would fruit fly funding to Paris, France make the cut when we are talking about helping folks here in America if Obama is in charge? I don't know. But nobody is asking.
Let's face facts. The truth is much more interesting than the simple propaganda that Washington politicians like to sling around their opponents.
Much is being said about deregulation of the banking industry that has led us to the current credit crunch and economic downfall. And it is clear that the Republicans had a hand in this. But before you dust off your Democratic Distinguished Eagle Scout medal on this one...
Robert Ecklend and Mark Thornton, scholars at Auburn University and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, have this to say:
...an insidious form of "market-based policy" is also a real culprit in the current mess. In 1999 a bill was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton that rescinded the Depression era's divorce of commercial banking activities from investment banking, called the Glass-Stegall Act of 1933. That opened a floodgate of "creative" financial instruments backed by notes and other commercial paper.
This bill was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999).
Robert Kuttner of The American Prospect on Glass-Stegall:
The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers. But Roosevelt's newly created SEC subjected securities markets to much tighter structures against self-dealing and insider conflicts of interest.
But to continue with Ecklend and Thornton and the Financial Services Modernization Act:
...this particular gift to financial institutions is what allowed the credit bubble to expand to such absurd proportions, because it allowed banks of all types to engage in increasingly risky transactions and to greatly expand the leverage of their balance sheets. As the crisis unfolds, credit continues to contract, the risk of bank failures increases, and the possibility of far more serious economic consequences become more apparent. The S&L crisis cost the taxpayers a few hundred billion, but this crisis has the potential of saddling the taxpayer with several trillion in bailouts.
In the interest of being fair, Ecklend and Thornton do point out other reasons why they think this crisis has come to a head (and they are not favorable to Republican policies). But I find the Financial Services Modernization Act interesting in that it gave direct power to these financial institutions so they could lead us down the path we are on now.
So if you look at the votes on the bill, after conference committee concessions between the House and Senate, this bill had overwhelming bipartisan support. And Bill Clinton signed it.
So who is to blame? Republicans? McCain? Because of his support of deregulation? As if he was an evil architect behind this? Well, the Republicans had a little help from the other side of the political aisle... And we should not forget that...
Rand Koler, a blogger at Northwestlaw's weblog, had this conclusion on the deregulation gotcha:
Historians will devote much attention to the similarities between the Bush administration and those of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover in the 1920’s. There was the same disregard for the oversight function of government and the same obeisance to business interests. For this crisis to occur all we needed was a captain asleep at the wheel during the late stages of the deregulation frenzy.
And that is how politics works. The volcano, with bipartisan roots, may have been gurgling for years and years, but who was at the helm during the eruption gets to live with the bad edge of the political sword. And in an election year, it's the economy, stupid...
Are we being attracted to the rocks? Is there a shipwreck ahead? I don't know.
I have always thought that for McCain to win he had to gamble. The allure of Palin is striking. Her buck the establishment mentality and her gender made me think she could win over independents.
Now that more information is coming out (her answers in interviews, etc.), does this mean I will taking a harder look? Yeah. I think it does. Does it mean I will not vote for McCain. Not necessarily. Foremost I am voting for President and I still think McCain is the best man for the job.
According to the NY Times, it could all be true. That the McCain campaign did not vet Palin enough and that her experience is severely lacking. And that this is a window into McCain's soul and his decision making ability.
This is a roll of the dice beyond even Bill Clinton’s imagination. “Often my haste is a mistake,” McCain conceded in his 2002 memoir, “but I live with the consequences without complaint.” Well, maybe it’s fine if he wants to live with the consequences, but what about his country? Should the unexamined Palin prove unfit to serve at the pinnacle of American power, it will be too late for the rest of us to complain.
So does this mean in the end that Palin is truly unfit to be Vice President? Only time will tell if the voters put them in office.
But one thing is for sure. Previous "experience" that other politicians had prior to serving in office has not stopped the media elite from criticism of mistakes those individuals made serving the people. If experience was the end all be all of political success -- then history must show us that career politicians just don't screw up? They must do everything right!?
Ask Richard Nixon or Harry Truman if their political experience prior to being President helped shield them from the objections they received over the mistakes they made? Or even George W. Bush?
As for McCain... How come when it is people like the Clintons, there is this awe from the media elite regarding their political prowess and instinct, yet with McCain it is this negativity about his political sixth sense? Oh yeah, it isn't about having instinct, it is about having instinct on the side of the political aisle you agree with... too bad that isn't something they will admit...
How about this for a political olfactory sensation? Hillary running in 2012.
Or how about this one... People like Obama because he represents fresh blood and a new generation in office. To me that says why they may like Palin as well and why this inexperience talk may just amount to why people want a fresh breeze in politics. Because, obviously, those career, experienced politicians in Washington are doing such a bang up job right now...
I wonder how the moderate left is going to sort through the legitimate questions voters will have about Palin when there is this mouth-foaming hatred of her and over-the-top rumors being espoused from the far left.
There will come a point (and I think that we have passed that point) where independents will not trust their criticism of her because it is drowned out in the slander that is being propagating in what seems to be hourly events. They will feel that the criticism is not just, but merely politically motivated.
This election is not going to be won by liberals voting for McCain/Palin or conservatives voting for Obama/Biden -- but folks in the middle who sway election to election. The independents will decide this election.
I keep hearing that the Palin pick was a sign of despair from the McCain camp and the pick was highly political. There is some truth to the pick being political to make his base happy. But the fit is good for McCain so I wouldn't call it a pick made to appease the base where McCain has to "put up" with the person for the next four years.
But one has to think that this endless barrage of everything (including the kitchen sink) the left is throwing (most highly inaccurate and misleading) in order to see if something sticks so they can sink S.S. Palin looks even more like a sign of desperation.
Update: Scio, Scio has a link to the rumor list.
Wow. Just wow.
Stunned.
I have no words.
A home run.
I think Biden is going to be the underdog in the VP debates.
The stops have been pulled. It is a fight now.
You ever seriously ask yourself why John McCain got the GOP nomination over Mitt Romney? I mean think about it. Why did he get the nomination?
Don't you remember when it was Giuliani's nomination to lose and everybody was asking why McCain was still in the race when his approval was incredibly low? What happened? How did McCain, with his past love-hate relationship with the right, get the nomination?
Well, obviously, he struck a chord with Republicans. And across the board.
I think what sealed the deal was his support for the surge at the time and his presence to say he would rather lose the election than the war.
But there is this also this other current... one that runs deep...
You ever watch the beginning of a football game when the analysts breakdown the fundamentals of the game: offense, defense, special teams, and intangibles. I always thought the latter was sort of the free for all factor that really was picked out of the air in terms of giving a team an edge. Like it was something whimsical that made the analysts look stupid. Like it was made up to give the underdog with something to prove a check in the box. But, for McCain, it is the intangible that gives him the edge.
You see, I love reading other blog posts about how McCain was anti-Katrina aid because he voted against bills. That he was anti-minimum wage because he voted against it. He was this. He was that. Because he voted against it. Like he is some evil, typical conservative monster with no soul. But this is why some people just don't get politics. It seems simple to say -- you define somebody by their votes. And in a way you do. Just not by standard practical terms for John McCain.
And that is why he is the intangible.
Washington is more than a place. It is one giant continuous political football game. And the play that always scores is the one where you get a bill going based upon the masses demanding it. Katrina. War in Iraq. 9/11. Seems how it is supposed to be, right? But the real score is what other legislation and pork barrel spending gets tagged on the bill.
John McCain votes against these bills not because he is anti-Katrina aid or anti-tax cut. He votes against them because there is so much other crap on the bill! Stuff that nobody really needs! Stuff that makes the icing on the cake so sweet you wonder where the hell is the cake!
Other politicians are too weak to vote against it because they will be cast as some sort of nutter not worthy of office.
And this is probably my number one priority when I vote this election. And this is probably the core of why I like McCain. He is somebody willing to continue his quest, but in a bigger position, to take on this Washington mentality that we are just one giant pocketbook that can be raided by the Washington elites.
I like McCain because he is the intangible to the playbook. He doesn't play by the rules. He calls it like he sees it. He works in Washington, but he really is not an elite like the rest of them.
For me his quality on this issue is his willingness to take on out of control spending. Opponents will cast McCain as a gimmick, maybe even as a fumblerooski, but if we can score a touchdown on the play -- maybe we can start to turn around a very wasteful inside the beltway mentality.
Before I start going through the issues about McCain/Palin I want to write a few words about politics in general.
First off, every move that both Obama and McCain make are calculated moves. Let's not forget that they are running for the highest office in the land, they have massive campaigns, and like chess -- they are looking forward many moves to checkmate the opponent.
McCain has reasons he picked Palin and in his mind they are reasons that he thinks will help him win. But let us not think that Obama's pick wasn't selected for similar reasons. To think that one camp is being calculating and the other not is naive.
Second, there is something to be said about rhetoric. Both camps are promising the world and are trying to make the other guy look stupid. Politics is not for the faint at heart. Thus, you have to peel the onion to figure out what you think is just rhetoric because it is a campaign year and what is truth (i.e., what the candidate actually believes and what they will actually do about it).
You have to look through the political shifts and the flip-flops that candidates find themselves in because they are in an election year. You have to almost operate on instinct in certain instances and look to past actions to base your opinions.
And third, there is a lot to be said about what certain opinions and positions candidates hold. But, you have to say to yourself -- okay -- what can they actually do about that position? And what reality in the beltway will either push that position onto the country or not?
I hope that sort of gives you a feel about how my brain works and how I will cover the issues.
I am going to try and outline on my blog soon why I am voting for McCain / Palin. Probably in a series of posts - each one dedicated to one issue. I will try to cover many of them.
And not to give too much away -- I don't agree with McCain/Palin on everything. But neither do I with Obama/Biden.
